Drug legalisation - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should drugs be legal

No, deathpenalty for dealers and drugconsumers should be send to jail
2
13%
No, the current war on drugs has to be continued
2
13%
Yes, but just marihuana consumption and trade, like in Netherlands, Catalania, Oregon and California
4
27%
Yes, but just consumption should be legal trade not, like in the Czech Republic
3
20%
Yes a total druglegalisation is the best way, you can buy and trade drugs which are taxed like tabacco
4
27%
User avatar
By Sandzak
#15149218
late wrote:You left out the best option, decriminalisation. Google up what Portugal did.


Portugal did it first, later Czech Republic, but just consumption.
User avatar
By Goranhammer
#15149248
Full decriminalization, but only because of the private sector. People should be able to do drugs if they can do the consequences.

This means a risk of employment, significantly higher insurance rates, etc.
By Agent Steel
#15150222
Yes, I think drugs should be legal, including heroin.

People would be surprised to find out that there are actually many functioning heroin addicts. Heroin has a terrible reputation but in my opinion it's not nearly as bad as everyone says.

Crack and meth are more dangerous and harmful IMO.
By late
#15150227
Just decriminalisation won't get us where we want to go. Portugal combined that with treatment programs and involvement.
User avatar
By Odiseizam
#15150243
measure the risks first, decriminalization opens big door for the black market and greater temptation for the forbidden fruit, while legalization opens huge portal for corporatism, I am talking just about Marijuana, though equation also applicable to hd's ...

while heavy drugs first of all should be forbidden for good not because their addiction but their captivity by greedy cartels and their will to earn money even through mindblowing experiment or even poisonous cocktails!

in a way heavy drug are already legal as pharmaceuticals, what is forbidden are their street counterparts reached without subscription, so making case from opioids or antidepressants is stupid claim in my opinion! heroin is tempting because it could be smoked, although have also slightly different hit than the other opioids i.e. different type of receptors make the sensation difference!

so there are left hallucinogens natural or artificial but if they are even decriminalized what will happen is brave-new-world instant reality and believe me in such circumstances eugenics will make from homo-sapiens homo-silicone!

yet epidemics and everything is possible, if so, then dystopian future is foreseeable even now, with too many guns and too many drugs around!
User avatar
By Goranhammer
#15150281
late wrote:Just decriminalisation won't get us where we want to go. Portugal combined that with treatment programs and involvement.


Fuck that. See, this is one of the few reasons that makes me not want to legalize it. If your own dumb ass gets addicted, it's on you to get off it. I simply abhor the idea of yet another nanny state policy that wastes money on society's lowest common denominator.

If you want to do drugs, go for it. Don't let it turn you into an anchor on society, or to the gulag with you.
By late
#15150295
Goranhammer wrote:
Fuck that. See, this is one of the few reasons that makes me not want to legalize it. If your own dumb ass gets addicted, it's on you to get off it. I simply abhor the idea of yet another nanny state policy that wastes money on society's lowest common denominator.

If you want to do drugs, go for it. Don't let it turn you into an anchor on society, or to the gulag with you.



I get it, you want the world to be worse.
User avatar
By Red_Army
#15150306
I think the government should just make pure heroin and give it to the junkies so they stop breaking into my shed to shoot up and eventually overdose on fentanyl.
User avatar
By Sandzak
#15150390
Red_Army wrote:I think the government should just make pure heroin and give it to the junkies so they stop breaking into my shed to shoot up and eventually overdose on fentanyl.



In Switzerland the health insurance pays heroin for addicts. This policy lead to fewer heroin addicts, because it is not cool.

Most heroin addicts have pain issues, therefore they take the drug.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15150696
Yes. Total legalization, like Portugal.

Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer

But in 2001, Portugal took a radical step. It became the first country in the world to decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.

Seventeen years on, the U.S. is suffering its worst addiction epidemic in American history. In 2016 alone, an estimated 64,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses—more than the combined death tolls for Americans in the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq Wars. In Portugal, meanwhile, the drug-induced death rate has plummeted to five times lower than the E.U. average and stands at one-fiftieth of the United States’. Its rate of HIV infection has dropped from 104.2 new cases per million in 2000 to 4.2 cases per million in 2015. Drug use has declined overall among the 15- to 24-year-old population, those most at risk of initiating drug use.

In 2017, Fonseca spent three months embedded with one of Lisbon’s drug outreach teams; he was interested in seeing—and photographing—the kind of help people are getting in Portugal now that drug usage isn’t a political priority. “America and Portugal are very different countries,” Fonseca says, pointing out that what worked in his home country may not translate to the United States. But at the same time, he says, there are lessons to be learned from the approach of treating drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal problem.



https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug ... alization/
User avatar
By Fasces
#15150697
Personally, I am for full legalization of drugs. All kinds of drugs, from antibiotics to methamphetamine.

That being said, I don't think this solution is practical or good for society. The scheduling of drugs, and restrictions on the purchase and sale of drugs, should be done by independent medical commissions on the basis of overall harm reduction. Some drugs, such as antibiotics or those with extreme side effects, should be limited to prescription only. Other drugs with relatively little harm - marijuana, LSD and other hallucinogens, opium, and so on, should be legal.

The line should be chosen on basis determined by medical professionals but well defined. Probably 'does it cause less social harm than alcohol' since that's our cultural yardstick, but obviously this will change based on usage patterns and the definition of 'social harm'.
By Pants-of-dog
#15150714
Fasces wrote:Personally, I am for full legalization of drugs. All kinds of drugs, from antibiotics to methamphetamine.

That being said, I don't think this solution is practical or good for society. The scheduling of drugs, and restrictions on the purchase and sale of drugs, should be done by independent medical commissions on the basis of overall harm reduction. Some drugs, such as antibiotics or those with extreme side effects, should be limited to prescription only. Other drugs with relatively little harm - marijuana, LSD and other hallucinogens, opium, and so on, should be legal.

The line should be chosen on basis determined by medical professionals but well defined. Probably 'does it cause less social harm than alcohol' since that's our cultural yardstick, but obviously this will change based on usage patterns and the definition of 'social harm'.


I think this idea has a lot of merit. I am not sure about using alcohol as a cultural yardstick, or perhaps I am assuming too much about how alcohol would be used as the standard.

Do you mean that the harm caused by alcohol should be used as the metric for determination of restrictions?

I wonder if a case by case basis of each drug would make more sense, but I have to think on it some more.
User avatar
By Goranhammer
#15150863
late wrote:I get it, you want the world to be worse.


It'd be better for worthwhile individuals. I have no problem making a shitty life for shitty people if it benefits those who deserve benefit.
By late
#15150872
Goranhammer wrote:
It'd be better for worthwhile individuals. I have no problem making a shitty life for shitty people if it benefits those who deserve benefit.



Sadistic.

@Oxymoron Only the first picture was a transgen[…]

Atheism is Evil

@Potemkin I do not think that moral relativism[…]

Where does Canada get the Biontech/Pfizer, Moder[…]

Undocumented Aliens and Crime

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/17[…]