Why the War on Drugs needs to end

[Nellerin]

I think it is fairly common knowledge now that the War on Drugs in the US has been a complete failure especially when it comes to Marijuana. Between 1973 (formation of the DEA) and now, the so-called War on Drugs has been a complete disaster of a policy.

The majority of its rhetoric has been aimed at Marijuana (which completely baffles and confuses me) and since the campaign began, an outstanding $1 trillion has been used to "fight" drugs.

Now, it has indeed been a global effort, but the majority of the anti-Drug work in the War on Drugs has been done by the US. Why the US did not learn from the Alcohol Prohibition, I cannot figure out.

When it comes down to it, a large percentage of the campaigns money has been put into fighting Marijuana (which is safer than CAFFEINE) and has done almost nothing but increase crime rates.

If there is a need for something, there will be a source supplying it. Instead of putting drugs into the hands of pharmacies or regular stores, the Government choses to push all drugs including Weed into the hands of less-than-reputable Drug Dealers.

These dealers create insane amounts of violence directly leading to thousands upon thousands of deaths. Not to mention the fact that the US underground drug market is worth more than $10 billion, and worldwide it is worth $400 billion.

All of this money (approx. 1% of the worlds GDP) could be pumped into developing countries and do way more good than having it go into brutal drug dealers and cartels.

So what do all of you think? What should the laws surrounding drugs (Marijuana and others as well) be in the US/World, and should the War on Drugs immediately be stopped?

[Cicero]

It should be allowed. If it doesn't hurt or harm anyone else, then you should be able to make the choice yourself. It's your body and you should do what you want with it, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. They should also make marijuana legal and should place restrictions on it like you must be 18 and you cannot drive under the influence of marijuana. Marijuana has never killed a single person, yet cigarettes and alcohol has killed hundreds of millions, either from DUI or liver failure or lung cancer. Marijuana can actually help people with breathing (by using a vaporizer) cause it acts as a steroid and helps to relax the lungs, therefor, making it easier to breathe. Kinda like what inhalers do. Not the actually smoking of marijuana, but using a vaporizer. Because when you smoke, burnt parts of the weed and such goes into your lungs (which still makes it not even close to as harmful as cigarettes), whereas with a vaporizer it's the actual, pure form of the THC.

[Nellerin]

It should be allowed. If it doesn't hurt or harm anyone else, then you should be able to make the choice yourself. It's your body and you should do what you want with it, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. They should also make marijuana legal and should place restrictions on it like you must be 18 and you cannot drive under the influence of marijuana. Marijuana has never killed a single person, yet cigarettes and alcohol has killed hundreds of millions, either from DUI or liver failure or lung cancer. Marijuana can actually help people with breathing (by using a vaporizer) cause it acts as a steroid and helps to relax the lungs, therefor, making it easier to breathe. Kinda like what inhalers do. Not the actually smoking of marijuana, but using a vaporizer. Because when you smoke, burnt parts of the weed and such goes into your lungs (which still makes it not even close to as harmful as cigarettes), whereas with a vaporizer it's the actual, pure form of the THC.

Ya I agree with all of that. They should put strong restrictions on using any of these drugs in public and driving while under their influence.

In my opinion, marijuana should be allowed where ever cigarettes are allowed.

Other (harmful) drugs should only be used inside or in specific designated areas, like with alcohol, you cannot use it just walking down the street.

[Abyssal Echo]

It should be allowed. If it doesn't hurt or harm anyone else, then you should be able to make the choice yourself. It's your body and you should do what you want with it, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. They should also make marijuana legal and should place restrictions on it like you must be 18 and you cannot drive under the influence of marijuana. Marijuana has never killed a single person, yet cigarettes and alcohol has killed hundreds of millions, either from DUI or liver failure or lung cancer. Marijuana can actually help people with breathing (by using a vaporizer) cause it acts as a steroid and helps to relax the lungs, therefor, making it easier to breathe. Kinda like what inhalers do. Not the actually smoking of marijuana, but using a vaporizer. Because when you smoke, burnt parts of the weed and such goes into your lungs (which still makes it not even close to as harmful as cigarettes), whereas with a vaporizer it's the actual, pure form of the THC.

Ya I agree with all of that. They should put strong restrictions on using any of these drugs in public and driving while under their influence.

In my opinion, marijuana should be allowed where ever cigarettes are allowed.

Other (harmful) drugs should only be used inside or in specific designated areas, like with alcohol, you cannot use it just walking down the street.

I agree with both of you. personally I don't know why the U.S. hasn't allowed shops like over in Amsterdam where you can smoke weed instead of spending millions to try and stop it.

[Ryhanna]

I agree that weed needs to be legalised. Obviously the reasons supporting weed legalisation have already been stated in this thread, but it is quite safe. You could easily argue that sugar causes more health problems than weed.

However, I'm not sure about the idea of letting more harmful drugs be sold legally. Granted, the choice whether or not to use any drug is an individuals decision, but is it right to allow people easy access to harmful substances when we are able to prove that they are dangerous?

Of course, anyone who wants to use these drugs badly enough will always be able to get them through the black market, but is it irresponsible of the government to allow these drugs to be sold legally?

[Nellerin]

However, I'm not sure about the idea of letting more harmful drugs be sold legally. Granted, the choice whether or not to use any drug is an individuals decision, but is it right to allow people easy access to harmful substances when we are able to prove that they are dangerous?

Of course, anyone who wants to use these drugs badly enough will always be able to get them through the black market, but is it irresponsible of the government to allow these drugs to be sold legally?

Personally I do not like the thought of doing something like legalizing Meth and selling it at Wal-Mart, it just doesn't seem right.

However, the argument that could be made for legalizing hard drugs is probably like this:

By legalizing hard drugs, you can guarantee a "safer" version of the drug. For example, just like Weed is not very harmful, drug dealers can lace it and make it very harmful.

And, things like cocaine are 10x worse when messed with and laced with other substances. So you are at least guaranteeing that someone "gets what they paid for."

Granted, that is a fairly weak argument for legalizing hard drugs, so I do not think we should worry about legalizing more than Marijuana for the time being.

My main issue right now is that teenagers are getting arrested for simply possession of Marijuana and then they have an arrest that haunts them on their permanent record for ever. That is just plain wrong.

[MrMundane]

Weed should have the same laws as alcohol, the money funneled into the war on drugs never atcually comes back to the tax payers who fund it. I believe that we should legalize everything as some countries have done because it is a personal liberty. Yes they may be terrible for you but the consumption of the drug decreases when you legalize it. It also cuts off funding for the black market and keeps money inside the us intead of peru or where ever.

[Nellerin]

Weed should have the same laws as alcohol, the money funneled into the war on drugs never atcually comes back to the tax payers who fund it. I believe that we should legalize everything as some countries have done because it is a personal liberty. Yes they may be terrible for you but the consumption of the drug decreases when you legalize it. It also cuts off funding for the black market and keeps money inside the us intead of peru or where ever.

Money wouldn't really stay in the US though. You can't grow these crops easily in the United States so they are being imported into the US.

And they are mainly still going to come from Paraguay, Mexico and Columbia whether they are legal or illegal.

[Ryhanna]

Personally I do not like the thought of doing something like legalizing Meth and selling it at Wal-Mart, it just doesn't seem right.

However, the argument that could be made for legalizing hard drugs is probably like this:

By legalizing hard drugs, you can guarantee a "safer" version of the drug. For example, just like Weed is not very harmful, drug dealers can lace it and make it very harmful.

And, things like cocaine are 10x worse when messed with and laced with other substances. So you are at least guaranteeing that someone "gets what they paid for."

Granted, that is a fairly weak argument for legalizing hard drugs, so I do not think we should worry about legalizing more than Marijuana for the time being.

My main issue right now is that teenagers are getting arrested for simply possession of Marijuana and then they have an arrest that haunts them on their permanent record for ever. That is just plain wrong.

That's a valid reason for legalising hard drugs. 'Slightly safer' is better than black market variety drugs, where you can't be sure what you're paying for. It also takes away a lot of black market business, which is beneficial. Bringing hard drugs to the mainstream still seems a disturbing, though.

Marijuana needs to be legalised, I agree. There's no point in pretending that weed is extremely dangerous anymore. Not only have multiple studies proven that it is a very safe drug, but marijuana use is becoming quite commercial. Artists like Bob Marley have always been poster advocates for marijuana legalisation, but with the internet, it's far easier to see that many celebrities are regular weed users. Celebrities have a lot of influence.

Jump on to Rihanna or Lady Gaga's twitter profile, and you'll find numerous pictures of them smoking weed, or at least referencing it. Jennifer Lawrence was 'caught' smoking weed just last week. These are three big and very influential figures. When their fans see them smoking weed, they're going to figure that it's okay.

[workingatperfect]

Money wouldn't really stay in the US though. You can't grow these crops easily in the United States so they are being imported into the US.

And they are mainly still going to come from Paraguay, Mexico and Columbia whether they are legal or illegal.

You can't easily grow pot in the US? Bullshit. It may be better from other places, but it's easy to grow it here, trust me. I've done it. And once you get foreign strains, you can grow them here.

Even if it is being imported, a lot of profit is still being made from processing, packaging, marketing, and everything else. More money will be coming in than going out.

[Nellerin]

You can't easily grow pot in the US? Bullshit. It may be better from other places, but it's easy to grow it here, trust me. I've done it. And once you get foreign strains, you can grow them here.

Even if it is being imported, a lot of profit is still being made from processing, packaging, marketing, and everything else. More money will be coming in than going out.

I wasn't talking about pot, I was talking about cocaine and poppy plants for heroin mainly.

Everyone knows you can grow pot here :yes:

[Atonement]

I think I would be fine with the ban on "drugs" if the ban covered all drugs, not just selected ones. I think the double-standard of tobacco and alcohol is what bugs me the most. Clearly, it has ruined plenty of lives, but remains legal. Why? Because it's widespread.

I agree that it's a policy failure and could be handled a different way. Specifically in America, we are allowed to become obese smoking alcoholics but can't have a joint. I think that's where I find a certain hypocrisy.

[Nellerin]

I think I would be fine with the ban on "drugs" if the ban covered all drugs, not just selected ones. I think the double-standard of tobacco and alcohol is what bugs me the most. Clearly, it has ruined plenty of lives, but remains legal. Why? Because it's widespread.


Recent reports show that 20% of adults have smoked marijuana in the last year, and 20% have smoked cigarettes.

It is not an issue of cigs being more widespread at all. Instead, companies would lose tons of money (these companies influence the government) because their drugs would not be needed, since Marijuana has hundreds of medical uses.

Marijuana is also better than trees for attaining paper, and it can be used for clothes and tons of other things.

Once again, clothing and paper manufacturers influenced the government to stop allowing cannabis because most of it was being imported and the money was not in the US paper mills anymore.

As you see when looking at the history of Marijuana laws in the US, the first law REQUIRED people to grow it, and then time and time again, everytime that the Gov. sees a necessary reason to have it, they make it legal for a short time.

Then they use propaganda (fear that the communists would "weaken" the nation but having us smoke weed was one piece of old propaganda, and then still until today they have Marijuana listed as a "controlled substance with NO medicinal value" which is 100% false) to say "no we were wrong, it is actually BAD once again."

It all comes down to money especially since more people have tried marijuana in their lives than they have tried cigarettes.

Cigs are just harder to justify now (since they kills thousands of people every year) but rather than give up cigs, the Gov taxes them more.

Makes MORE sense to legalize cocaine than it does to keep cigs legal.

[Human]

Before I answer, I don't take any kind of drug like marijuana or cocaine or anything.
I agree with you, the war on drugs has only stimulated demand for drugs, and because of it cartels can run and make billions.
I think most 'soft' drugs such as marijuana and ones used privately by the military such as amphetamines should be legalized, and regulated.

[Gigablue]

Fairly safe drugs like marijuana should be legalized and regulated like alcohol or tobacco. That way, the government can tax it and make a lot of money, instead of wasting it trying to arrest people.

For more dangerous drugs, legalizing them might not be the best idea, but we should at least decriminalize posession, and spend the money going after the drug dealers, not the users.

[Naue]

I totally disagree with this thread.

Weed isn't 100% safe, darlings sort it out.

Furthermore, the trillion dollars that could have gone into developing countries might have had a negative impact. Giving a bomb load of aid isn't always brilliant, these countries need to develop naturally like ours did all those years ago.

Wouldn't the world be wonderful if we were walking around in a country full of stoned people, reliant on drugs to enhance their lives. Personally, I'm happy with my life without taking anything.

Don't give the argument that Weed is herbal or natural, arsenic is natural. As are volcanoes, as are earthquakes. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe for us to use.

Chemically, pure Weed is a lot worse for us than Tobacco due to its chemical composition. The fact you're smoking it means that you're releasing hydrocarbons into your lungs. The fact you hold the smoke for longer to feel it's effect means that the carcinogen has longer to act upon your tissues.

Maybe this is my opinion, based on where I live and my upbringing. I don't hate drug users, I just wouldn't want that substance inside of me.

[TheBigUnit]

When it comes down to it, a large percentage of the campaigns money has been put into fighting Marijuana (which is safer than CAFFEINE) and has done almost nothing but increase crime rates.


But about 30 times more carcinogenic than cigarettes, according to my bio teacher at least

I agree with what your saying about weed, as for other drugs no way shape or form should they be legal. period.

[Nellerin]

But about 30 times more carcinogenic than cigarettes, according to my bio teacher at least

I agree with what your saying about weed, as for other drugs no way shape or form should they be legal. period.

You bio teacher was wrong, do not listen to him/her apparently haha. That is just plain wrong

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20051017/pot-smoke-less-carcinogenic-than-tobacco

That is why weed smoke has never and will never cause cancer. The smoke is far less carcinogenic than cigs are.

If it were the other way around, people would be getting cancer all the time from weed, but no one ever has.

[TheBigUnit]

You bio teacher was wrong, do not listen to him/her apparently haha. That is just plain wrong

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20051017/pot-smoke-less-carcinogenic-than-tobacco

That is why weed smoke has never and will never cause cancer. The smoke is far less carcinogenic than cigs are.

If it were the other way around, people would be getting cancer all the time from weed, but no one ever has.

You obviously didn't read the article, smoking weed is pretty carcinogenic, cigs have at least a filter, pot is straight up smoke....with thc

[Nellerin]

You obviously didn't read the article, smoking weed is pretty carcinogenic, cigs have at least a filter, pot is straight up smoke....with thc

Did you not read the article lol. Quote from article...

"Research shows that nicotine and THC act on related pathways in the body, but they bind to different receptors to activate these pathways. For example, Melamede says the cells of the lungs are lined with nicotine receptors but do not appear to contain receptors for THC.

He says that may explain why marijuana use has not been linked to lung cancer as cigarette smoking has."

And...

"cancer-promoting effects of these ingredients is increased by the tobacco in nicotine and reduced by the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in cannabis."

and...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

Quote from that

"The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer."

and...

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

[TheBigUnit]

Did you not read the article lol. Quote from article...

"Research shows that nicotine and THC act on related pathways in the body, but they bind to different receptors to activate these pathways. For example, Melamede says the cells of the lungs are lined with nicotine receptors but do not appear to contain receptors for THC.

He says that may explain why marijuana use has not been linked to lung cancer as cigarette smoking has."

And...

"cancer-promoting effects of these ingredients is increased by the tobacco in nicotine and reduced by the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in cannabis."

and...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

Quote from that

"The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer."

and...

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Listen man I don't time for all this, besides all your quotes are still theories and under study


That is why weed smoke has never and will never cause cancer. The smoke is far less carcinogenic than cigs are.

If it were the other way around, people would be getting cancer all the time from weed, but no one ever has.

Your own article said this......
"But researchers warn that even if THC lessens the effects of these cancer-causing ingredients, cannabis smoke remains carcinogenic."

[Sir Suomi]

Marijuana (which is safer than CAFFEINE) ]=

http://visual.ly/10-most-common-health-side-effects-using-marijuana

http://www.evaluationtoday.com/news_medical_marijuana_sideeffects.html

http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-947-MARIJUANA.aspx?activeIngredientId=947&activeIngredientName=MARIJUANA

Really?

[Nellerin]

listen man i don't time for all this, besides all your quotes are still theories and under study



your own article said this......
"but researchers warn that even if thc lessens the effects of these cancer-causing ingredients, cannabis smoke remains carcinogenic."

who cares if it is carcinogenic, it has never caused cancer in thousands of years.

[Nellerin]

http://visual.ly/10-most-common-health-side-effects-using-marijuana

http://www.evaluationtoday.com/news_medical_marijuana_sideeffects.html

http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-947-MARIJUANA.aspx?activeIngredientId=947&activeIngredientName=MARIJUANA

Really?

Link 1 - No scientific research or citations just a random chart that a random person made.

Link 2 - Says this in the article "And according to a Harvard University study², marijuana can benefit lung cancer patients by cutting lung cancer tumor growth in half." yet you want to say it is bad?

Link 3 - Not sure what the importance of this link was

So once again, weed cannot kill you, weed helps you. Want to say otherwise, show me one person that has ever died from it...... oh wait, you can't. :yeah:

[Gigablue]

Weed isn't 100% safe, darlings sort it out.

No one said it was. Alcohol isn't 100% safe either, and yet it's legal. As long as people understand the risks associated, they should be able to use it if they want,

Furthermore, the trillion dollars that could have gone into developing countries might have had a negative impact. Giving a bomb load of aid isn't always brilliant, these countries need to develop naturally like ours did all those years ago.

It could have done plenty of good if it had been spent properly, namely on education and infrastructure in developing countries. Letting them develop on their own isn't the best method. It would lead to plenty of unnecessary suffering.

Wouldn't the world be wonderful if we were walking around in a country full of stoned people, reliant on drugs to enhance their lives. Personally, I'm happy with my life without taking anything.

No one is saying everyone should use marijuana, just that people should be able to if they want to. I woukdntnuse it even if it were legal, but I don't really care if someone else does.

Don't give the argument that Weed is herbal or natural, arsenic is natural. As are volcanoes, as are earthquakes. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe for us to use.

Another straw man. It's not that it's safe because its natural. It just happens to be natural and also relatively safe. The fact that its natural is irrelevant.

Chemically, pure Weed is a lot worse for us than Tobacco due to its chemical composition. The fact you're smoking it means that you're releasing hydrocarbons into your lungs. The fact you hold the smoke for longer to feel it's effect means that the carcinogen has longer to act upon your tissues.

Smoking isn't the only way to use marijuana. As long as it entres the body somehow the effects will be felt. Also, people don't smoke anywhere near as much marijuana as they do tobacco.

[MrMundane]

I don't agree with the extremely heavy drugs such as cocaine or meth but consumption can never be stopped so making sure that less accidents happen with drugs is the next best thing. As for weed, people need to do some creditable research for once and not just believe everything they hear. Find out for yourself and make your decision based on what you find, stop all this crap about how something is bad if you don't actually know for yourself.