Weed

[Millais]

definitely relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lg5I4ILM44&feature=feedu

[snapple]

definitely relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lg5I4ILM44&feature=feedu

It's a gateway drug. 

They might as well legalize it. By the time my generation is in office, it will be legalized.

I'd prefer they just legalize research on it for the medical benefits. Look at cigarettes and alcohol. If they could ban that, you KNOW they would. If weed is already banned, why fuck with fire?

Same thing that Jefferson said about slavery. "(about slavery) We have the wolf grabbed by the ears and dare not let go".

[Scheavo]

Just to butt in here, I had a quick look on some papers (by no means exhaustive i'll admit) but research does seem to indicate that the level of tar, benzanthracenes and benzpyrenes (known carcinogens) is higher in a cannabis joint compared to a cigarette of equivilent mass, due to the way the user smokes it and the typical lack of filters in a joint compared to a cigarette, not to mention the higher combustion temperature of cannabis compared to tobacco.

People don't smoke nearly as much weed as they do tobacco, though. There many be more tar, but I know very few people who would be able to make it through a day of smoking a pack of joints. They'd pass the fuck out, and be way higher than they ever wanted to be. A lot of people I know take 1-2 hits, then they're done. How does thta compare to cigarettes?

Besides, if what you say is true, why then is lung cancer not a problem for marijuana? Why do people who smoke marijuana not only not get lung cancer, but why do people who start using it see an actual decrease in their tumor size? You point to a carcinogen, but then you completely fail to acknowledge the fact that that carcinogen doesn't actually cause cancer in people who smoke, and in fact, we see quite the opposite effect.

So smoke inhalation isn't toxic? Wow!! All those people that died of smoke inhalation were just faking it. I really don't think you understand. You are still thinking I am talking about everything about Weed except the smoke inhalation. They are going on and on in the documentary about how there are no negative effects of good ole MJ. Hmmm perhaps mere smoke inhalation which is TOXIC to the body could be negatively impacting. I don't think there are any positive effects of inhaling smoke, at all.

Okay, since you insist on ignoring the logic I'm giving you, I'm gonna go a head and guess that this isn't going anywhere. You're not even trying to address it, just restating your old position, whilst ignoring every single counter argument. Look up toxic in the dictionary, it is not harmful. If i go eat a gallon of ice cream, that's harmful to my system. Does that make it toxic? If I go drink a shitton of water, I could die from water poisoning. Does that make water toxic? Someone would have to smoke an ungodly amount, literally probably impossible without someone forcing you to inhale the smoke, for us to start talking about the harmful effects of smoking marijuana. It is not a problem for the common user, it is not TOXIC for the user (toxic: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation)

You're losing the forest for the tree, and while the tree may be dead and dying, the forest is not.

[Dark Castle]

Just to butt in here, I had a quick look on some papers (by no means exhaustive i'll admit) but research does seem to indicate that the level of tar, benzanthracenes and benzpyrenes (known carcinogens) is higher in a cannabis joint compared to a cigarette of equivilent mass, due to the way the user smokes it and the typical lack of filters in a joint compared to a cigarette, not to mention the higher combustion temperature of cannabis compared to tobacco.

People don't smoke nearly as much weed as they do tobacco, though. There many be more tar, but I know very few people who would be able to make it through a day of smoking a pack of joints. They'd pass the fuck out, and be way higher than they ever wanted to be. A lot of people I know take 1-2 hits, then they're done. How does thta compare to cigarettes?

Besides, if what you say is true, why then is lung cancer not a problem for marijuana? Why do people who smoke marijuana not only not get lung cancer, but why do people who start using it see an actual decrease in their tumor size? You point to a carcinogen, but then you completely fail to acknowledge the fact that that carcinogen doesn't actually cause cancer in people who smoke, and in fact, we see quite the opposite effect.

So smoke inhalation isn't toxic? Wow!! All those people that died of smoke inhalation were just faking it. I really don't think you understand. You are still thinking I am talking about everything about Weed except the smoke inhalation. They are going on and on in the documentary about how there are no negative effects of good ole MJ. Hmmm perhaps mere smoke inhalation which is TOXIC to the body could be negatively impacting. I don't think there are any positive effects of inhaling smoke, at all.

Okay, since you insist on ignoring the logic I'm giving you, I'm gonna go a head and guess that this isn't going anywhere. You're not even trying to address it, just restating your old position, whilst ignoring every single counter argument. Look up toxic in the dictionary, it is not harmful. If i go eat a gallon of ice cream, that's harmful to my system. Does that make it toxic? If I go drink a shitton of water, I could die from water poisoning. Does that make water toxic? Someone would have to smoke an ungodly amount, literally probably impossible without someone forcing you to inhale the smoke, for us to start talking about the harmful effects of smoking marijuana. It is not a problem for the common user, it is not TOXIC for the user (toxic: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation)

You're losing the forest for the tree, and while the tree may be dead and dying, the forest is not.

Also, more people smoke a bowl rather than a joint.

[Liberation]

If the second... I see a pretty strong division here, I haven't heard of anyone dying of marijuana overdose, while I don't think I have to comment on this regarding harder drugs. They're nothing else than a threat, and while the initial interest in marijuana after legalisation wouldn't probably mean much, I'm pretty certain if you legalised everything, that would mean deaths. They should be eliminated, but I think it's time to change the strategy, like I mentioned before. (Even if you didn't mean this, this is also an answer to MasterShakezula's post.)

Yeah, not so much.  One of the main risks of death with drug usage comes from heroin, and with legality you'd see that number drop quite a bit.  You'd have insured quality and potency.  You'd have better access to opiate-antagonists like Naloxone, which will kick an overdose in it's ass.  You'd have access to needles to prevent AIDS and Hepatitis.  People would have actual, correct info on how to safely use.  It goes on and on.  Heroin overdoses are a result of the war on drugs and needn't happen.

As for the rest of them,  the risk usually comes with prolonged usage.  The Lynn Bias's of the world are few and far between.  I'm not sure what effect legalization would have on, say,  long term usage of coke.  There's no reason for it to have a direct effect.  It might cause more people to try it and eventually become addicted,  but it might just as well lead to more people being able to seek treatment,  given that they'll no longer be viewed as criminals or animals.

While what you say is possible after a longer period of time, I'm pretty sure the direct, short term effect would be overdoses. Unfortunately a lot of people think in a too simple way and I don't think the approach of "legal = it's safe!" would be that uncommon. If it's not that hard to find people who get sucked into trying heroine while it is strictly illegal and known to be extremely dangerous, I don't think legalisation would mean they suddenly get enlightened and start being careful about trying something.

Also, as for long-term usage... The first thing that came to my mind is: it's now "cool" to drink a lot of alcohol, on the borderline of safety, because that makes you "hardcore" or whatever. I think you see what I'm getting at?

And simply, the bottom line is, I don't see why we need them legalised in any way. There are enough social problems as it is with alcohol; maybe marijuana is an acceptable option. But I don't see any positive sides of hard drugs being more easily accessible, but definitely a ton of negative ones.

[7StringedBeast]

No one said anything about making illegal drugs more accessible.  Legal does not necessarily mean more accessible.  I don't think people are just going to start doing heroin if its made legal.  I guarantee you that there are no people out there that would try heroin just because its legal.  People who don't do heroin don't do it because its fucking dangerous and terrible for you.  The people that do heroin, fall into it due to circumstances in their life.

[Scheavo]

Also, as for long-term usage... The first thing that came to my mind is: it's now "cool" to drink a lot of alcohol, on the borderline of safety, because that makes you "hardcore" or whatever. I think you see what I'm getting at?

If you're in a group of people, now, who think heroin use is "cool," chances are you going to do some heroin.

[Liberation]

No one said anything about making illegal drugs more accessible.  Legal does not necessarily mean more accessible.  I don't think people are just going to start doing heroin if its made legal.  I guarantee you that there are no people out there that would try heroin just because its legal.  People who don't do heroin don't do it because its fucking dangerous and terrible for you.  The people that do heroin, fall into it due to circumstances in their life.

I'm not so sure about that. I wish people were more responsible, but I think we have more than enough evidence that they're not. Generally the simple idea is "legal = safe (at least to a certain extent)", and well, heroin is not safe in any way possible, therefore... why should it ever be legal?

Also, as for long-term usage... The first thing that came to my mind is: it's now "cool" to drink a lot of alcohol, on the borderline of safety, because that makes you "hardcore" or whatever. I think you see what I'm getting at?

If you're in a group of people, now, who think heroin use is "cool," chances are you going to do some heroin.

I'm not sure how it looks elsewhere because I know here it may look different, but I know that it's not so uncommon here to think that someone who drinks far more than it is rational at a party is "cool". In fact, being drunk is cool in general. I find it fairly obvious the attitude could be basically the same for drugs sooner or later.

And yes, what you mention is another very likely issue.

[7StringedBeast]

The people who think heroin is cool, will do heroin.  Regardless of legality.  Their minds would not be changed if it was made legal.  Do you really think that people would just flock to doing heroin if it was legal?  That's kind of an absurd notion. 

Alcohol is MUCH different than heroin and really shouldn't even be compared to each other.  The kids who like to get wasted and have a good time, are not the same kids that are going to shoot up heroin.

[Liberation]

Sorry, but believing that there aren't any people who are stopped only by it being strictly illegal and associated to organised crime is also kind of absurd. There are people who like things that are illegal, there are those who don't care either way, and there are those who are capable of trying a lot as long as it is legal.

I was talking about drugs in general in that case, not just heroin.

[7StringedBeast]

So who cares?  People are going to do what they are going to do.  Why make it illegal and have them arrested for buying?  At least decriminalize.  Make it legal to buy but illegal to sell.  Why tie up the prison system with users?  If there is a type of person out there that would do heroin once it becomes legal, then they already have horrible self control and are basically on that path anyway.  If they can't realize how different heroin is than other drugs.

I'd rather see safe heroin sold or administered to users while the proceeds go to some kind of program to help them get over their addictions, than to see no support for users out there at all. 

Education and support can help their situation.  Or anyone's situation for that matter.

I don't think my points are absurd in any way.  I think the people who choose not to do heroin has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with how they take care of themselves.

[Liberation]

Well, those who buy basically keep the "business" running. Arresting for possession isn't always the best idea, but what other way do you deter them from buying? Play advertisements saying "drugs are bad"? I don't think it would be particularly effective. Also, while there obviously is a group of people that take drugs because of life problems, there definitely are also those, and I'm pretty certain they're the majority, who are doing that absolutely from their own free will. Providing money for organised crime is a good enough reason to be arrested, I think. (Again, we're not only talking about heroin.)

I definitely agree there should be better education and understanding, though. However, I think this is entirely separate from legalisation, drug addicts won't be treated better just because they've become legal.

[7StringedBeast]

Yes they will be treated better because at least they won't be seen as criminals.  They will then be seen as people with a problem that need help.  That's what addicts are.  They are people with a problem who need help.  That's what we see alcoholics as.  But for some reason we see heroin addicts as just a criminal?  How does that even make sense.  It's just different choice of poison at that point.

[Liberation]

I don't think they will because the general view on drugs is rooted pretty deep in the society and if the attitude towards drug addicts will ever change to similar one like with alcoholics, it will take a lot of time.

What should be changed is the simple understanding: if they ask for help, they're no longer criminals.

[7StringedBeast]

You have an incredibly naive, unrealistic, and inexperienced view of drug use I'm sorry to say because I don't mean to e inflame.

Honestly, what is wrong with someone who chooses to do some LSD on a Saturday afternoon in their apartment?  Who are they hurting?  No one.  You can say they are hurting themselves, but then at that point should we also ban Big Macs?

Then when it comes to an addictive dangerous substance like heroin or meth, you have people that are taking this because of poor life decisions or have had circumstances that lead them down that path.  The use of the drug itself does not make them a criminal (only by strict definition of the law).  People aren't doing these types of drugs casually to have a good time.  It just doesn't happen.

[yeshaberto]

Honestly, what is wrong with someone who chooses to do some LSD on a Saturday afternoon in their apartment?  Who are they hurting?  No one.  You can say they are hurting themselves, but then at that point should we also ban Big Macs?

are you not counting their children? 
my wife grew up in a home full of LSD and hard drugs.  she was molested multiple times and her brother is in prison and his kids are all on welfare and most of them have lived half their lives with my wife and I since their mom doesn't want to care for them. 
are you not counting the children to be born? 
my birth father used LSD while I was conceived.  I didn't find this out till after I lived my life as an addict.
are you not counting the fact that I am going to have to pay for the effects of his drug use on his health in taxes?
are you not counting the other drugs like heroin which often result in addiction and the thefts of other peoples stuff to continue their habit?
I just had my car broken into by meth addicts.  they were lucky to get $5 for my stereo, but $5 of meth is $5 of meth.
are you not counting the spiraling down of their lives which results in their uselessness to society.

I don't find much room to say that use of hard narcotics is harmless.

[zxlkho]

LSD is absolutely NOT and addictive drug in ANY way whatsoever.

LSD is not considered addictive by the medical community.[12] Rapid tolerance build-up prevents regular use, and there is cross-tolerance shown between LSD, mescaline[13] and psilocybin.[14] This tolerance diminishes after a few days without use and is probably caused by downregulation of 5-HT2A receptors in the brain.[citation needed]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[yeshaberto]

LSD is absolutely NOT and addictive drug in ANY way whatsoever.

I agree.  My reference to addiction was to heroin and other hard drugs (meth, etc). 

I also forgot to add driving.  I remember a number of times where I drove on LSD and PCP.  how in the world I am still alive (let alone the drivers around me) is beyond me

[zxlkho]

Well it seems to me that there's a very large difference between drugs that are relatively harmless and drugs that are very harmless. The very addictive ones such as herion, cocaine, and methamphetamines should absolutely remain illegal imo, while others such as weed, LSD, mushrooms, etc. that are harmless in moderation should be legalized. I see no reason why the government should prevent a person from using them who wants to.

[7StringedBeast]

Also, I think it is common sense that using these drugs while also having a family or being pregnant is bad.  But so is abusing alcohol.  So I guess alcohol should also be illegal because some people might become alcoholics while they have a family?  I don't understand this reasoning.  As far as I know, people don't get arrested for drinking alcohol while pregnant.

At some point, people need to be personally responsible for themselves.  I don't see how criminalizing all users is going to make society better.  Arrest them when they commit a crime and have that be a harsh punishment, not a slap on the wrist.  Basically, leave the responsible people alone, and punish the irresponsible ones.

Also, there should be better support for addicts who need help.  I am in full support of setting up better systems for addicts that are caught using.  When it comes to Heroin and Meth, if caught doing it you should be forced to go to a rehab center instead of a jail.

[lonestar]

Also, there should be better support for addicts who need help.  I am in full support of setting up better systems for addicts that are caught using.  When it comes to Heroin and Meth, if caught doing it you should be forced to go to a rehab center instead of a jail.

Agreed.  There should be a stronger support system for all addicts.  Addicition is the only disease that you get punished for having.  You are shunned by society, and deemed "weak", "unfit" and "worthless".  Most people don't truly understand the power that it holds over the one suffering.   It is a physical, psychological, and spiritual pit that does nothing but feed onto itself, and a recovering addict must be on a contant vigilance for the rest of their lives to stay sober.


My name is lonestar, and I'm an alcoholic/addict

[El Barto]

Damn,  after the last hour's worth of posts,  I'm not sure who I'm arguing with anymore.  So,  I'm just going throw out a couple of things.

I wouldn't automatically assume legal means safe; that would be foolish.  I'm also not rushing out to do some heroin only because it's illegal.  Those two things accepted,  if I new that I could do good heroin, of a known dosage and potency, in a clean, safe environment, I might well be interested in doing so.

With regards to coolness,  I was one of those people that found it cooler to be the person who didn't jump on bandwagons.  I was the only one of my peers in HS that didn't smoke cigarettes,  and that was actually a lot cooler than smoking because everybody else was, particularly since I was certainly doing all manner of other naughty things. 

As for Yesh's family situation,  as is so often said in drug arguments,  correlation does not equal causation.  You yourself have done plenty of acid,  and it presumably didn't make you molest or abandon kids.  It seems to me that people in your family made some terrible life decisions,  and it's just as reasonable to assume that doing drugs at inopportune times was the result of poor decision making rather than the cause of it. (and I drove quite well on Acid,  BTW)

And out of curiosity,  are you suggesting that your Old Man tripping [presumably] when you were conceived actually had any impact on your life? 

[El JoNNo]

Okay, since you insist on ignoring the logic I'm giving you, I'm gonna go a head and guess that this isn't going anywhere. You're not even trying to address it, just restating your old position, whilst ignoring every single counter argument. Look up toxic in the dictionary, it is not harmful. If i go eat a gallon of ice cream, that's harmful to my system. Does that make it toxic? If I go drink a shitton of water, I could die from water poisoning. Does that make water toxic? Someone would have to smoke an ungodly amount, literally probably impossible without someone forcing you to inhale the smoke, for us to start talking about the harmful effects of smoking marijuana. It is not a problem for the common user, it is not TOXIC for the user (toxic: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation)

You're losing the forest for the tree, and while the tree may be dead and dying, the forest is not.

Because your counter argue doesn't matter when it come right down to just inhaling smoke. Inhaling smoke has no benefit, the THC may. If I were to go to my back yard a grab some regular grass and twigs and smoke it, there would be no benefit to inhaling that smoke, only damage to my lungs. Just like there is damage every time someone smokes a joint, cigarette, cigar or a turd. The documentary is trying to preach no ill effects, but there are. I'm not really sure what you don't understand. 

[yeshaberto]

Also, I think it is common sense that using these drugs while also having a family or being pregnant is bad.  But so is abusing alcohol.  So I guess alcohol should also be illegal because some people might become alcoholics while they have a family?  I don't understand this reasoning.  As far as I know, people don't get arrested for drinking alcohol while pregnant.

At some point, people need to be personally responsible for themselves.  I don't see how criminalizing all users is going to make society better.  Arrest them when they commit a crime and have that be a harsh punishment, not a slap on the wrist.  Basically, leave the responsible people alone, and punish the irresponsible ones.

Also, there should be better support for addicts who need help.  I am in full support of setting up better systems for addicts that are caught using.  When it comes to Heroin and Meth, if caught doing it you should be forced to go to a rehab center instead of a jail.

I agree with you on everything you said.
and in regard to comparison of alcohol and its harmful effects, I agree.  I am not necessarily arguing that drugs should continue to be illegal.  I am only highlighting the statement that using LSD (or extend it to other hard drugs) is harmless to any one other than the user.

[7StringedBeast]

Right but, say I'm a single male.  If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.

[yeshaberto]

As for Yesh's family situation,  as is so often said in drug arguments,  correlation does not equal causation.  You yourself have done plenty of acid,  and it presumably didn't make you molest or abandon kids.  It seems to me that people in your family made some terrible life decisions,  and it's just as reasonable to assume that doing drugs at inopportune times was the result of poor decision making rather than the cause of it. (and I drove quite well on Acid,  BTW)

And out of curiosity,  are you suggesting that your Old Man tripping [presumably] when you were conceived actually had any impact on your life?

in regard to your first point, I don't think I disagree.  I am not necessarily trying to argue that LSD leads one to molest, etc.  I will argue that drugs affect our judgment (long term and short term).  Other than you driving well on Acid (I thought I was flying a plane the last time I did), without being intoxicated I would've never gotten into a car in that condition.

As for your second question, I only know he used LSD at the time because he admitted it on the adoption papers  and I assumed he used other narcotics as well.  I was told in the rehab that parents who used during conception cause their children to potentially have similar addictions.  not sure of the legitimacy of that claim, though.  but it makes sense, as in a "coke-baby," etc.

[snapple]

Right but, say I'm a single male.  If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.

That's. How. It. Starts.

[7StringedBeast]

Right but, say I'm a single male.  If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.

That's. How. It. Starts.

Wrong.  That's one way it could possibly start.  However, I know myself and I know that if I ever tried LSD one time, my life would not lose control.  I also know some LSD users who have perfectly functional lives and families 15 years after using it all the time.

Blanket statements are pretty useless.  It just sounds like anti-drug paranoia instead of common sense and reasoning. 

Personal responsibility.  That is the key phrase here.

For some people it all starts with alcohol.  So let's make it illegal by your logic.

[snapple]

Right but, say I'm a single male.  If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.

That's. How. It. Starts.

Wrong.  That's one way it could possibly start.  However, I know myself and I know that if I ever tried LSD one time, my life would not lose control.  I also know some LSD users who have perfectly functional lives and families 15 years after using it all the time.

Blanket statements are pretty useless.  It just sounds like anti-drug paranoia instead of common sense and reasoning. 

Personal responsibility.  That is the key phrase here.

For some people it all starts with alcohol.  So let's make it illegal by your logic.

I understand your point about blanket statements. Now, does bringing up exceptions to the rule make those statements void? You know, millions of people drink alcohol without any problems. So, if I drink a beer one afternoon I'm just going to get smashed and drive off into the sunset and wrap my car around a tree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition <---That's why we can't make alcohol illegal.

[Liberation]

You have an incredibly naive, unrealistic, and inexperienced view of drug use I'm sorry to say because I don't mean to e inflame.

Honestly, what is wrong with someone who chooses to do some LSD on a Saturday afternoon in their apartment?  Who are they hurting?  No one.  You can say they are hurting themselves, but then at that point should we also ban Big Macs?

Then when it comes to an addictive dangerous substance like heroin or meth, you have people that are taking this because of poor life decisions or have had circumstances that lead them down that path.  The use of the drug itself does not make them a criminal (only by strict definition of the law).  People aren't doing these types of drugs casually to have a good time.  It just doesn't happen.

I prefer to be naive and unrealistic rather than ridiculously pragmatic, sorry.

You are trying to find differences which are impossible to clearly define. I don't see how exactly can you define it in law that this use is right and this one is wrong, or how do you prove it. It leads to either legalise everything or keep it as it is, and do you honestly believe legalising all drugs is a good idea? For me that's just a slightly less terrible idea than allowing to sell grenades in supermarket. There are people who are responsible, and there are lots of people who have no idea what responsibility means. I just think we should at least keep this minimum of not giving them access to things they don't understand. Does that explain it?

[zxlkho]

Right but, say I'm a single male.  If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.

That's. How. It. Starts.

Wrong.  That's one way it could possibly start.  However, I know myself and I know that if I ever tried LSD one time, my life would not lose control.  I also know some LSD users who have perfectly functional lives and families 15 years after using it all the time.

Blanket statements are pretty useless.  It just sounds like anti-drug paranoia instead of common sense and reasoning. 

Personal responsibility.  That is the key phrase here.

For some people it all starts with alcohol.  So let's make it illegal by your logic.

I understand your point about blanket statements. Now, does bringing up exceptions to the rule make those statements void? You know, millions of people drink alcohol without any problems. So, if I drink a beer one afternoon I'm just going to get smashed and drive off into the sunset and wrap my car around a tree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition <---That's why we can't make alcohol illegal.

How can you not see the similarities between this and other drugs? I could say the exact same thing about weed.

[snapple]

I hate that implication that people are unable to see the similarities or differences.

[7StringedBeast]

Right but, say I'm a single male.  If I do LSD one afternoon, my life isn't going to go spiraling outta control.

That's. How. It. Starts.

Wrong.  That's one way it could possibly start.  However, I know myself and I know that if I ever tried LSD one time, my life would not lose control.  I also know some LSD users who have perfectly functional lives and families 15 years after using it all the time.

Blanket statements are pretty useless.  It just sounds like anti-drug paranoia instead of common sense and reasoning. 

Personal responsibility.  That is the key phrase here.

For some people it all starts with alcohol.  So let's make it illegal by your logic.

I understand your point about blanket statements. Now, does bringing up exceptions to the rule make those statements void? You know, millions of people drink alcohol without any problems. So, if I drink a beer one afternoon I'm just going to get smashed and drive off into the sunset and wrap my car around a tree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition <---That's why we can't make alcohol illegal.

Yeah I have really no idea what you are trying to prove to me here.  This is really confusing. 

So if I do LSD one night I'm going to go on a rampage and kill people, put babies in ovens, have unprotected sex and get someone pregnant, and then join a cult?

See I can do that with anything.

[7StringedBeast]

You have an incredibly naive, unrealistic, and inexperienced view of drug use I'm sorry to say because I don't mean to e inflame.

Honestly, what is wrong with someone who chooses to do some LSD on a Saturday afternoon in their apartment?  Who are they hurting?  No one.  You can say they are hurting themselves, but then at that point should we also ban Big Macs?

Then when it comes to an addictive dangerous substance like heroin or meth, you have people that are taking this because of poor life decisions or have had circumstances that lead them down that path.  The use of the drug itself does not make them a criminal (only by strict definition of the law).  People aren't doing these types of drugs casually to have a good time.  It just doesn't happen.

I prefer to be naive and unrealistic rather than ridiculously pragmatic, sorry.

You are trying to find differences which are impossible to clearly define. I don't see how exactly can you define it in law that this use is right and this one is wrong, or how do you prove it. It leads to either legalise everything or keep it as it is, and do you honestly believe legalising all drugs is a good idea? For me that's just a slightly less terrible idea than allowing to sell grenades in supermarket. There are people who are responsible, and there are lots of people who have no idea what responsibility means. I just think we should at least keep this minimum of not giving them access to things they don't understand. Does that explain it?

Do I want all drugs to be legal.. no.  I would like to see them decriminalized, however. 

I think drugs such as LSD, Shrooms, Ecstasy, Weed, Cocaine etc etc should be 100% legal.

I think stuff like Heroin and Meth should be decriminalized.  I think there should be severe punishment for the creation/selling of these products.  I think the people who use these products should not be put in jail, but rather forced to spend time in rehab until they are deemed fit to return to society.

Not sure where I stand on Steroids.  And I'm pretty sure PCP should be banned outright but not 100% sure on that.

[zxlkho]

I hate that implication that people are unable to see the similarities or differences.

Well can you? I honestly don't know at this point.