FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Nightangel8212 on September 21, 2012, 02:10:02 pm
-
http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/healthy-living/2c-smiles-killer-drug-every-parent-know-234200299.html
A new drug called "Smiles" (also called 2C-I) is growing in popularity among teenagers and it produces terrifying visual and audio hallucinations. Apparently, its described as being like MDMA and LSD combined, only far more potent. Several teenagers have already overdosed and died from partaking of the drug, whose effects can last anywhere from several hours, to several days.
-
Witnesses described the 17-year-old boy as "shaking, growling, foaming at the mouth." According to police reports, Elijah Stai was at a McDonald's with his friend when he began to feel ill. Soon after, he "started to smash his head against the ground" and began acting "possessed," according to a witness. Two hours later, he had stopped breathing.
Jesus Christ...
-
Don't forget to describe the symptoms of an overdose.
Witnesses described the 17-year-old boy as "shaking, growling, foaming at the mouth." According to police reports, Elijah Stai was at a McDonald's with his friend when he began to feel ill. Soon after, he "started to smash his head against the ground" and began acting "possessed," according to a witness. Two hours later, he had stopped breathing.
Also, being a synthetic, it doesn't show up on drug tests, so people in the military or anywhere wanting a urine sample won't be able to detect it.
Alas, one of those places are hospitals.
"The unfortunate thing is if kids who are overdosing on 2C-I go in to the hospital with a physical problem, a lot of times they can't test for it so it doesn't show up as a drug overdose," says Wold.
AND it's already spawning sister drugs that are just as dangerous!
The new drug called 25b-Nbome, is a derivative of 2C-I, that's sold in tab form. This past month, the drug has been linked to the non-fatal overdoses of two young adults in Perth, Australia. It's also be blamed for the death of a young man in the same area, who died after repeatedly slamming his body into trees and power line poles while high on the drug.
Ohh but boy howdy, we can't ever legalize pot. No sir, that's just as bad as all these kill-your-self-while-high drugs. Yep, pot's a Schedule 1 drug right along with cocaine, morphine, meth, MDMA and now Smiles.
*Edited because Did Not Do The Research*
-
Ohh but boy howdy, we can't ever legalize pot. No sir, that's just as bad as all these kill-your-self-while-high drugs. Yep, pot's a Schedule 1 drug right along with cocaine, morphine, meth, MDMA and now Smiles.
Meth is Schedule II, along with cocaine I think.
-
Oh god, I feel real bad for the parents of those teens that died thanks to that. I hope it doesn't spread to different states or worse, different countries. I will admit the name "Smiles" is pretty creative though.
-
Ohh but boy howdy, we can't ever legalize pot. No sir, that's just as bad as all these kill-your-self-while-high drugs. Yep, pot's a Schedule 1 drug right along with cocaine, morphine, meth, MDMA and now Smiles.
Meth is Schedule II, along with cocaine I think.
You know, you're right. WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON WITH OUR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES SYSTEM?!
-
Well that's all kinds of scary.
-
It's a sad state of affairs when the top of people's itinerary is to find new stronger ways to escape life as we know it. Says something about the state the world is in in general. Or maybe that's just me.
-
Alas, people have always been doing that, in one form or another. A century or two ago, it was opium. In the 60s, it was weed and LSD. A decade ago, it was meth. Tis one of those unfortunate facts of humanity, that some of us will do anything to escape.
-
I know... It's depressing.
-
Alas, people have always been doing that, in one form or another. A century or two ago, it was opium. In the 60s, it was weed and LSD. A decade ago, it was meth. Tis one of those unfortunate facts of humanity, that some of us will do anything to escape.
Can't really blame them, reality is really fucked up as it is.
-
Someone once complained that one of the dumber things in the Max Payne movie was that if the drug Valkyr gives the addicts horrible, nightmarish visions then how come it is so popular?
Meanwhile in the real world people are willing to use drugs like "smiles" and Krokodil...
I will never understand why some people will use something like this out of their free will.
-
They use things like smiles and krokodil because the drugs they usually go after, ecstasy and heroin in this case, are unaffordable, or they can get more of the former two than they can of the latter two.
Why do people start using drugs in general? Some are addicted because they used certain kinds of drugs to treat medical conditions, like folks who suffer from chronic pain occasionally getting hooked on opiates. Others, well...they're poor, they're depressed, life to them is a crushing experience, and they feel that the only time they're happy is when they're high. Its an easy out for life's many problems...the only problem there is that drug addiction doesn't really help your problems, and ends up creating more than what you had to begin with.
Also, and I'm talking about America in this case, we don't have comprehensive drug education. Our drug ed is at pretty much the same miserably failing level as our sex ed, with "just say no" campaigns being similar in theory and in practice to abstinence-only sex ed. I'm not saying we should scare kids shitless with horrible, graphic descriptions and images of what drug addiction can do to you, but we should teach them what they do. No scare tactics, no bullshit, just straight, no-nonsense facts.
While it may not eliminate the problem, and honestly, nothing ever will, it'd probably go a fair way toward curbing the number of minors becoming addicts. Education works, and we really should do it more often with shit that matters.
-
...and here we have exactly why the war on drugs is a failure. Every time they ban something, people synthesize something else that is probably more dangerous, and completely unknown. There's also the fact that the law causes sellers to obfuscate what's actually in the package, as to avoid having the specific chemicals in their formula identified and banned. New, dangerous and shitty drugs couldn't compete with good and safe stuff like pot, psilocybin, and LSD if it wasn't illegal.
-
New, dangerous and shitty drugs couldn't compete with good and safe stuff like pot, psilocybin, and LSD if it wasn't illegal.
Sure they would. Pot is different than acid is different than cocaine is different than heroine. There's always going to be somebody who wants something that's stronger, faster, longer lasting. Hell, crack came about because caine wasn't strong enough. Let that sink in for a second.
There's plenty of good reasons to legalize some drugs. But that ain't one of them.
-
I'm not saying we should scare kids shitless with horrible, graphic descriptions and images of what drug addiction can do to you, but we should teach them what they do. No scare tactics, no bullshit, just straight, no-nonsense facts.
I don't know, I think one krokodil pic is enough to put most people off going near it.
-
New, dangerous and shitty drugs couldn't compete with good and safe stuff like pot, psilocybin, and LSD if it wasn't illegal.
Sure they would. Pot is different than acid is different than cocaine is different than heroine. There's always going to be somebody who wants something that's stronger, faster, longer lasting. Hell, crack came about because caine wasn't strong enough. Let that sink in for a second.
There's plenty of good reasons to legalize some drugs. But that ain't one of them.
I disagree. The legality of marijuana substitutes like Spice and K2 is their only selling point, no one would smoke them if they could have walked into the same shop and bought pot instead.
-
True. But if weed was legal, there'd still be a market for heroine. That was my point.
-
True. But if weed was legal, there'd still be a market for heroine. That was my point.
That I do agree with. But legalizing drugs like weed, cocaine and heroin would kill the market for their even worse synthetic substitutes.
-
But legalizing drugs like weed, cocaine and heroin would kill the market for their even worse synthetic substitutes.
You make a good point. But I still don't see that as a good reason to legalize some drugs. Heroine, meth, crack for example. LI have seen too many times what happens to people use the three I mentioned for me to be convinced there is a good enough reason to legalize them.
-
But legalizing drugs like weed, cocaine and heroin would kill the market for their even worse synthetic substitutes.
You make a good point. But I still don't see that as a good reason to legalize some drugs. Heroine, meth, crack for example. LI have seen too many times what happens to people use the three I mentioned for me to be convinced there is a good enough reason to legalize them.
I believe that all drugs should be legal. My reasons are thus:
1. The law has not been an effective deterrent against their use, and countries that have legalized drugs have actually shown a decrease in drug use, among both "soft" drugs like weed and "hard" drugs like heroin.
2. Even if the law was an effective deterrent, the black market resulting from criminalization creates unacceptable levels of violent crime. We recognized this with alcohol back during prohibition, it's time we recognized it with other drugs now. We could solve half of Mexico's crime problems overnight just by legalizing drugs.
3. Criminalization causes us to look at drug use and addiction as a criminal problem instead of the medical problem it is, and makes addicts less likely to seek treatment. In Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs in 2001, "illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled." (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html) Further, criminalization ensures that these drugs are only available on the black market, which is by its very nature unregulated. Even something as harmless as weed can fuck you up if it's been sprayed with pesticides, and that's nothing compared to what cocaine and heroin are cut with, or what meth that's been made wrong can do.
4. From the legal side of things, I believe that if the U.S. Constitution's inherent right to privacy includes the right to medical procedures like abortion, it also includes the right to put whatever substances you want into your body, and that nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to criminalize the possession of a plant or substance.
-
I don't know, I think one krokodil pic is enough to put most people off going near it.
Huh? Well, I should look that up to see what you meSWEET HOLY BABY JESUS BALLS SHIT GOD WARN A MOTHER FUCKER NEXT TIME.
-
I'm not saying we should scare kids shitless with horrible, graphic descriptions and images of what drug addiction can do to you, but we should teach them what they do. No scare tactics, no bullshit, just straight, no-nonsense facts.
I don't know, I think one krokodil pic is enough to put most people off going near it.
Haha, maybe. People don't always respond to fear in the way you think or want them to...
-
I can see legalizing weed, and things like LSD to a certain extent. Can't see stuff like heroin or crack. If we decriminalize soft drugs but not harder drugs, I think more people would go for softer drugs because it's easier and safer than something you can actually overdose on.
-
Tiger, I agree with most of what you said. And if certain things were in place, I'd be more willing to accept them. But before we (the royal we) can legalize hard drugs, I feel we have some work to do.
For example, there needs to be more positive encouragement for people to go into rehab. And the rehab places, well, we need them to be more accessible. Be they more methadone clinics, adequate rehab centers or care facilities in hospitals. Education or job placement services would be nice. You can loose a job quick while doing some hard drugs, and the stigma of having spent time at a court ordered drying out facility is a serious stumbling block for gainful reemployment. So it might be nice to see incentives given to businesses who hire rehabilitated addicts kind of like the ones for hiring veterans right now.
Things like that, ya know? It seems a little wrong to clean a person up them boot them out the door with little more than a smile and cheery best wishes. And once that's addressed, I'd be much more willing to agree to legalization of everything.
-
I don't know, I think one krokodil pic is enough to put most people off going near it.
Unless they are already addicted to smack, krokodil being an opiate.
People were already giving themselves krokodil type lesions, scars and open pus filled wounds by shooting up pills and having their veins collapse long before desomorphine came on the scene!
-
Tiger, I agree with most of what you said. And if certain things were in place, I'd be more willing to accept them. But before we (the royal we) can legalize hard drugs, I feel we have some work to do.
For example, there needs to be more positive encouragement for people to go into rehab. And the rehab places, well, we need them to be more accessible. Be they more methadone clinics, adequate rehab centers or care facilities in hospitals. Education or job placement services would be nice. You can loose a job quick while doing some hard drugs, and the stigma of having spent time at a court ordered drying out facility is a serious stumbling block for gainful reemployment. So it might be nice to see incentives given to businesses who hire rehabilitated addicts kind of like the ones for hiring veterans right now.
Things like that, ya know? It seems a little wrong to clean a person up them boot them out the door with little more than a smile and cheery best wishes. And once that's addressed, I'd be much more willing to agree to legalization of everything.
I agree that these things would be a benefit to the community, but I believe that the legalization of drugs would also be a benefit even without them.
-
I can see legalizing weed, and things like LSD to a certain extent. Can't see stuff like heroin or crack. If we decriminalize soft drugs but not harder drugs, I think more people would go for softer drugs because it's easier and safer than something you can actually overdose on.
Even the really nasty stuff should be legal, but there should be different controls based on the type of drug. Any increase in use (if it even does increase) is more than offset by the increase in safety because of known dosage/purity, medical supervision, etc. All prohibition does is make drugs more dangerous.
-
What I would like to know is why all drugs are not treated like current medicines?
Right now you can get the strongest stuff ever at your local pharmacy if you have a valid prescription, why can't these drugs be treated in the same manner?
-
What I would like to know is why all drugs are not treated like current medicines?
Right now you can get the strongest stuff ever at your local pharmacy if you have a valid prescription, why can't these drugs be treated in the same manner?
Because the private prison industry would lose it's biggest income stream!
Seriously, don't you have any empathy for those guys?
-
Even the really nasty stuff should be legal, but there should be different controls based on the type of drug. Any increase in use (if it even does increase) is more than offset by the increase in safety because of known dosage/purity, medical supervision, etc. All prohibition does is make drugs more dangerous.
Out of curiosity, how do we know users will use "government" drugs? Even if they are safer, how do you get past the institutional mistrust? And how do you prevent homemade drugs undercutting the legal stuff?
-
Even the really nasty stuff should be legal, but there should be different controls based on the type of drug. Any increase in use (if it even does increase) is more than offset by the increase in safety because of known dosage/purity, medical supervision, etc. All prohibition does is make drugs more dangerous.
Out of curiosity, how do we know users will use "government" drugs? Even if they are safer, how do you get past the institutional mistrust? And how do you prevent homemade drugs undercutting the legal stuff?
Leave the taxes and margin on the product low enough that home making them is difficult to turn a profit on. Despite the taxes on cigarettes people don't roll their own despite the rather ready availability of the materials(even filters if you know where to look). And few people are stupid enough to intentionally buy knock off cigarettes. May wind up with them anyway thanks to counterfeiters, but still.
Mass production can do the damndest things to cottage industries.
-
Even the really nasty stuff should be legal, but there should be different controls based on the type of drug. Any increase in use (if it even does increase) is more than offset by the increase in safety because of known dosage/purity, medical supervision, etc. All prohibition does is make drugs more dangerous.
Out of curiosity, how do we know users will use "government" drugs? Even if they are safer, how do you get past the institutional mistrust? And how do you prevent homemade drugs undercutting the legal stuff?
Since nobody buys booze from the Mafia any more, I think it's safe to say most people prefer to get their mind-altering substances legit.
-
Witnesses described the 17-year-old boy as "shaking, growling, foaming at the mouth." According to police reports, Elijah Stai was at a McDonald's with his friend when he began to feel ill. Soon after, he "started to smash his head against the ground" and began acting "possessed," according to a witness. Two hours later, he had stopped breathing.
Jesus Christ...
"Smiles" is one hell of a euphemism for this one. If krokodil originated here, what would it be called? "Sunshine and Butterflies"?
-
Maybe they thought it was going to be like that chemical that made the Joker's face contort into a permanent smile. ...Maybe.
-
Here's what I want to ask: you're saying that banning drugs doesn't make them less expensive or available, okay fine. How come?
-
Here's what I want to ask: you're saying that banning drugs doesn't make them less expensive or available, okay fine. How come?
Who were you asking?
-
Here's what I want to ask: you're saying that banning drugs doesn't make them less expensive or available, okay fine. How come?
Who were you asking?
TigerHunter et al.
-
Here's what I want to ask: you're saying that banning drugs doesn't make them less expensive or available, okay fine. How come?
Because any time people want something, people will step in to sell it. One need only look at Prohibition to see that in action--not only did that not stop people consuming alcohol, it spawned NASCAR. I think we can all agree humanity as a whole is worse off for that.
I mean, the fact that any of these illegal drugs are available at all should be proof enough that making them illegal does pretty much nothing to stop their production or sale. Name any given illegal drug, and I could have some of it within 10 minutes if I wanted. It's just that instead of 10 well-regulated production facilities delivering safety-tested products, you end up with 1,000 garage setups cranking out shit laced with whatever happened to be on hand. Since those are the only things available, it's what people buy.
-
People are going to do what they want, no matter what. Legal or not. This is very true. And there isn't anyone here who can argue that. But hard drugs are, well, you've seen what they do, right? You've seen how the people on them end up, right?
ETA: That's for anyone in the legalize everything crowd.
-
People are going to do what they want, no matter what. Legal or not. This is very true. And there isn't anyone here who can argue that. But hard drugs are, well, you've seen what they do, right? You've seen how the people on them end up, right?
ETA: That's for anyone in the legalize everything crowd.
Well, that's openly irrational. "Maybe we can't do anything, maybe trying to do anything will just make it worse, but we should do it anyway- because drugs are bad!" Irrational. Strawman argument. Nobody is disputing that drugs are bad. They're saying there's nothing effective we can do.
Here's what I want to ask: you're saying that banning drugs doesn't make them less expensive or available, okay fine. How come?
Because any time people want something, people will step in to sell it.
If you reduce the supply of something (by banning it and enforcing that ban), it will become more expensive and fewer people will be able to use it. You're not necessarily going to end all use of illegal drugs, but you will reduce their use.
If you're saying the drug market isn't like a regular market, you're going to have to explain why.
-
They're saying there's nothing effective we can do.
There is something effective we can do. I'm not saying "people can still get drugs even though they're illegal, therefore we should legalize drugs", because that doesn't make sense. People still commit murder, but that doesn't mean we should legalize that. What I'm saying is that if we want to stop people from using drugs, it's been proven that there are better ways to do that than sending people to jail for using them. And also that people don't deserve to go to jail for smoking a joint, or even shooting heroin.
If you reduce the supply of something (by banning it and enforcing that ban), it will become more expensive and fewer people will be able to use it. You're not necessarily going to end all use of illegal drugs, but you will reduce their use.
If you're saying the drug market isn't like a regular market, you're going to have to explain why.
I don't deny that banning drugs makes them more expensive, what I'm saying is that the evidence (see the link I already provided) shows that drug use decreases when it's approached as a medical rather than criminal problem. Also, the effects of criminalization, e.g. organized crime, are unacceptable. Even if decriminalization raised drug use, which the evidence shows that it doesn't, I would still support legalization, for the simple fact that we'd no longer have people killing each other over drugs.
-
Apart from the fact that banning things and enforcing the ban has been shown to be ineffective in actually reducing supply. Prohibition is a great case study on it. From what I understand alcohol consumption went up in the US during prohibition.
Banning a substance for which there is a market does not eliminate supply. It does increase price as supply drops. Supply then picks up as the price increases and people are prepared to take greater risks for it.
Besides which I dispute that drugs are bad. I do not believe that drugs are worse than the prohibition of drugs.
On another note, people don't use drugs necessarily because their lives are bad. They do them because they are fun. Except for Krokadil that's just for junkies who can't afford heroin.
-
Because any time people want something, people will step in to sell it. One need only look at Prohibition to see that in action--not only did that not stop people consuming alcohol, it spawned NASCAR. I think we can all agree humanity as a whole is worse off for that.
:'(
-
Because any time people want something, people will step in to sell it. One need only look at Prohibition to see that in action--not only did that not stop people consuming alcohol, it spawned NASCAR. I think we can all agree humanity as a whole is worse off for that.
:'(
In all fairness? The sport consumes shit-tons of a limited, pollution-causing resource just to let people drive around in circles. I mean, that's literally the entire thing.
-
Because any time people want something, people will step in to sell it. One need only look at Prohibition to see that in action--not only did that not stop people consuming alcohol, it spawned NASCAR. I think we can all agree humanity as a whole is worse off for that.
:'(
In all fairness? The sport consumes shit-tons of a limited, pollution-causing resource just to let people drive around in circles. I mean, that's literally the entire thing.
It uses mostly Ethanol now. There is not ONE track on any circuit in NASCAR that is a circle. They're either ovals, tri-ovals, triangle, rectangle, or road courses, and every one of them is unique in how they handle, and the strategies to take on them. It's really NOT the entire thing.
I'm not really here to argue with you though. Just saying I don't agree with your opinion. No ill will intended, nor intent to derail the thread.
-
Well, that's openly irrational. "Maybe we can't do anything, maybe trying to do anything will just make it worse, but we should do it anyway- because drugs are bad!" Irrational. Strawman argument. Nobody is disputing that drugs are bad. They're saying there's nothing effective we can do.
With that out of the way, please tell me how wanting to keep certain classes of drugs illegal is irrational based on the reason they are pure poison. No, don't do that. Instead, tell me how my argument that "Certain drugs are too bad to be legal" is a strawman? Why is irrational to say, I'm sorry, openly irrational, "It's not OK to do meth"? Personally, I think it's a lot more irrational to have crack available to anyone who wants it.
"There's nothing effective we can do." Of course there is. We're not doing it, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Now, I will concede lengthy jail sentences are not the answer. A combination of education and rehabilitation would be a better use of the war on drugs money. Possession would land a sentence of court ordered drying out somehow. Either in a clinic or some kind of outpatient system, like a secular 12 step program. Crimes committed related to drugs would be treated like whatever crime has been committed. Murder is still murder, stealing is still stealing. I also think if someone wants to clean themselves up, they should be able to with some sort of amnesty. Yes, I am on heroine, which is illegal, but I want to get off. So I should be able to without fear of legal consequence.
And if you go back and read what I said, not just what you wanted to see, I have never ever said "jail" or "keep thing the way they are" or any variation of that. Nor have I said anything resembling that our current system is working. You were putting words into my mouth. I am disappointed in you, Fred, for that. I thought you were better than that.
-
I don't deny that banning drugs makes them more expensive, what I'm saying is that the evidence (see the link I already provided) shows that drug use decreases when it's approached as a medical rather than criminal problem. Also, the effects of criminalization, e.g. organized crime, are unacceptable. Even if decriminalization raised drug use, which the evidence shows that it doesn't, I would still support legalization, for the simple fact that we'd no longer have people killing each other over drugs.
This has to be the most compelling argument in my opinion. Even if legalising the likes of meth and heroin doubles the amount of junkies we have to deal with, it would be well worth it to the various drug cartels and whatnot off from their funding and instead make those billions of dollars of drug money taxable. Just think of the law enforcement resources it would free up and new taxes it would bring in.
-
This has to be the most compelling argument in my opinion. Even if legalising the likes of meth and heroin doubles the amount of junkies we have to deal with, it would be well worth it to the various drug cartels and whatnot off from their funding and instead make those billions of dollars of drug money taxable. Just think of the law enforcement resources it would free up and new taxes it would bring in.
Interesting line of thought. Well, the "cartels" of crystal meth wouldn't stop doing what they're doing and just undercutting the market rate. I can say this because there is still moonshine stills up and down the Appalachian mountains. Meth is fairly cheap and easy to make. As far as the wholesale supply side of other drugs, I highly doubt they're going to close up shop and quietly toast their 30+ year good run. That kind of money and the power it buys, I see them looking for other avenues for that. Much like I can see our homegrown gangs finding something else to squabble about.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Just maybe a bit naive to think legalizing would solve all these problems in one fell swoop.
-
Interesting line of thought. Well, the "cartels" of crystal meth wouldn't stop doing what they're doing and just undercutting the market rate. I can say this because there is still moonshine stills up and down the Appalachian mountains. Meth is fairly cheap and easy to make. As far as the wholesale supply side of other drugs, I highly doubt they're going to close up shop and quietly toast their 30+ year good run. That kind of money and the power it buys, I see them looking for other avenues for that. Much like I can see our homegrown gangs finding something else to squabble about.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Just maybe a bit naive to think legalizing would solve all these problems in one fell swoop.
Compare the funds that smattering of moonshine stills brings in to the huge illegal booze market that existed during prohibition. It's like comparing a homeless guy selling copies of "The Big Issue" to Donald Trump.
I'm not saying it'll happen overnight, but gangs just can't compete with legal businesses. Are you seriously suggesting that in the long term, a meth cartel could remain viable when competing directly the the likes of Pfizer or Dupont? They offer no safety to the consumer, they're not held to any safety standards, they have almost no marketing resources and they cannot hope to attract talent of nearly the same callibre as the legal producers and a whole host of other reasons. The most they could ever hope for is to hold on to some niche where they get no competition from legal producers a la the moonshine stills you mentioned.
-
Do liquor stores sell pure ethanol? Because if they don't, it's not really a fair comparison. I can't imagine that my roommate would have been able to sell the dozen or sell mason jars of moonshine he managed to move if the people he was selling to could have gotten the same thing at the liquor store.
-
Personally, I think it's a lot more irrational to have crack available to anyone who wants it.
Okay, propose some way to prevent that. Clearly banning it is not one.
With that out of the way, please tell me how wanting to keep certain classes of drugs illegal is irrational based on the reason they are pure poison. No, don't do that. Instead, tell me how my argument that "Certain drugs are too bad to be legal" is a strawman?
The argument from the pro-legalisation crowd (which I'm not necessarily among) is that criminalisation does no good, only bad. It doesn't matter how bad the drugs are, because not one person fewer would die of them through criminalisation. In fact, more would die. Therefore, criminalisation is bad.
Drugs are also bad. Nobody is denying that.
-
Drugs are also bad. Nobody is denying that.
I don't think that weed is bad. In fact, I rather enjoy it.
-
The argument from the pro-legalisation crowd (which I'm not necessarily among) is that criminalisation does no good, only bad. It doesn't matter how bad the drugs are, because not one person fewer would die of them through criminalisation. In fact, more would die. Therefore, criminalisation is bad.
Drugs are also bad. Nobody is denying that.
While I agree with your first paragraph (and it seems to be empirically shown that this is the case). I disagree with the second.
Not all drugs are bad. Furthermore what is bad for some can be good for others. Some people can't handle alcohol but can enjoy and function in society on the occasional LSD trip. Some people can enjoy a casual joint whereas others end up going mental from marijuana. (personally and I realise anecdotes are not data which is why this is in parentheses I don't smoke pot very often because I can feel it making me crazy, whereas I drink regularly and for a period enjoyed LSD, MDMA and speed -not so often anymore because I am old and boring).
Not everyone who takes hard drugs immediately becomes a junkie. Even with heroin users it has been shown that many of them lead normal lives. With many of these drugs the worst things about them are their methods of manufacture, contaminants and cost rather than the active ingredient.
There are exceptions Krokadil and bath salts being among them but these are used because people cannot obtain/afford other drugs as a product of criminilization.
Here is a question for those who believe in criminalization if all drugs were made legal would you immediatley go out and get ridicuously high on Krokadil, PCP, Heroin and bath salts?
-
This is why criminalizing only hard drugs (krokodil or heroin or PCP or meth or whatever) and legalizing soft drugs (weed, modern non-trippy LSD*) should work. Why go for an illegal hard drug when you can get a legal one that's not going to make you tear your skin off?
*from what I understand from certain people I know, modern LSD doesn't do what it did in the 60s, it just makes your eyesight go a bit warped and you have a pleasant high.
-
As far as whether legalization would hurt or help things, we can look at what happened in Portugul: http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7
After decriminalizing drugs, severe addiction and diseases related to dirty needles went down. That's what happens when you use the medical system instead of the court system to treat a medical issue. While it's not full legalization (the supply side of it is still illegal), it's the closest example to what would happen under legalization with reasonable regulation.
*from what I understand from certain people I know, modern LSD doesn't do what it did in the 60s, it just makes your eyesight go a bit warped and you have a pleasant high.
It's still the same stuff, just not as strong. An average hit nowadays is about 60 micrograms. It would take at least 10 of those to get into "Holy shit" territory (not necessarily in a bad way).