should all drugs be legalized?

[antiabort]

What right does the government have to tell me what to do with my own body? I agree with legalization. how bout you people?

[Dimitri]

What right does the government have to tell me what to do with my own body? I agree with legalization. how bout you people?

Well, personally I would disagree with you....NORMAL PEOPLE ARE NOT physicians, ARE NOT nurses, have no idea how to figure dosage and percentages....

Yes, let's make Haldol, a high powered anti-psychotic legal for everyone to use. Let's make morphine legal, something that can impede moral and ethical judgments and surprises the respiratory system....

[kenoloor]

something that can impede moral and ethical judgments and surprises the respiratory system....

Uh, alcohol does that too.

I think that less-harmful drugs, like marijuana, should certainly be legalized. As far as drugs that'LLC really fuck you up, like PCP...I'm not sure. I agree with your basic premise, but I'm not sure that I think 100% of drugs should be legalized.

[deadpie]

Yes, I also agree with the legalization of PCP and Fentanyl. I mean, that's totally fucking logical, right? Hell, they should have sterno in shiny bottles for consumption. What about opening chemist labs in WalMart's where you get to buy the chemicals you want for a reasonable price? Just pick up some Cyanide whenever you want.

/sarcasm

Heh, there's obviously drugs that should be legalized, such as Marijuana. I'd like to say non-harmful hallucinogenics, but there's always that dumb-ass who decides to take mescaline and drive a fucking car. How do you know who's responsible and isn't responsible enough to take psychedelics? That's a big issue.

I definitely think jail-time for drug use is fucking stupid. You've got people who sell pot doing more time then a repeat child rapist. How is that in any fucking way correct? Give the addicts a break. Force them to take treatment or just let them die. If they commit violent crimes, then sure, put them in jail, but if an addict is in his corner shooting his tar into a vein of his dick without harming a single person but himself, let him.

If they're not harming anyone, fuck off. If they're harming someone, then do something. Simple as that.

[antiabort]

If they're not harming anyone, fuck off. If they're harming someone, then do something. Simple as that.

This, fucking this.

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

Uh, alcohol does that too.


I love how people use this argument. If anything, that's a reason to ban alcohol as well, but we already tried that and look how that worked out.

[kenoloor]

I love how people use this argument. If anything, that's a reason to ban alcohol as well, but we already tried that and look how that worked out.

The same thing that happened with alcohol during prohibition is happening now, with drugs. Minus the Mafia, of course.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

hmmm you say "what right does the government have to say what I can do with my body"? Well you're right they have no right to do that but they have every right to be concerned with what you might do to someone else under the influence of the drug. I agree that weed should be legalized, though. One good thing I can see from legalizing and making all drugs available to the public is that we would be forced to remove a few prisoners from prison. We wouldn't have to pay for their food, clothes, and shelter then.

[Jean Poutine]

"Legalize" drugs? Are you kidding?

"Decriminalize" drugs? Yes, of course.

There's a difference.

[Kaius]

As much as i agree no one else can tell you what to do with your own body, its not just you it would affect. If you were to take drugs, get into a car and have a crash it wouldn't just be you getting hurt. Its the same with other common sense things. You could have a bad reaction or a bad trip and harm yourself or someone else. The law is in place for not only your protection but every ones protection and thats how they'll look at it. I don't agree they should be legalized whatever the case.

[Eclipsical]

not all drugs...cocaine, heroin, etc. need to be kept off the streets at all costs...

however, the stigma on weed is ridiculous.

[aperson444]

Legalize all drugs. Then we won't have precursor bans and I won't get arrested for trying to order a few grams of iodine. Seriously people, it's a fucking simple halogen, just because I order a hundred grams doesn't mean I'm sitting in a shed reducing psuedephedrine to meth.

Yes, I also agree with the legalization of PCP and Fentanyl. I mean, that's totally fucking logical, right? Hell, they should have sterno in shiny bottles for consumption. What about opening chemist labs in WalMart's where you get to buy the chemicals you want for a reasonable price? Just pick up some Cyanide whenever you want.


You can buy cyanide very easily. It's also very easy to synthesize from fairly inert chemicals. Many jewelers buy cyanide because cyanide forms a metal complex with gold, thus allowing extraction of gold.

I definitely think jail-time for drug use is fucking stupid. You've got people who sell pot doing more time then a repeat child rapist. How is that in any fucking way correct? Give the addicts a break. Force them to take treatment or just let them die. If they commit violent crimes, then sure, put them in jail, but if an addict is in his corner shooting his tar into a vein of his dick without harming a single person but himself, let him.

This is the part that I have the most problem with concerning prohibition of drugs. I have personal experience too. For selling 0.8 grams of weed in school, you get a class A felony: equal to aggravated assault (assault with great harm) or cases of sexual assault. In other words, selling a little weed at a place where I go every day is about as bad as rape or serious bodily harm to another person.

Yes, let's make Haldol, a high powered anti-psychotic legal for everyone to use. Let's make morphine legal, something that can impede moral and ethical judgments and surprises the respiratory system....

Only the latter has any real recreational use. No one snorts antipsychotics for fun (unless akathesia and zombification is your type of fun). Anyways, prescription medications would remain prescription.

How about this: We legalize all soft drugs outright (for people 18-21+). This means marijuana, MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, 2CX, 5-MeO-DMT and DMT. Licensed stores can sell them so long as a) they do not sell to minors b) their products are certified pure or safe for consumption c) people who are repeat offenders of DUI laws cannot purchase drugs for x period of time. In these days, we've computerized almost everything, so I think that the store should require a scan of the driver's license to check for infractions that might forbid the sales.

For hard drugs like heroin (and most opiates except raw opium/poppy tea perhaps), cocaine, methamphetamine (and most strong stimulants including aminorex and d-amphetamine), fentanyl, PCP (four of which have actual accepted medical uses, thus fall into schedule II), there should be a required prescription. One can obtain this prescription from physicians at addiction clinics or "safe" IV zones (needle exchanges) provided that they submit to treatment. This would still create a black market for hard drugs though, so it might be better to dispense doses at "safe" zones rather than require prescriptions.

So all in all, if you get caught with DUI, you should get harsh penalties. That's unacceptable. If you kill someone while tweaked out, you should be charged with murder, not some stupid drug charge.

It's really a matter of pros and cons. Are you willing to risk sacrificing personal freedoms for a small percentage of drug users who find it troublesome? Are you willing to throw these very people into a very painful, time consuming "justice" system?

I love how people use this argument. If anything, that's a reason to ban alcohol as well, but we already tried that and look how that worked out.

It's not just the fact that alcohol is legal; it's the fact that it's so well tolerated. Either way, alcohol prohibition was a MASSIVE failure that really demonstrates some of the true impacts of illegalization.

Personally, I have no problem with legal heroin or cocaine, but that's probably too much of a stretch for the public. We need to regulate the market and supervise distribution rather than suppress it, because in the end the market will always exist. No matter what the government does, there will always be a plentiful supply of heroin (as an example), Suppressing the market will only make heroin more dangerous (more adulterants, more variable concentration). Suppressing the market will increase the cost of production and distribution and drive the stakes sky high, causing violence for control of the market (any legitimate business strives to increase their profit margin). At the same time, prices for heroin will skyrocket. What will this do? Addicts are going to need more money to buy heroin. People who can sell cheap heroin will get very rich. The demand for heroin is inelastic. People don't just drop their needles and say "Oh shit, the police just busted my dealer, I'm gonna drop my needle and stop until the price goes down". Furthermore, as Ron Paul said (at the RNC 2011), very few of us would go out and buy heroin if it was legal. At the same time, people who DO want those drugs are being penalized for a desire that may very well only be a detriment to themselves. Think economically: If there's a high cost (due to reduced supply), wouldn't that create a shortage in the market and drive prices up? Who wouldn't cash in on a market like that? There are no anti-trust laws in the black market, no corporate taxes, no quality control agencies. Perpetuating this black market by prohibiting the substance is not only stupid, but extremely unethical.

TL;DR Realistically, soft drugs should be legal, hard drugs prescribed, but ideally all drugs should be legal and regulated by quality control and strict guidelines.

[Jean Poutine]

The government can tell people what to do with their bodies because people are too dumb to take care of themselves, hence why not wearing a seatbelt is illegal in certain countries.

The government does, however, need to review its laws concerning how it dictates what people should do with themselves.

The problem with government legalizing drugs is that nobody will ever be happy. If it falls into the private sector, well, we all know what happened with big tobacco. Private companies will dilute and/or find a way for the consumer to buy more than they would. If it falls into public hands, we'll get all the problems associated with government monopolies. It won't eradicate the black market who will cater to people who don't want their spliffs to combust in 0.1 second or who want something different than what the government provides.

I don't know much about drugs. Never taken 'em. Never even drank a single drop of alcohol. I'm content being sober at all times. But I do know what I would do if I were in charge of the justice system :

-I would decriminalize soft drugs. Decriminalizing means that when you get caught, nobody presses charges. That would apply for possession, distribution and fabrication. Soft drugs would not be condoned by my government but they would be illegal on paper only.

-I would outlaw alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol breaks people 100x more than weed does. Cigs are death sticks, period. I've smoked and I still don't understand why people do it. The buzz sucks, it's nasty and it greatly shortens your life expectancy. Oh wait, it's addictive as all get-out. Treatment would be available free of charge for addicts and alcoholics.

Decriminalization is a step towards legalization. You can't go from 0 to 100% overnight. I would set the bar so : decriminalization, then legislation (ie anyone caught with weed is not charged; anyone caught with weed laced with dangerous additives or other bullshit will be charged) THEN, and only then, outright legalization.

[Efflorescence]

I agree with legalization of weed and 'soft' drugs, but when it comes to hard ones, they're too dangerous in my opinion.


-I would outlaw alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol breaks people 100x more than weed does. Cigs are death sticks, period. I've smoked and I still don't understand why people do it. The buzz sucks, it's nasty and it greatly shortens your life expectancy. Oh wait, it's addictive as all get-out. Treatment would be available free of charge for addicts and alcoholics.

Cigarettes should definitely not be outlawed, especially if you're for legalizing weed eventually.

I cannot see why it's such an issue personally. I smoke but I do it because I love the feeling and I feel more relaxed. My intentions are not to kill myself. If I would want to kill myself, there are more effective ways to do it than smoking.

Edit: And alcohol is not an issue if one controls himself. It becomes an issue when one exaggerates and in many things, to exaggerate is never good.

[Jean Poutine]

Cigarettes should definitely not be outlawed, especially if you're for legalizing weed eventually.

Why not? Big tobacco adds stupid amounts of chemical, carcinogenous additives to make their sticks burn faster. They literally poison their consumers to death.

Weed is much less addictive than nicotine. In fact, weed isn't even physically addictive, not to mention there are many more ways to consume it than smoking it.

I cannot see why it's such an issue personally. I smoke but I do it because I love the feeling and I feel more relaxed. My intentions are not to kill myself. If I would want to kill myself, there are more effective ways to do it than smoking.

It's an issue because nicotine is overbearingly, dangerously physically addictive. My mother finally stopped smoking after 5 years of trying to. It's an issue because lung cancer rates skyrocket in smokers. It's an issue because smokers kill others with secondary smoke. It's also an issue because it stinks ass.

Edit: And alcohol is not an issue if one controls himself. It becomes an issue when one exaggerates and in many things, to exaggerate is never good.

Except a very large segment of the population cannot. Alcohol is also dangerously addictive. Alcoholics ruin many more lives than their own.

[aperson444]

The problem with government legalizing drugs is that nobody will ever be happy. If it falls into the private sector, well, we all know what happened with big tobacco. Private companies will dilute and/or find a way for the consumer to buy more than they would. If it falls into public hands, we'll get all the problems associated with government monopolies. It won't eradicate the black market who will cater to people who don't want their spliffs to combust in 0.1 second or who want something different than what the government provides.

You can't grow weed like you can tobacco. Marijuana is not a plantation crop, it requires high nutrient feed, good care, lots of sun and generally does not do well with 1,000 other plants (that's why Mexican brick weed is considered very low-grade). People will grow their own. Keep government as regulation for commercial operations, let people grow their own stuff (including mushrooms and cacti like peyote). It's unlikely that big business will make any money off of cannabis when there are so many talented home growers growing crops that are extremely refined and extremely good quality. These guys are just waiting for the market to go legitimate. When Prop 215 was ratified, many of them began growing for medical coops -- and much of the medicine seen in dispensaries today is grown by very talented growers who can grow maybe 10-20 plants in their home to produce maybe 10 or 20 pounds of really good stuff. Yet they can do this with a fairly low budget. You can't grow tobacco with that low a budget. You can't grow opium with that low a budget. Herbal cannabis is not a viable crop for commericial industry.

Except a very large segment of the population cannot. Alcohol is also dangerously addictive. Alcoholics ruin many more lives than their own.

See this is a really bad argument for drug legalization. What you should mention is the fact that millions use alcohol responsibly, yet it's one of the most addictive and intoxicating substances we know. Can we not expect people to use cannabis responsibly, especially given that it is much less addictive, and much less of a harm to the public than alcohol?

but when it comes to hard ones, they're too dangerous in my opinion.

That's subjective. I know people who have done heroin one night and been able to shake off the crash and go on with their day the next morning. Even heroin has an addiction rate of 15-20%. So what about the other 80-85%? For comparison, addiction to marijuana (which itself is not well defined) is about 5-9% and addiction to nicotine is about 25-30%.

[CaptainObvious]

"Legalize" drugs? Are you kidding?

"Decriminalize" drugs? Yes, of course.

There's a difference.

decriminalization is far, far worse than legalization. with decriminalization, the criminal networks that produce and profit off the drugs retain their central role in production and distribution, meaning that all of the same social problems created by drugs - excessive organized criminal involvement, and all the social ills that come with it - remain. the point of legalization is not just to protect people's liberty to determine what they put in their own bodies, but also to fix the criminal and social problems prohibition creates; decriminalization does not do that, excepting its helping to solve the problem of capricious jail sentences and the social ills that result from that phenomenon.

i support legalization of the vast majority of drugs. we already have laws to deal with the kinds of bad things people might do as a result of being influenced by drugs; we should allow users who do not harm others to use as they please, and utilize existing laws to punish those who do harm.

You can't grow weed like you can tobacco. Marijuana is not a plantation crop, it requires high nutrient feed, good care, lots of sun and generally does not do well with 1,000 other plants (that's why Mexican brick weed is considered very low-grade).

that's not true. to grow high quality marijuana is obviously more time consuming than growing low quality marijuana, but it is absolutely possible to grow quality marijuana on an industrial scale, and that is exactly what happens in canada, as well as some of the west coast us states. the reason why mexican brick weed is so shitty is a combination of the fact that the southern us market is less discerning and has few other choices in many cases, and the fact that brick weed must be smuggled across borders, which requires compacting, and so is quality-impaired to begin with.

[Unique Physique]

I think most drugs should be legalised, but in a slow, gradual process starting with stuff like marijuana first (which should never have been illegal in the first place imo). Not just pass a law tomorrow that legalise it all for a massive free for all, since that would cause problems.

The simple reason is that drug prohibition doesn't work. It creates a business opportunity for criminals and makes drugs more unsafe to consume because there's no legislation regarding what should be going into a drug (or rather.. not) to keep it safe, so you have drug dealers mixing all kinds of shit into it. The so-called 'war on drugs' is a complete failure and does nothing other than soak up valuable police time and public resources and at the same time cost the taxpayer millions per year.

Regarding serious drug problems such as addictions, honestly, it just should be treated as a medical problem like it is. What good does throwing some young junkie in prison, giving him/her a criminal record do to solve the problem? Fuck all, really. There is even a drug problem in UK and US prisons and prison is the perfect place to gain connections with banged up drug dealers.

As much as i agree no one else can tell you what to do with your own body, its not just you it would affect. If you were to take drugs, get into a car and have a crash it wouldn't just be you getting hurt. Its the same with other common sense things. You could have a bad reaction or a bad trip and harm yourself or someone else. The law is in place for not only your protection but every ones protection and thats how they'll look at it. I don't agree they should be legalized whatever the case.
If drugs were legal, what makes you think it would be legal to drive whilst high on whatever substance? It's legal to drink alcohol, but not drive whilst drunk.

Alcohol makes peoples behaviour unpredictable because it lowers ones mental inhibitions, which is why drunk people do all sorts of crazy and dangerous stuff and hurts lots of people every year.. through drunk drivers crashing, fights, drunk people who smash up property, beat their girlfriend/wife, too much alcohol also causes serious health problems, family breakdowns and even mental health problems (i.e. alcohol psychosis (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/289848-overview))

I doubt you think alcohol should be prohibited, though. Not that it would work, alcohol prohibition was an epic fail in the USA back in the 1920s, just like drug prohibition today is.

[Craig1995]

Hmmm okay so I use weed but yeah drugs are illegal for casual use for a reason becaus ether have things that are bad for u even weed has it's dangers It can cause paranoia and even cause schizophrenia with regular use other harder drugs are dangerous in the first place hallucinogenic highs are well known for causing suicides which the person wouldn't have done if they were sober. There is nothing beneficial of using drugs casually apart from getting high so why legalise it.

[Professional Russian]

Im not a believer in drugs and i will never use them so i dont agree with legalization

[kenoloor]

Im not a believer in drugs and i will never use them so i dont agree with legalization

Do you have rationale besides personal prejudice?

[Professional Russian]

No but there are drugs that can kill if use improperly

[StoppingTime]

No but there are drugs that can kill if use improperly

So that means no drugs should be legalized?

[kenoloor]

No but there are drugs that can kill if use improperly

Guns kill people when used properly.

[Professional Russian]

Guns kill people when used properly.

Guns dont kill people people kill people

[StoppingTime]

Guns dont kill people people kill people

;) They wouldn't be able to kill other people without guns.

[kenoloor]

Guns dont kill people people kill people

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/philosoraptor-on-guns-kill-people.jpg

[Professional Russian]

;) They wouldn't be able to kill other people without guns.

You could kill people with a knife or a paper clip or my bare hands there are alot of other ways to kill people

[kenoloor]

No but there are drugs that can kill if use improperly

Guns dont kill people people kill people

Do you notice your inconsistency?

[Professional Russian]

Do you notice your inconsistency?

Yeah i notice most of the time but people change it thanks for getting back on track

[kenoloor]

Yeah i notice most of the time but people change it thanks for getting back on track

Nope; not what I was talking about. Let me try again:

Guns dont kill people people kill people

No but there are drugs that can kill if use improperly

"Drugs don't kill people; people kill people." Your "logic" is inconsistent.

[Professional Russian]

Nope; not what I was talking about. Let me try again:





"Drugs don't kill people; people kill people." Your "logic" is inconsistent.

Yeah i know im not the best at that

[antiabort]

Ya have to be more specific... ever had major surgery without being put to sleep? I hear it's real painful...

That is different... you know what he means by drugs.

[Professional Russian]

No, he said "I'm not a believer in drugs" there are millions of drugs out there...

I ment drugs like crack,cocaine, pot

[aperson444]

I ment drugs like crack,cocaine, pot

Uhhh, the latter doesn't kill people directly. Crack and cocaine, believe it or not, have many users that don't end up dead or addicted. Especially cocaine. Anyways, it's not up to the government to tell people what's safe to do to themselves and what is not, only advise and prevent suppliers from selling sub-standard or faulty product.

that's not true. to grow high quality marijuana is obviously more time consuming than growing low quality marijuana, but it is absolutely possible to grow quality marijuana on an industrial scale, and that is exactly what happens in canada, as well as some of the west coast us states. the reason why mexican brick weed is so shitty is a combination of the fact that the southern us market is less discerning and has few other choices in many cases, and the fact that brick weed must be smuggled across borders, which requires compacting, and so is quality-impaired to begin with.

Canadian commercial operations are starting to lack in quality as well. They are better than Southern product because of indoor growing (outdoor grows in Canada are a pain in the ass due to climate and solar cycles) and male-female separation. The cost is fairly high but the profit margin is HUGE. What I'm saying is that corporate grows of sub-par product will simply not work. The higher grade stuff comes from medium-sized grows (100-400 plants) or individual grows. People will opt for smaller personal grows or will buy higher grade bud from smaller-scale operations. The price of marijuana will go down, but the quality will likely remain the same. The supply will increase and the demand will increase maybe slightly (most marijuana users are already buying on the black or grey market, legalization is unlikely to attract a significant increase in demand). You would have to be asshole lazy to go for sub-par product versus higher quality product. Legalization will also open doors for people to grow their own marijuana. On a small scale, this is relatively cheap and more rewarding than smoking dried grass from some ditchweed farm in Iowa. If growing is not an option, there will probably be a boom in marijuana dispensaries or drug dispensaries in the case of full drug legalization. I doubt that the majority of marijuana users will go for mass-produced product.

[MisterSix]

Uhhh, the latter doesn't kill people directly

Tobacco doesnt either... or AIDS

[aperson444]

We can strongly correlate deaths with tobacco -- this is a direct correlation.

We can make a logical inference that AIDS causes death by infection due to immunosuppression (dead T-cells).

We cannot make a logical inference that marijuana kills (no biochemical pathway, cannabinoid receptors are localized outside of the vital parts of the brain like the medulla/brainstem) nor can we provide consistent evidence for correlation between cannabis and any lethal condition. The best argument in this case would be one with a logical basis (tobacco constricts bronchial airways and increases tumor angiogenesis) and a statistical basis (a very clear and consistent correlation between emphysema and lung cancer and tobacco use).

[ManyPearTree]

If you are referring to illegal substances such as cocaine rather than controlled prescription medications then I would say no to legalization.

A majority of these illegal substances are psychoactive which means that they have the ability to alter brain chemistry. Deaths correlating directly and/or indirectly to the mass abuse of some psychoactive substances eventually
led to their outlawing.

I assume that my logic is correct as because most illegal substances were banned for a reason

[Djentleman]

I think marijuana is probably the safest and most organic thing to be taking.

I recon if they implemented "weed stores" nationwide like they have so many of in California, and made sure that they monitored your use and menial state every visit, then I think it would be alright for it to be legalised. I don't think it has lasting negative effects if consumed responsibly and in small paced quantities.

[kenoloor]

I think marijuana is probably the safest and most organic thing to be taking.

I recon if they implemented "weed stores" nationwide like they have so many of in California, and made sure that they monitored your use and menial state every visit, then I think it would be alright for it to be legalised. I don't think it has lasting negative effects if consumed responsibly and in small paced quantities.

Yes but then people will be bitching about the government not having any right to ration what goes into their bodies.

[CaptainObvious]

Canadian commercial operations are starting to lack in quality as well. They are better than Southern product because of indoor growing (outdoor grows in Canada are a pain in the ass due to climate and solar cycles) and male-female separation. The cost is fairly high but the profit margin is HUGE. What I'm saying is that corporate grows of sub-par product will simply not work. The higher grade stuff comes from medium-sized grows (100-400 plants) or individual grows. People will opt for smaller personal grows or will buy higher grade bud from smaller-scale operations. The price of marijuana will go down, but the quality will likely remain the same. The supply will increase and the demand will increase maybe slightly (most marijuana users are already buying on the black or grey market, legalization is unlikely to attract a significant increase in demand). You would have to be asshole lazy to go for sub-par product versus higher quality product. Legalization will also open doors for people to grow their own marijuana. On a small scale, this is relatively cheap and more rewarding than smoking dried grass from some ditchweed farm in Iowa. If growing is not an option, there will probably be a boom in marijuana dispensaries or drug dispensaries in the case of full drug legalization. I doubt that the majority of marijuana users will go for mass-produced product.

this makes little sense, and you have not provided any evidence for the assertion that large scale grows cannot produce high quality marijuana. the fact that they generally do not does not mean that they cannot. there is no diseconomy of scale that would make it impossible to grow extremely high quality marijuana at operations with thousands of plants. i also think you underestimate how easy it would be for the average person to grow high quality marijuana at home. it requires significant investment in terms of lights, ventilation and a host of other things, as well as significant time and attention.

[aperson444]

this makes little sense, and you have not provided any evidence for the assertion that large scale grows cannot produce high quality marijuana.

Look at the average THC content charts. The vast majority of this stuff is from commercial grows because obviously the industrial scale. The THC content remains at around 5-11% (http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/thc-content/) while average medical grade is 15-22%. The cannabis plant is a very energy-needy plant. It needs at least 500 lumens per sq. ft, but the good quality starts coming at 2000+ lumens/sq ft. While this is easy to fulfill on a small scale with 1-2 HPS lights (400-600 W), it's very difficult to provide on a larger scale. Larger scale operations also tend to take space, water and power at a faster rate than small-scale operations. The only alternative is to move outdoors. But outdoor growing takes even more attention, even more care. The larger scale the operation, the more work is required on each plant. Cannabis is a MAGNET for mites, deer and pests. This is why large scale grows tend to require extensive defense. The problem will persist regardless of legality, so indoor growing is probably the number one choice.

Now back to the original question: Will corporations and large enterprises take control of the market to produce low quality materials? No. My argument was not that they cannot produce really good stuff, but rather that it is unlikely that people will buy lower quality material produced in attempted industrial operations. Certainly some enterprises will do this, but I really doubt that it will get to the point of producing individual joints on a factory bench. That would be left to other firms to take care of.


here is no diseconomy of scale that would make it impossible to grow extremely high quality marijuana at operations with thousands of plants.

There indeed is a diseconomy of scale. Most industries eventually do have some diseconomy of scale. For cannabis the economy of scale is present up to the point of a couple hundred plants. This is for a certain quality and a certain production quota. It's simply not feasible to tend to each plant, look for mites, provide fertilizers and pick out males for 5000 plants. If none of this matters, you produce subpar, even dangerous product -- which will probably be sifted out by regulatory agencies.

i also think you underestimate how easy it would be for the average person to grow high quality marijuana at home. it requires significant investment in terms of lights, ventilation and a host of other things, as well as significant time and attention.

For larger grows, this is certainly the case. The moment you go beyond 10 plants, it takes enormous patience and large amounts of work. For personal use, the operation is limited to probably like 2-6 plants. There are forums like Grasscity and the Growery where people document their operations. There are guidebooks and large communities devoted to growing cannabis. There's even a UNIVERSITY (Oaksterdam) for growing cannabis. The popularity of closet grows with 400 W HPS lights or CFL lighting has skyrocketed. In general, beginners yield anywhere from 7 grams to a few ounces per plant. There are hydroponics stores that will sell everything necessary for under $1500.

In the case of legalization, I would expect the majority of supply to come not from homegrowers (although homegrowers would become much more common), but dedicated growers. People who grow as a career. This falls in the range of the economies of scale where the average total cost begins to drop off and the marginal benefit is increasing rapidly. There are already people like this across the world. In California, medical growers will grow for collectives (watch "Weed Wars", it will give an introduction). This product is not only high quality, but produced in high yield (generally ~1 lb per plant if done right). These people spend 24 hours a day cloning, tending, inspecting, watering, feeding, singing to, harvesting and trimming their plants. Commercial grows will not find dedicated workers like that. They would rather produce their own material -- unless these commercial operations offer insane wages. But in that case, is it not a good thing? Quality is unlikely to go down, but surely price will.

Even if large companies take over, there will still be a population that will refuse to smoke ditch weed. The same applies to almost every drug in a legal market. No one will buy Zantac that makes you puke blood due to impurities. Even if you can buy 10 boxes for $15. No one will buy weed that takes an entire joint to get high and leaves the user with a massive headache, even if you can buy 1 oz pre-rolled for $80. Maybe for cooking, but legalization would probably end up creating a large market for edibles -- that's where corporate grows could come in because edible marijuana need not be good quality. It just needs to be clean and have at least a little active cannabinoid.

[Gaybaby94]

All drugs should be legalized. Drugs have no immeadiately effects on the human body and does not pose a threat. The government has no right to tell me what to do.

[Sor3]

no not all drugs some are just too bad

[Gaybaby94]

If there are bad drugs, why should those be illegal. The government still has not right to dictate what goes in one's body.

[Wesley1369]

i would say marijuana should be legalized. but not cocaine or heroin or anything harder than pot, just because of the more addictive nature of it

[Borxar]

The problem with legalising drugs, which all can cause harmful side-effects or long term damage, is that society would pehaps degrade and become more unsafe. For instance, with it being ok to be "high" the number of road incidents would increase and more people would go to work in a less stable state of mind. Its not a good idea.

[kenoloor]

The problem with legalising drugs, which all can cause harmful side-effects or long term damage, is that society would pehaps degrade and become more unsafe. For instance, with it being ok to be "high" the number of road incidents would increase and more people would go to work in a less stable state of mind. Its not a good idea.

Legalizing drugs =/= legalizing driving under the influence.

[antiabort]

i would say marijuana should be legalized. but not cocaine or heroin or anything harder than pot, just because of the more addictive nature of it

powder Cocaine actually isn't the horrible drug that people make it out to be. Crack cocaine is the bad one.

[Amnesiac]

All drugs should be legalized. Drugs have no immeadiately effects on the human body and does not pose a threat. The government has no right to tell me what to do.

Legalizing drugs =/= legalizing driving under the influence.

If I may (too late, I already am), I'd like to point out a bit of hypocrisy I've realized over the last few days. VT is, indeed, mostly in support of decriminalizing a large range of drugs, from mild to lethal – yet, when it comes to gun control (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=124613), everybody moans about the dangers of weapons and how they need to be restricted to "protect society". There were even people comparing gun ownership to rape and murder. Throughout the thread, a ton of members were making claims about how relaxing gun restrictions is basically "legalizing murder". An overwhelming majority in that thread supported government interference in the gun market. However, when it comes to hardcore drugs, many of which are dangerous substances that can maim and kill, VT's position switches to "less government!" Why?

Anyway, in response to the OP, I believe that adults should be allowed to possess and use any substances which they believe themselves responsible enough to use, and they should have to bear the consequences of said actions if something goes wrong. It's not the government's duty to tell citizens what they can and can't do in their free time, if they're not bothering anybody else. Indeed, the same goes for responsibly using guns. I don't believe in victimless crimes. Most people who use anything dangerous, from drugs to weapons, do it responsibly. It's the ones who actually go around violating the rights of others that should face prosecution.

[Gaybaby94]

Well don't you find the hypocrisy with republicans with abortion and capital punishment? That kind of hypocrisy is disgusting. Anyway, drugs have been proven to be no harm to the human body, only the less severe ones. For people who use that flawed argument, it is the affects of the drug that kills, not the drug it's self. Get my point?

[kenoloor]

Well don't you find the hypocrisy with republicans with abortion and capital punishment? That kind of hypocrisy is disgusting. Anyway, drugs have been proven to be no harm to the human body, only the less severe ones. For people who use that flawed argument, it is the affects of the drug that kills, not the drug it's self. Get my point?

"Drugs don't kill you, you kill you." Your argument is just as flawed.

[Amnesiac]

Well don't you find the hypocrisy with republicans with abortion and capital punishment? That kind of hypocrisy is disgusting. Anyway, drugs have been proven to be no harm to the human body, only the less severe ones. For people who use that flawed argument, it is the affects of the drug that kills, not the drug it's self. Get my point?

I'm not denying the fact that social conservatives are extremely hypocritical. However, I found that thread on the Second Amendment incredibly irritating to read. There was just so much nonsense from both sides. Really, VT has yet to come up with a logical explanation for its support for legalizing everything except guns. It's just blatant hypocrisy.

You can't argue for "societal protection" or "smaller government" only half the time. Doing so defeats the very purpose of those ideologies. I don't believe government should be involved in peoples' lives if it doesn't need to be, and I don't just say that for drugs and LGBT rights, but for guns and the economy as well.

VT spends a lot of time pointing out the hypocrisy of social conservatism, which is good. However, one has to realize when they're doing the same thing with a different issue. Your point about drug use is valid. However, it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. It's a controversial saying, I know, but it's also true. When drugs fall into the wrong hands, they will kill – the same goes for weapons, or volatile chemicals, or cars, or freshly sharpened pencils. Why ban one and then fully legalize the other?

[Church]

Rather than it being completely illegal we should lean to treatment rather than incarceration. Cept marijuana, legalize that.

[Quercus]

I think weed is alright, Iv never smoked it... and dont plan on it, but its no different then alcohol?

A decade ago prohibition started and alcohol was banned... Few years later it was legalized. Same thing will go for weed.

Crack, acid, etc should still be illegal.

[Texas warrior]

my body , my right to [email protected]^k it up in any way I dam well please. btw tv kills your brain faster that weed , look it up. next people will try to make tv illegal.

friend me if you want the right destroy your body and your life.

Warrior out

[shadowhunter320]

I disagree, not all drugs should be legalized. Some of them are illegal for a reason, I do think that drugs that aren't all bad(marijuana,etc...) should be lagalized though.

[Jupiter]

i personally think that they should be legalized.. to a limit, ya know?

[Rayquaza]

I think drugs should stay illegal. I think that smoking should be illegal too. That's my opinion.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using Tapatalk

[Gaybaby94]

I think drugs should stay illegal. I think that smoking should be illegal too. That's my opinion.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using Tapatalk

So single mothers coming home from work can't relax by smoking?
And why should the government control what goes in my body, wether it would be cigs, drugs, or my partners dick.

[danny7]

As deadpie said :
"If they're not harming anyone, fuck off. If they're harming someone, then do something. Simple as that."

-That's so correct. Remember your rights end where mines start, so if it's their own bodies who's the government to tell them not to, unless, it is harming someone else. But anyways, who can monitor if it is harming someone?

[JaoMan]

Would drugs still be fun if they're legal? Isn't drinking more fun before you're 21?

[ManyPearTree]

Would drugs still be fun if they're legal? Isn't drinking more fun before you're 21?

No, and I'd think it would be the same..

[Stronger]

I don't think they should be, that would cause to many issues, and people then have a ticket to get high or whatever and they really can't get in trouble, ya know what I mean

[aperson444]

I don't think they should be, that would causeto many issues, and people then have a ticket to get high or whatever and they really can't get in trouble, ya know what I mean

But what if I like to get high, yet I earn a pretty decent living and pay my taxes? What if I like to come home after work and light up a bowl of weed, slam a ten of heroin, smoke a rock of crack, drop a couple hits of acid, gnaw on a few dried shrooms or down a nice E tablet? Then I wake up next morning and go to work. If some people can't handle it, does that mean I shouldn't be able to do it? Does that mean I should be PENALIZED for it?

[Stronger]

Do you think it should be illegal for all ages or just minors?

All ages, either way people under the influence can do something stupid

[Peace God]

I don't think they should be, that would causeto many issues,
The issues you're probably thinking of already happen.

and people then have a ticket to get high or whatever and they really can't get in trouble, ya know what I mean
Yeah, and? That's essentially the point of legalizing something.

[Spook]

I disagree with you as well. I think that the laws are set there to protect people from both themselves- and more importantly, others. There have been many situations in which someone or many people have gotten hurt- as drugs can cause hallucinations that can often end up in violence. And as said above, driving.

Summary: The laws aren't there to tell you what decisions to make with your body, they are there to protect other people from those decisions.

[Stronger]

The issues you're probably thinking of already happen.


Yeah, and? That's essentially the point of legalizing something.

Nevermind I think I completely worded my post wrong

[aperson444]

I disagree with you as well. I think that the laws are set there to protect people from both themselves- and more importantly, others. There have been many situations in which someone or many people have gotten hurt- as drugs can cause hallucinations that can often end up in violence. And as said above, driving.

Yea, but then why not charge someone with a crime if they actually do that crime. For drugs, you can be charge for "Possession with intent to distribute", but if you have a ski mask, a gun, a map of a bank and a police scanner, you can't be charged with "Possession of weapons/paraphernalia with intent to commit armed robbery". Furthermore, a very small percentage actually do stupid things while high. Those people are generally stupid to begin with. If you drive while high, then let the police charge you with DUI. If you kill someone while coked out, let them charge you with murder. But for heaven's sake, don't put people in jail for having, using, selling or manufacturing a drug. That's like arresting a car dealer for selling a car to someone who drove drunk in that car and killed a bunch of people. Hell, I think stupid people driving cause more problems than stupid people who are high. Drug laws ruin LIVES... 100% of the time. But drugs ruin lives.... Maybe 20-30% of the time (addiction rate to heroin is about 20-25%, to cocaine about 10-15%, to nicotine it's 30%). If I want to sell drugs to a responsible individual, and that individual does something absolutely stupid while intoxicated, it's not my fault. No one should get in my business for that. The user should face 100% blame. Not the drug, not the dealer. If you don't have the brain to use drugs responsibly, you shouldn't use them. This is a simple message people. Even the alcohol industry promotes it ("Drink responsibly").

These laws might actually cause more harm than the drugs themselves. Incarceration can lead to unemployment. Kids who get caught with drugs get expelled/arrested regardless of academic merit. Illegalization drives prices up and forces addicts to rob and steal to get their drugs. Illegalization puts casual users in harm's way. Illegalization drives an entire market underground with no quality control. Illegalization puts non-users at risk of being exposed to criminal entities, violence, even dangerous accidents. At the same time, we're PAYING people to keep this stuff illegal. It costs a lot. Billions of dollars. We're not saving ANY public health costs by doing this. Drug use has not decreased and criminal elements are only getting richer. The harder we crack down on drugs, the harder criminals will crack down on normal citizens.

I don't want the government spending precious tax dollars on a futile effort to "win" the war on drugs. I want government money to go to treatment and increased education funding so people either learn to stay away from drugs or use them responsibly. I want people who don't use responsibly to be penalized for foolishness rather than the drug itself. I want people who don't have the willpower to stand out against dependence to get cheap, subsidized treatment and rehabilitation. I want at-risk children to get good education -- not propaganda. I want to open the horizons for communities in impoverished conditions. I don't want my government putting the very people they try to help (and other otherwise law-abiding citizens) for drug offenses. I want to be able to smoke a joint on my porch without getting arrested. I want to be able to grow my own plants without having the entire SWAT team bust down my door. I want to drop acid, eat mushrooms and trip in the privacy of my own home. I want researchers to be able to explore uses for drugs without having to deal with a biased drug control agency. I want political barriers blocking paths to treatments involving cannabis, LSD, MDMA and psilocybin lifted.

This sounds like too much to ask for.

Is it really? Is it really possible to control something that's been part of human nature for.... 10,000 years? :what:

[Peace God]

Obama needa hurry up and legalize this shit for a brotha. This pathetic man, they got this shit in the hands of some shady bitch ass dealers that stay on some skimp bag sellin shit, talkin bout "dis some blueberry kush" knowin damn well that shit aint no damn blueberry kush. They always fucking late too. One time a nigga told me he'd meet me at 4... mothafucka meant April. -___- Smfh.

[Texas warrior]

Only post if you can give reasons for and against it, Its to keep people with tunnel vision, like me sapphire, out of the thread.

[kenoloor]

Its to keep people with tunnel vision, like me sapphire, out of the thread.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[embers]

Thread merged with the already existing one.

[DerBear]

I like the laws the way they are.... its just simple for me as I have no intrest in these drugs that are illegal, if someone wants to get high visit a dealler....However I like knowing that some arse who is on drugs wont ram into the back of me when he gets behind the wheel and cant focus correctly...sure this can happen without any drugs but usually drugs have something to do with it

[Mortal Coil]

There are some drugs that should be legalized, but administration to another person should be illegal or restricted, for instance, to medically trained pros.

[Texas warrior]

doh!!!

[fire and water]

I wouldn't say all drugs, no. Cannabis ect, maybe.

[Brookie Ugene Wagner]

I think all drugs should stay illegal, because I don't see the point in making something legal that ruins your body, that's also why I think cigarets should be illegal as well, because it has the same effects on our body causing many cancerous diseases. Although I also think that if we make it legal maybe they will go crazy for like a year than get tired of having that leisure and be done with that freedom although with drugs it's tricky, because it's addictive.

[aperson444]

I think all drugs should stay illegal, because I don't see the point in making something legal that ruins your body, that's also why I think cigarets should be illegal as well, because it has the same effects on our body causing many cancerous diseases. Although I also think that if we make it legal maybe they will go crazy for like a year than get tired of having that leisure and be done with that freedom although with drugs it's tricky, because it's addictive.

lolwut?

Some drugs like shrooms (psilocybin), marijuana and even MDMA and Ketamine are of interest medically and illegality gets in the way of research. Furthermore, going to jail for drugs is far worse for your body -- and your mind -- than the drug itself. Getting in legal trouble sucks you dry and voids you from many benefits and opportunities. If you're not hurting anyone and you're doing fine in your work-life, then why should you go to jail for using a substance to relax or enjoy?

[Brookie Ugene Wagner]

The only reason these drugs should be used would be for medical use, but truthfully if you hadn't used the drugs in the first place your body would be healthier, and a stronger immune system. These drugs kill you nerve cells, and defect others causing cancerous diseases. Therefore I believe only for medical reasons should you use these drugs, because these drugs ruin your body inside even if you don't see it on the outside.

[kenoloor]

The only reason these drugs should be used would be for medical use, but truthfully if you hadn't used the drugs in the first place your body would be healthier, and a stronger immune system. These drugs kill you nerve cells, and defect others causing cancerous diseases. Therefore I believe only for medical reasons should you use these drugs, because these drugs ruin your body inside even if you don't see it on the outside.

You still haven't answered the argument, "what if someone uses these substances to relax and they're not hurting anyone?" You're suggesting that the government knows what's best for you, so they should enforce that "knowledge" with severe penalties. It's like the government slapping a big ol' fine on you for not eating enough vegetables.

[Genghis Khan]

Or we could just... not do drugs? Just a thought.

[kenoloor]

Or we could just... not do drugs? Just a thought.

If I don't do drugs, then I won't feel badass anymore.

[Genghis Khan]

If I don't do drugs, then I won't feel badass anymore.

If I don't do drugs how will I tell all my friends I've seen different perceptions and connected with the universe because I'm that awesome.

[kenoloor]

If I don't do drugs how will I tell all my friends I've seen different perceptions and connected with the universe because I'm that awesome.

Yeah man. But in all seriousness, for real, legitimately, in reality here, yeah, asking people to stop doing drugs is a joke. It'll never(ish) happen.

[Genghis Khan]

Yeah man. But in all seriousness, for real, legitimately, in reality here, yeah, asking people to stop doing drugs is a joke. It'll never(ish) happen.

Obviously it won't, it's just the more sensible thing to do. Rather than this bullshit stupid hurr we have alcohol and cigarettes why can't we get high too life sucks durr.

[kenoloor]

Obviously it won't, it's just the more sensible thing to do. Rather than this bullshit stupid hurr we have alcohol and cigarettes why can't we get high too life sucks durr.

Well yeah. I feel like we had this exact conversation a couple weeks ago on Skype...legalizing this shit is essentially a non-issue right now, and will most likely continue to be so for awhile now.

[Bath]

I'm a total hippie on this sort of thing... I think OUR bodies should be in completely OUR control. I think we should have the right whether we do drugs, have abortions, harm ourselves, or kill ourselves. I know they're not all good things but I don't think the law should have any position on these things.

My opinion's willing to change but that's the way it's been for the past 3 years because it makes the most sense to me.

[kenoloor]

I'm a total hippie on this sort of thing... I think OUR bodies should be in completely OUR control. I think we should have the right whether we do drugs, have abortions, harm ourselves, or kill ourselves. I know they're not all good things but I don't think the law should have any position on these things.

My opinion's willing to change but that's the way it's been for the past 3 years because it makes the most sense to me.

Unless you're hurting other living humans in the process, yes I agree. However, as I said before, there are more pertinent issues than this, and I'm not going to go campaigning for legalization of weed because it's such a non-issue at this point.

[Brookie Ugene Wagner]

I think to legalize these drugs would be an awful idea, because of how much it effects your body on the inside...you may not see how much it effects you but it effects you a lot inside your body. It ruins your vital organs, and your nervous system, but I guess it isn't my choice and as long as it doesn't effect me I don't care what the crap people do I just don't agree with it.

[kenoloor]

I think to legalize these drugs would be an awful idea, because of how much it effects your body on the inside...you may not see how much it effects you but it effects you a lot inside your body. It ruins your vital organs, and your nervous system,

Then don't do them. Simply saying "it's bad for you" is not an acceptable reason to make/keep something illegal. In excess, just about everything is bad for you.

[Genghis Khan]

I think to legalize these drugs would be an awful idea, because of how much it effects your body on the inside...you may not see how much it effects you but it effects you a lot inside your body. It ruins your vital organs, and your nervous system, but I guess it isn't my choice and as long as it doesn't effect me I don't care what the crap people do I just don't agree with it.

So? A lot of things are bad for you. Fast food is terrible for your health.