Should We Stop The War On Drugs?
theclam
Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members
Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members
in Discussions
We've been in the War on Drugs since at least 1972, when Richard Nixon coined the term. It's obvious that it isn't working. Drugs are easy to obtain, cheap, and prevalent.
Here are some arguments for the legalization of some drugs:
-An illegal objective that is greatly desired will create a black market. Black markets mean crime. Thus, keeping drugs illegal creates crime.
-Illegal drugs aren't safe. Drugs can have any sort of additives that the manufacturer desires, depending on whether they want to increase potency, increase addictiveness, or decrease price, or a combination of these things. Legal drugs are mostly safe. they are regulated by the government. Legalizing some drugs will make sure that they are free from dangerous additives.
-The government gets lots of income from alcohol and tobacco taxation. It can do the same thing to drugs. If you consider the fact that the War on Drugs is really expensive, then you can come to the conclusion that this will provide a large boost towards government income, which can be spent on tax cuts, debt reduction, new programs, or whatever you want.
-Many illegal drugs aren't any more dangerous than alcohol, tobacco, or prescription drugs. There is no legal, medical or moral reason why they should be illegal, while these products are legal. It's hypocrisy.
Now, I don't think that all drugs should be legalized. Here are a couple categories of drugs that should be kept illegal:
-Drugs that are heavily addictive. Sure, all drugs are addictive, just like caffeine, video games, or chocolate. Drugs that are heavily physically addictive (like Heroin) should be illegal, because they hurt people and they hurt society. People lose their choice over whether they want to consume the drug or not. Society loses some of its productive members.
-Drugs that have serious physical problems. Some drugs, like crystal meth, can screw up your life completely. These drugs are psychologically and physically damaging. Drugs like marijuana, have no long term negative side effects.
So, what do you think? Should some drugs be legalized?
Here are some arguments for the legalization of some drugs:
-An illegal objective that is greatly desired will create a black market. Black markets mean crime. Thus, keeping drugs illegal creates crime.
-Illegal drugs aren't safe. Drugs can have any sort of additives that the manufacturer desires, depending on whether they want to increase potency, increase addictiveness, or decrease price, or a combination of these things. Legal drugs are mostly safe. they are regulated by the government. Legalizing some drugs will make sure that they are free from dangerous additives.
-The government gets lots of income from alcohol and tobacco taxation. It can do the same thing to drugs. If you consider the fact that the War on Drugs is really expensive, then you can come to the conclusion that this will provide a large boost towards government income, which can be spent on tax cuts, debt reduction, new programs, or whatever you want.
-Many illegal drugs aren't any more dangerous than alcohol, tobacco, or prescription drugs. There is no legal, medical or moral reason why they should be illegal, while these products are legal. It's hypocrisy.
Now, I don't think that all drugs should be legalized. Here are a couple categories of drugs that should be kept illegal:
-Drugs that are heavily addictive. Sure, all drugs are addictive, just like caffeine, video games, or chocolate. Drugs that are heavily physically addictive (like Heroin) should be illegal, because they hurt people and they hurt society. People lose their choice over whether they want to consume the drug or not. Society loses some of its productive members.
-Drugs that have serious physical problems. Some drugs, like crystal meth, can screw up your life completely. These drugs are psychologically and physically damaging. Drugs like marijuana, have no long term negative side effects.
So, what do you think? Should some drugs be legalized?
Comments
Don't worry we'll see the war on terror being discussed like this in about 25 years too.
I don't with the current going ons with the US war on drugs in South America and Asia but I feel they should be more aggresive. You kill the source and I am pretty sure a major part of the drug trade killed. But not aggresive to the point of invasion perhaps but aggresive in getting countrys there to be more proactive in dealing with the source. And not only US should be doing but the whole world. A dream perhaps but the drug trade is a worldwide problem.
You can argue that not all drugs are grown in farms and so on like estasy are mixture of other medical drugs. But I think the most damaging drugs are the hardcore drugs like cocaine and heroine.
Of course the alternative mean is to create a drug that can instantly cure your addiction to the hard drugs. ;p
QUOTE'D.
I beg to differ. In some ways you MAY be right (researchers have a really hard time agreeing on exactly how dangerous marijuana is/isn't).
But alcohol is a very dangerous drug. It destroys the liver and devours braincells whole. It is also the most widely used drug. Almost everyone drinks alcohol on occasion (almost. Don't give me "I don't," do I look like I care?), and yet, only a very small amount of these people are addicted. Compared to any other drug, the users/abusers ratio of alcohol is very favourable. And a low, occasional intake of alcohol can easily be dealt with by the body without any permanent damage.
Much of this is because everybody knows of the terrible results of alcohol overconsumption, and therefore most of us take care in our use of it.
Marijuana does not benefit from this. A wide range of users/abusers claim that marijuana is as harmless as tap water, which is not proven at best and not true at worst. What's there to hold you back when you believe that what you're doing is harmless? Nothing.
Therefore I say that the consumption of marijuana is more dangerous than that of alcohol, regardless of which of the drugs is actually the more harmful one.
Don't worry we'll see the war on terror being discussed like this in about 25 years too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think ALL illegal drugs should be Legalized, but i agree with your statement that Alcohol is more dangerous then Pot, and that where basically wasting manpower and resources.
You're addicted, that's why. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My view: we might as well legalize the drugs, because it might actually get harder to obtain currently illegal drugs if they're regulated and such. I mean, for something that's illegal, it sure is damn easy to get these drugs....
You're addicted, that's why. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My view: we might as well legalize the drugs, because it might actually get harder to obtain currently illegal drugs if they're regulated and such. I mean, for something that's illegal, it sure is damn easy to get these drugs.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell that to the kids from the local highschool that I see buying cigarettes at the convienience store. :/
I believe that pot is mostly harmless. Definitely less harmless than alcohol and caffeine. The biggest worry that you have with pot is the tar. There's no actual way to overdose on it (it's physically impossible), it's not physically addictive (it is mentally, but alcohol and caffeine and physically addictive drugs) and it's pretty mild in comparison to the effects of most other drugs.
I believe that even caffeine is more dangerous than pot. Here are some of the symptoms of caffeine intoxication:
Nervousness, headache, anxiety, increased heart rate, upset stomach, irregular heartbeat, irritability, raised blood pressure, heartburn, higher cholesterol, diarrhea, fatigue, depression, dizziness and inhibition of water absorbsion. Among other things. (While I took these from a website, almost all of these are symptoms that I personally experienced. Most people don't even link these problems with caffeine, they just assume that it's something else. I used to be a pretty big caffeine addict and, since I seriously cut down, all of the symptoms have all but disappeared. This was even before I started eating properly.)
Withdrawl symptoms of caffeine are much worse than those of pot. I'd put caffeine just below alcohol, on a scale of how dangerous drugs are. Possibly even on the same level.
I say: Legalize pot, shrooms and most hallucinogens with a low danger level. Regulate them like cigarettes and alcohol. Also, regulate caffeine like alcohol, or just make it illegal. ("Waah waah, but chocolate this and Jolt that". Get over it.) As for more harmful drugs like heroin, strike at the source and stop the people who are producing it. Require inspections on all inbound cargo from foreign countries, especially from countries known to produce harmful drugs.
In the end, drug laws are much like seatbelt laws: Protecting people from themselves.
But drugs need to become cheap. So cheap in fact that a bum on welfare can afford to waste his life on crack or whatever, without having to resort to break into my home to steal my TV or stereo, then raping and killing my wife when she catches him red-handed.
For all I care, the addicts can blow their brains out all they want. They are incapable of functioning in normal society, and the sooner they OD, the better. Saves us tax money. But I'm not prepared to suffer for their sake.
As for the war on drugs, illegal drugs are a multi billion dollar a year industry. If you legalize a grip of schedule 1 / II drugs and then tax and regulate them, why not? Also it makes providing treatment for addicts a whole lot easier. There should be some limitations, such as marijuna being illegal for people under the age of 17 cause use before that age has been shown to inhibit growth of the frontal lobe. Also the next generation will grow up with these drugs being legal, and will think them no big deal, kinda like how euro kiddies grow up around ze wine and b33r and know that it's nothing truly special.
LF, I'm going to have to disagree and ask you when the last time you heard of someone getting high and stabbing someone, or getting high and picking a fight for no reason, or getting high and doing things that you normally wouldn't becuase you anethestized your higher brain, or even better: When was the last time you read about someone who overdosed on THC [this happens at ~41,000 times the normal dosage, best of luck getting there]
2. Caffeine is safe, as long as you don't have certain medical conditions. It shouldn't be regulated. Caffeine is physically addictive, but the worst withdrawl syndrome is a headache. It's got no long term after-effects. CForrester's list of caffeine side effects is a list of all possible effects. Most users don't experience very many of those. A bowl of hot chili will cause many of those same symptoms. The current legal status of caffeine is fine.
3. Another option instead of legalization is decriminalization. One example of a decriminalized act is speeding. Cops won't go after you for speeding, unless you are voilating the speed limit very obviously and/or dangerously. If we decriminalized marijuana, for example, then the cops wouldn't go after you for it, unless you're using it obviously (in the middle of Times Square, for example), or you are using it while committing another crime (copyright infringment perhaps, <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
4. FYI, chocolate actually contains caffeine. Sugar + caffeine = mild upper. When I was in the hospital for a short bit, they wouldn't let any of the patients have chocolate, because it contains caffeine, which might interfere with certain medications.
5. Marijuana has several medical uses. The latest one that has been discovered is that it delays the onset of Alzheimer's. If it was legalized, then people could use it as an herbal supplement (you can synthesize the chemicals in it, if you don't want the mind-altering effects).
Well, no, I was kidding. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Although caffeine isn't the only drug in chocolate, there are really only trace amounts in common milk chocolate. It's once you get in to pure cocoa that you it starts becoming an effective drug.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. FYI, chocolate actually contains caffeine. Sugar + caffeine = mild upper. When I was in the hospital for a short bit, they wouldn't let any of the patients have chocolate, because it contains caffeine, which might interfere with certain medications.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It also contains anandamide, which is the "feel good" part of chocolate. Also theobromine (The drug that makes chocolate dangerous to small animals.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Caffeine is safe<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, pretty safe. I doubt that a long-term study on caffeine usage has been conducted, but I'd like to see it if it has. Either way... In the words of one of my friends... "Half an hour of perkiness is not worth three hours of feeling terrible afterwards."
Well, pretty safe. I doubt that a long-term study on caffeine usage has been conducted, but I'd like to see it if it has. Either way... In the words of one of my friends... "Half an hour of perkiness is not worth three hours of feeling terrible afterwards." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may have that effect on you. I don't like to ingest caffeine (no cola or coffee for me, although I eat moderate amounts of chocolate) because it makes me hyper (I'm naturally pretty energetic, so the upper effect is too much for me; other people are not naturally energetic, so they want the upper effect in order to make them more hyper). I have no lingering after effects because of caffeine.
Then we could once and for all end this debate. Let the stoners watch TV all day, let the junkies burn-out and rehabilitate or die off. No tax money would be spent on any of this, so theres no economic debate to be had.
Is marijuana bad or good for you? This is not the issue. Perhaps my CRT monitor is burning out my eyeballs, I sure as hell dont want CRT monitors banned. Freedom comes with responsibilities as to the health of your body.
If marijuana were legal it would not be a tax revenue source as tobacco and alcohol are. (did you know that cigs cost about 50 cents to make, the gas station makes 50 cents, and the state taxes the four dollars to make them cost 5$ a pack?) Because it is a WEED, it grows too easily anywhere, and anyone interested enough would grow his/her own.
Therefore legalization would take power out of the hands of the government. It would empty over half of our prison population (and privately owned prisons MAKE MONEY on having more inmates.) It would also reduce sales to the pharmaceutical industry who are currently making billions on all the synthetic antidepressants and stimulants and such that could be so much more easily home-grown.
Theres no incentive for politicians to end the war on drugs. The victims have to fight back.
Heavily physically addictive drugs remove any semblance of freedom from an individual's actions. They should be illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Theres no incentive for politicians to end the war on drugs. The victims have to fight back.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Too bad Americans are so apathetic about what the government spends their money on. Too bad the victims that are hit the hardest are the ones without any rights left (felons).
IF and only IF ' Heavily physically addictive drugs remove any semblance of freedom from an individual's actions. ' then, truely: 'They should be illegal.'
They should be illegal in the sense that it is protecting our liberties and freedoms as well.
I see alot of people around me who abuse alchohol and marijuana and I myself smoke more than I should but most of these people go on to lead normal lives and their drinking is usualy not completeley self destructive and the smoking rarley is. I know teachers, a huge amount of parents(mostly ones who grew up in the 70s) and cops, lots of cops. How can you elimnate the usage of a substance that can be grown in most climates and is used by milllions, and is loved even by law enforcment.
And on a side note Iv'e never seen someone who gets angry or violent when their high but i have seen lots of angry/violent drunks.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with CWAG on this one. the root of drug problems isn't the drug makers, the root of the problem is why do people do drugs? perhaps I'm wrong and if I am one of you junkies can inform me so. but from what I've seen (yes some of it is drawn from television, but I've seen some real life expeirences as well) people turn to drugs for a few reasons, A- their live sucks so they want to forget about it for a while B- they want to recieve the short term advantages of the drug , like certain steriods and other stimulants that over time hurt you. or C- their parents do drugs (for any reason A B or C) and so they decide to do drugs as well
so maybe if we improved that quality of the average persons life a bit then people wouldn't be depressed and resort to drugs to make themselves feel better. I mean for reals, how many happy successfull rich people do you see doing drugs? and yes I know that some rich people do drugs, and yes some ssuccessfull people do drugs but if you have all 3 things, I think that you wouldn't really have a reason to take drugs.
don't ask me HOW we should improve everyones life in the world to make everyone happier... for me my life is already happy. but I don't know how to help everyone else.
People do drugs because it's fun. People do drugs because they don't care about the long term consequences of drugs (although many drugs have no long term consequences, like pot). People do drugs because it's fun.
You can't solve A. People get depressed, there's nothing we can do about it. We can reduce the number of people depressed, but there will always be a large portion of the population that is depressed. These people will seek any means necessary to allieviate their suffering. If pot is the path towards doing that, then we should let them use that.
B. Well, I don't think steroids have much to do with this. Many steroids are obtained legally from a doctor (the doctor may not be giving them out legally, but the users will have a perscription).
C. I would think it would be the opposite. People see their parents use drugs, so it must be uncool, so they don't use drugs. People see their parents use drugs, and see how much they screwed up their parents' lives (in the case of drugs like meth). Peer pressure is one reason why people use drugs, but that will never go away.
Happy, successful rich people don't use drugs? What are you smoking, AvengerX? Maybe they don't in Utah, but they do in most other places. The hippies are in their 50s now. They saw how much fund drugs can be and how little danger some drugs pose. They can afford the drugs, easily. Drugs are fun. Why wouldn't they use drugs?
You're making the assumption that we should stop drug use, because drugs are bad. Why are drugs bad? I hope you are consistent, by saying that nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, and other commonly used drugs are bad too, but then again, you're a mormon so you and your family/friends/church buddies don't use drugs.
I don't with the current going ons with the US war on drugs in South America and Asia but I feel they should be more aggresive. You kill the source and I am pretty sure a major part of the drug trade killed. But not aggresive to the point of invasion perhaps but aggresive in getting countrys there to be more proactive in dealing with the source. And not only US should be doing but the whole world. A dream perhaps but the drug trade is a worldwide problem.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright. First off, we can't get the governements to be more proactive in this. Places like Columbia, Peru, and Mexico, the drug cartels can get away with jsut about anything, becasue they have the money to buy off officails, and kill those that they can't.
Secondly, we tried the military approach before. Remember Pablo Escobar? And the huge political problems that occured when we took him out (though if we had used different methods, such as not arming what bascialy amouted to a terrorist cell Los Pepes and then supplyng them with information, these problems might have been avoidable) without really reducing the flow of cocaine into this country.
So if we can't control the governements, or simply assasinate the heads to the cartels, we would have pretty much one option left on the military front, full scale invasion. This won't work either.
First, look at the growth of poppy production in Afgahnistan since we ousted the Taliban. That would suggest that we might be unable to police a newly conquered country well enough to prevent the growth of these goods, though I'll admit other factors, (like not being hte main reason we were there, and Iraq) involved here, so this one might not be completely representative.
Second, lets look at Iraq. If we are to be honest, the insurgents, terrorists, whatever, don't have a budget to contend with us. Yet we seem unable to beat them. Now the cartels have billions of dollars in yearly revenue, and easy access to weapons. Add to that fact that they already have many thousands of people employed, many of whom are already trained to use these weapons. And then top if off with the fact that they have been importing massive amounts of inteligence gathering equipment to help them counter attempts to intercept shipments. It would be like fighting a nearly world class army, added to the coutnries official troops, in a jungle.
And looking back on Veitnam, I doubt that we could win, given that our public is even less accepting of US losses than it was then.
Now moving on. Legalizing. My dream come true. It will never happen, maybe for pot, but I doubt anything else. Why not? For one thing, the federal government is hard set against it, to the point of intervening in medical marajuana laws at the state level. And theres a lot of powerful external forces pushing ont he governement to stop this one as well. Many banks are against legalization, because they, im my opinion correctly, see the illegal drug trade and the spill over profits into the governement, as the only way otherwise impoverished countries, like Columbia (no their oil isn't enough, and will run out in a few years), can possibly pay back their loans. The cartels themselves would definatly oppose any move to legalize cocaine, they know that that would destory their market. 80% of the cociane supply in the world is used in the US.
Which brings me to my final point, stopping it on the end-user side. This has been a large part of the "war on drugs" since its inception. Look how well its working. There is no section of our soceity that doesn't use drugs. Well, maybe young childern, but by middle school there are some expermenting with drugs. By high school, I've heard estimates of above 50 percent trying drugs, and somewhere about 25 percent are habitual users (though those were probably somewhat alarmist figures) I don't think I need to mention the use of drugs at the college level, nor the desitute crack addicts. People labeled as "hicks" use meth like no other (seriously, I'm out in Rural montana at the moment, and meth is easier to find than weed, mainly from backwoods consumption as far as I can tell, no one I know uses it, and I hang out with the most commited drug users in the college). My teacher's dad was arrested for using coke when he was nearly 76. My point here is that drugs are in fact everywhere in america. Not saying Everybodies Doing, So Should You,( please, don't, its not worth it) but this isn't just a problem for punk highschoolers, and the ghettos. Clearly the penalities for using drugs isn't steep enough to discourage anybody who would already be using them.
As a result, we've been raising the penalities for drug possesion. And what has it got us? Nothing, except that we've managed to make a large precent of our population into criminals, and are filling our prisons with drug related offeders. Something like 80 percent of state-level prisioners, are in jail becasue of a drug realted charge, mostly possesion.
Honestly this is not a problem that is solvable, not in the short run anyways. I really don't have any suggestions, other than reducing possesion charges, this would stop victimizing our own people, really help with the strain our prision system, and reduce governement expendatures, as well as helping our economy (figures of lost revenue, and governement expendutures on the drug problem top 160 billion yearly). Other than that, I don't see any realistic fix out there.
As for the war on drugs, illegal drugs are a multi billion dollar a year industry. If you legalize a grip of schedule 1 / II drugs and then tax and regulate them, why not? Also it makes providing treatment for addicts a whole lot easier. There should be some limitations, such as marijuna being illegal for people under the age of 17 cause use before that age has been shown to inhibit growth of the frontal lobe. Also the next generation will grow up with these drugs being legal, and will think them no big deal, kinda like how euro kiddies grow up around ze wine and b33r and know that it's nothing truly special.
LF, I'm going to have to disagree and ask you when the last time you heard of someone getting high and stabbing someone, or getting high and picking a fight for no reason, or getting high and doing things that you normally wouldn't becuase you anethestized your higher brain, or even better: When was the last time you read about someone who overdosed on THC [this happens at ~41,000 times the normal dosage, best of luck getting there] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people in drug addiction programs quit going to said programs when no longer required to by the government.
Also, increased accessibilty will increase the liklihood that drug use will increase. Setting age limits won't do much to curb its use, and example is look at the use of alcohol and cigarettes by those who are not supposed to legally have it.
Now as far as marijuna and hard drugs is concerned, its hard to say, since it largely hinges on wether you believe that it(marijuana) will lead to harder drug(cocaine, crack,pcp etc) use.
If you think that it does, then you have to fear that acceptance of pot use would lead to harder drug use, and to give you and idea of what other drugs can do, here's a few detailed specs on Crystal Meth, which is quickly becoming a drug epidemic in this country, Now mind you, this is a biased link against its use, they are indeed extreme examples, but it does give you an idea of the potential it has to do harm:
<a href='http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/photos/gallery.ssf?cgi-bin/view_gallery.cgi/olive/view_gallery.ata?g_id=2927' target='_blank'>Crystal Meth</a>
Even if you don't think marijuna use leads to hard drug use, its still not plausible. Since how would you tax homegrown marijuana use? The government will never be able to regulate it. Its just too easy to grow. Why would you pay for something you can literally grow in your backyard and sell? How would you tax it? Beer and Cigarettes are different since to make both you need either a microbrewery or a warm climate ideal for tobacco growing.
Marijuana leads to harder drug use because to get marijuana, you have to go to a dealer who will try to upsell you to a harder drug.
There will always be a demand for drugs. If there is a legal way to satisfy the demand, then less people will go to harder drugs. Right now, people have to make an effort to cross a large legal barrier, to buy drugs. If you're already engaging in an illegal activity by buying pot, then it's easy to make the decision to buy crystal meth. If you buy your pot at Walgreen's, then you'll have to make a major decision to find an illegal dealer to buy crystal meth.
As for people who dodge marijuana taxes by growing their own, who cares? The government still gets a huge net increase in cash because they don't have to arrest, prosecute, and imprison marijuana dealers/buyers/growers, plus they still get a certain amount from pot taxes.
As far as the upsell idea, I tend to agree, but I know the introduction of harder drugs for me personally (never used it though) was at parties around other users and not by drug pushers and such.
Much of the allure of drugs is not from other people selling it, but from the illegality of it, and the allure or idea from it.
Along the ideas of forbidden fruit always tastes twice as sweet
I beg to differ. In some ways you MAY be right (researchers have a really hard time agreeing on exactly how dangerous marijuana is/isn't).
But alcohol is a very dangerous drug. It destroys the liver and devours braincells whole. It is also the most widely used drug. Almost everyone drinks alcohol on occasion (almost. Don't give me "I don't," do I look like I care?), and yet, only a very small amount of these people are addicted. Compared to any other drug, the users/abusers ratio of alcohol is very favourable. And a low, occasional intake of alcohol can easily be dealt with by the body without any permanent damage.
Much of this is because everybody knows of the terrible results of alcohol overconsumption, and therefore most of us take care in our use of it.
Marijuana does not benefit from this. A wide range of users/abusers claim that marijuana is as harmless as tap water, which is not proven at best and not true at worst. What's there to hold you back when you believe that what you're doing is harmless? Nothing.
Therefore I say that the consumption of marijuana is more dangerous than that of alcohol, regardless of which of the drugs is actually the more harmful one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you saying we should ban cars too, because people can drive them very fast into other people?
If you have any sense, then you know when to stop. Marijuana does have effects if you, say, smoke it as much as an addicted cigarette smoker would for about a year (severe paranoia, etc). I think you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe it doesn't do anything at all, but also stupid to believe that it should be banned because some people use it irresponsibly.
no government can tell me whether I am allowed to get caffeine or alcohol. Its my free choice. Everyone has the right for self-responsibility (if reached a certain age of course).
I think hashish is faaaar more dangerous than coffee and or alcohol. Alcohol has a buit-in brake for overuse (like drink too much of it you wake up next day with a headache - This may give you a hint for not overusing it)
hashish may be physically less damaging than alcohol (I do not know exactly) but totally slows people mentally. A few people I have seen that smoke hashish are more likely to hang around and "do things later"