<p>I'm in support of across the board legalization. Regulation and taxation...
Tobacco does have a lethal limit at least chewing tobacco.
The nicotine in one can is lethal if consumed at one time. God knows why you would want to consume dip though...just an interesting fact.</p>
<p>have YOU ever seen someone under influence of opiates, they're just quiet and nod off to themselves, they don't bother anyone. And it's easy to overdose on because of variances in purity, if you have legality than purity and strength is regulated, cutting most overdoses right there.</p>
<p>No offense, but you sound more like you're spouting off the andi-drug crap than actually know anything about heroin. Did you know it's used medicinally in the UK?</p>
<p>I've never personally used heroin, but I've used my fair share of other opiates which I'm under the impression have similar affects.</p>
<p>I'm more for decriminalization than legalization based on the Federal government having the right to legislate interstate commerce and restrict the import and export of certain items it deems harmful. The influence on the crime rate always has to factor into these things; but, IMHO, the vast majority of drug related crimes occur due to the illegality of the drug trade and the resulting inflated prices than the effects of the drugs, themselves. I'll admit I haven't done any research to back up that opinion, but it seems to be what common sense would dictate. I mean, if heroin were cheap and legal, why would someone have any reason to rob a convenience store and murder the clerk to get the money for it?</p>
<p>I should probably clarify my position here, For most drugs I would not support complete legalization, but just decriminalization. I have had some experience with "hard" drugs, mainly cocaine, and it is NOT something I would recommend to the masses, but at the same time I do not believe that the offenses are at all right. I would have no jailtime for nonviolent drug offenses, and instead use treatment options for those in need. Eliminate all mandatory minimums, and instead of teaching propoganda try teaching some harm reduction and telling the truth about drugs.</p>
<p>I changed my topic on psychology project because my survey is really biased to teenagers-I couldn't ask adults, especially strangers, about smoking. So, I decided to do something really different. Maybe I can pretend to take the tests in the school hallways and ask the kids to help me 'cheat.' I will include their gender, their grade, whether they help me 'cheat' and the subject tests on my data. Is this a bad idea?</p>
<p>Btw, the deadline of this project is due by March, so there's a lot of time.</p>
<p>just out of curiousity, are any of u guys in model united nations? the debating ur doin just might work at a competition. in fact, at a competition last year, there was a group trying to legalize prostitution and such. they didn't get their resolution passed though. but it was an interesting debate.
second-hand smoke is dangerous. and i would agree that traffic in the big cities could be an issue, but think about it, what could be an easier possibility of lowering? getting people to use other transportation like bicycles, etc. is very very hard, and could be harder than just banning cigarettes.</p>
<p>I;m in Model UN.</p>
<p>yes, i have seen people, first hand, under the influence of heroin. your claims that people are "just quiet and nod off to themselves, they don't bother anyone." couldnt be more contradictory to what i have witnessed. i have seen people go straight out of control under heroin. also, the drug is so unbelievably adictive that i dont see how you can advocate its legalization (or even decriminlization). the odds are good that if one uses it (regardless of how "pure" it is) they will become addicted. addiction to heroin leads to ones physical and mental decline, theres simply no denying it (go look it up). stop trying to act like some cool druggie/intellectual genius. the legalization or even decriminalization of heroin is just plain stupid. where are the benefits? (and dont reply with some ******** about how it would help the economy, create more jobs, ect.). </p>
<p>i say we just legalize bud. itd make everyone happy...</p>
<p>There is correlation between age and view on stance on banishment. The younger audience prefers smoking to be banned while the older group prefers smoking to be left for one's own choice. Kids, you'll learn.</p>
<p>Could u try not to patrnonize me, please, thanks old timer.(hey, if u can call me a "kid")</p>
<p>princetonfather must be associated with princeton university. wow. he therefore must be very intelligent. i am super impressed. your child must be brilliant! and you too, since you raised him/her! (right, right, im sure you are simply showing your school spirit.)</p>
<p>parents, maybe youll learn not to have the need to impress others. maybe youll learn humility. </p>
<p>go tell some more people where your child goes.</p>
<p>holden: what the **** are you talking about, find me one reliable statistic indicating that you will become addicted after one use, I've used other opiates which are chemically very similar, and have never experienced any addiction, not mental/physical decline. Yes the addiction I'm sure is terrible, no one would advocate that, which is the reason that I stated that there should be treatment for addicts instead of jailtime. As for people while high losing control, are you sure that it wasn't a speedball or something similar? or maybe just a bad cut, because in all of my experience with pure opiates, unless they're combined with alcohol/some sort of stimulant the experience is simply very sedating, but I don't claim to have any personal experience with H itsself.</p>
<p>The benefits? immense relief in crime, and hopefully for once actually trying to curb the addiction through treatment and HARM REDUCTION than pure prohibition.</p>
<p>i never said you become addicted after one try. i said "the odds are good that if one uses it (regardless of how "pure" it is) they will become addicted." i think you mistook "one" to mean "the number one", where it clearly means "a person". however, it doesnt really matter. opiates are highly highly highly addictive. legalizing heroin would surely lead many to addiction (think of all the stupid 8th graders out there. sure, maybe you advocate legalization for those over 18 or something, but it doesnt matter. if its legalized, it will become SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more readily available, especially to those who would have never considered trying it.) as for the people i have seen go straight crazy when high on heroin: im really as sure as i can be that it was pure heroin. also, this was not a one time witnessing or anything. i have seen it many times. ill agree with your point that violence and crime could, and probably would, be lessened with heroins legalization. the thing is, i just dont see that benefit (and whatever others there may be) outweighing the nagatives.</p>
<p>I agree with you to an extent, you have to realize that reguarding heroin I am not for complete legalization, I am for ending the extreme prison sentences, and teaching people the truth, and if they insist on using it than educating in harm reduction to make sure they can do it as safely as possible. </p>
<p>Below heroin though, I would use a very similar plan with cocaine, now here I can talk first hand, as I have failry extensive experience that I don't want to go into, but it is NOT something that you want available to the public cheap and easily. Again, institute much better treatment and harm reduction programs and end the severe penalties, but I do not think this should be available from your local 7-11. Same with meth I believe, but I have no experience there.</p>
<p>Psychadelics I believe should have limited availability, let trained professionals use LSD, MDMA, mushrooms and the likes in secure professional environments like the creators of most of those drugs meant (except obviously shrooms, since no one created them). Should not be publicly available, but again harm reduction and no harsh penalties</p>
<p>I'm getting bored of listing all the classes now, so I will say complete taxation and legalization of cannabis, reduced control over prescriptions giving doctors more room to prescribe as the patient's need, and across the board reduction in penalties and replacing programs like DARE with other programs which will better educate for the truth and teach harm reduction for those who are going to use anyways.</p>
<p>i see. well i can agree with most of that. just out of curiosity, when you say "let trained professionals use LSD, MDMA, mushrooms and the likes in secure professional environments" what exactly do you mean? what would these professionals use these hallucinogens for? for the record, i have experimented with mushrooms, and though i will admitt its rather crazy and fun, i dont really see how it could be used by "professionals" to achieve something of value. regardless, i would be willing and open to listen (or read, as it were) your point on this.</p>
<p>sorry to all those who want this thread to stick to the "smoking, yes or no" topic, but it got boring and repetative (i think most will agree).</p>
<p>Um ok, except the fact that I'm still in high school negates your entire hypothesis.</p>
<p>"By the mid-1960s, more than 1000 peer-reviewed papers had been published describing the treatment of more than 40,000 patients for schizophrenia, depression, alcoholism and other disorders." reguarding LSD</p>
<p>"But to some brave souls, psychedelic medicine never lost its allure. One of them is Rick Doblin, who in 1986 founded the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in Sarasota, Florida, and who earned a doctorate from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government after writing a dissertation on the federal regulation of psychedelics. For nearly 20 years MAPS has lobbied the FDA and other government agencies to allow research on psychedelics to resume. It has also persuaded scientists to pursue the work and raised funds to support them. A similar body, the Heffter Research Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico, was founded in 1993 by scientists with an interest in hallucinogens."</p>
<p>"He recently received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to give late-stage cancer patients the psychedelic drug MDMA, also known as ecstasy."</p>
<p>from <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524881.400%5B/url%5D">http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524881.400</a> </p>
<p>"It was widely used therapeutically by US psychotherapists (especially on the West Coast) because of its empathogenic effects until its criminalization in the late 1980s. The drug was hailed as a miracle by therapists and counselors who claimed couples could have six months worth of progress in one use of the drug, and soldiers returning from the Vietnam war could overcome their PTSD sometimes more effectively than talk or group therapy."
about MDMA (Ecstasy) from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA</a></p>
<p>Sorry, but I don't have time right now to find any pubmed articles, but I'm sure I've seen some somewhere. Now I don't know whether these drugs truly do hold much promise in psychiatric environments, but I think it's definitely worth studying, and if it's beneficial to definitely allow it. Also for the record the only psychadelic I have any experience in is mushrooms, and have never used any of the new "research chems" nor have I tried acid, mescaline, or even ecstasy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Um ok, except the fact that I'm still in high school negates your entire hypothesis.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah wow then ur user name is really strange and i dont quite understand. And also if ur still in high schol then u really shouldnt refer to ur peers as "kids" and tell them that "they'll learn"..arghh.</p>
<p>It is pretty widely known that there is some evidence of the medical use of hallucinagenics. Why not let professionals test the claims? Who knows what they may find....</p>
<p>huh. i was actually unaware of any valid medical uses for hallucinogens. though after reading your post i do agree with both of you. researching those particular drugs would be worth it, considering potential medical benenfits could arise.</p>
<p>princetonfather - you are a tool.</p>