All drugs should be legal

Here is rational for you. The state of Oregon automatically takes children from parents who use meth, because it no longer questions that these children will be abused or neglected. It will happen. This determination comes after years of dealing with meth addiction, and observing what it does to human beings and their children. This is not an "emotional" argument, but a matter of fact one.

The rational for making drugs illegal is the same as considering making it illegal to use some plastics for baby bottles. We make substances, including snake oil, illegal when they are proven to harm people and/or lead to criminal behavior. We put glue for making models behind the counter, so it is not easily accessible to children who may inhale it to get high, because it destroys the child's brain. So does LSD destroy a person's brain if used excessively and can lead to immediate death as a result of bad judgment. We set the legal drinking age at 21, because the risk of death of severe injury, resulting from drinking and driving is much higher for those under 21. Personally, I think the cost of alcoholic drinks should cover the cost of harm done because of alcohol, and certainly the cost of rehabilitation.

The biggest danger for older citizens is prescribe drugs, and the cost of these should also cover the cost rehabilitation, so the drug companies are motivated to prevent addiction, when they sell a doctor on prescribing the "medication". Legal "controlled substances" are potentially very dangerous, and we need to be aware of this and ready to take action if a problem does develop.

What life experience do you have to offer that supports your argument?

I am not sure what your argument is exactly. The control of drugs is not the same as making them a criminal activity.Are you telling me that the war against drugs is working and that we have no drug problem by making them illegal? Just look at the figures and you will find that fighting them is highly expensive, twenty times more than any treatment or damage they cause. If you consider how many deaths each drug causes then smoking and drinking rank far higher, so why not ban them with this information and your point of view? How many indirect deaths are caused by drinking and smoking? Making the case even stronger. Why we don't has been adequately proven by Americas prohibition laws and the resulting criminality it caused. Why make criminals out of those who have become addicted to any form addiction?

We all have observed the damage drugs can do but I have seen more damage and deaths because of smoking and alcohol than I have ever seen from cannabis or other illegal drugs. It is emotive subject and personal experiences are interesting but never can they be used to enforce an argument. I saw my uncle cough his lungs up through smoking thirty years ago but cigarettes are still available.

I am going to take the same stance on this subject. if one was to take a drug that could possibly lead to an addiction would they not be harming others? It is not a issue that you are harminjg yourself but others. For example a addiction can lead to many things. One of these things is murder. An addict can and will do things such as theft and violence to get there fix. This is a common story, nobody is special in addiction. If you take the stance that you can put whatever you want in your body you should atleast be aware what it is doing to your surroundings not you.

I am going to take the same stance on this subject. if one was to take a drug that could possibly lead to an addiction would they not be harming others? It is not a issue that you are harminjg yourself but others. For example a addiction can lead to many things. One of these things is murder. An addict can and will do things such as theft and violence to get there fix. This is a common story, nobody is special in addiction. If you take the stance that you can put whatever you want in your body you should atleast be aware what it is doing to your surroundings not you.

So what about alcohol? Do you intend making it illegal for the same reasoning?

I am going to take the same stance on this subject. if one was to take a drug that could possibly lead to an addiction would they not be harming others? It is not a issue that you are harminjg yourself but others. For example a addiction can lead to many things. One of these things is murder. An addict can and will do things such as theft and violence to get there fix. This is a common story, nobody is special in addiction. If you take the stance that you can put whatever you want in your body you should atleast be aware what it is doing to your surroundings not you.

So what about alcohol? Do you intend making it illegal for the same reasoning?

If the soft drugs are legal (pot, alchohol, mushrooms) We can aim to deteriorate hard drug problems. some drugs should be legal some shouldn't. taking away softer drugs into legalization will enable us to work on better treatment and police work.

I am going to take the same stance on this subject. if one was to take a drug that could possibly lead to an addiction would they not be harming others? It is not a issue that you are harminjg yourself but others. For example a addiction can lead to many things. One of these things is murder. An addict can and will do things such as theft and violence to get there fix. This is a common story, nobody is special in addiction. If you take the stance that you can put whatever you want in your body you should atleast be aware what it is doing to your surroundings not you.

So what about alcohol? Do you intend making it illegal for the same reasoning?

If the soft drugs are legal (pot, alchohol, mushrooms) We can aim to deteriorate hard drug problems. some drugs should be legal some shouldn't. taking away softer drugs into legalization will enable us to work on better treatment and police work.

So if someone robs you for alcohol that's OK but not for heroine. Smoking causes more deaths than all the other drugs combined. So how do you decide what drugs are hard and what are soft if tobacco kills the most?

So how do you decide what drugs are hard and what are soft if tobacco kills the most?

Because tobacco does not kill a person quickly. The degeneration of the lungs is a slow process, so much so that a person can quit using tobacco and within several years can be well on the way to total healing (in most cases).

Drugs like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine are powerful substances that have a profound effect on the brain and nervous system.

The answer is common sense. Why is tobacco not considered a hard drug? Because it's not dangerous enough to be a hard drug. Simple.

So how do you decide what drugs are hard and what are soft if tobacco kills the most?

Because tobacco does not kill a person quickly. The degeneration of the lungs is a slow process, so much so that a person can quit using tobacco and within several years can be well on the way to total healing (in most cases).

Drugs like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine are powerful substances that have a profound effect on the brain and nervous system.

The answer is common sense. Why is tobacco not considered a hard drug? Because it's not dangerous enough to be a hard drug. Simple.

Cigarettes are the most addictive and dangerous of all the drugs.I have witnessed ten family and friends die of tobacco. Millions die every year from tobacco use so please do not insult my intelligence.It kills ten times more than all the other drugs combined.

Cigarettes are the most addictive and dangerous of all the drugs.

Most comparisons between psychoactive substances have heroin listed as more addictive. Cigarettes are child's play, really.

Millions die every year from tobacco use so please do not insult my intelligence.

Yes, I never disagreed with that. I said tobacco does not kill people quickly.

It kills ten times more than all the other drugs combined.

That is because more people smoke cigarettes than shoot up.

Cigarettes are the most addictive and dangerous of all the drugs.

Most comparisons between psychoactive substances have heroin listed as more addictive. Cigarettes are child's play, really.

Millions die every year from tobacco use so please do not insult my intelligence.

Yes, I never disagreed with that. I said tobacco does not kill people quickly.

It kills ten times more than all the other drugs combined.

That is because more people smoke cigarettes than shoot up.

Smoke two cigarettes and your hooked for life.So numbers are not important. We will allow tobacco because more smoke than take heroine. It still kills millions and you want to ignore that fact? Sorry but your logic is a bit weird.

Hitler said, had he never managed to give up smoking, he would never have been Fuhrer.

Well it comes down to what is the duty of the State? Is it to keep us safe from things that might harm us even if they coerce on your free will?

If it were as simple as what you say above. I would agree, but it is not that simple. When people put drugs into their system it alters their personaity and functionality. They become impaired. Many times this impairment causes harm to others as in auto accidents. Therefore people who use drugs can and do harm to more than themselves. So I believe taking drugs for recreational purposes should be against the law.

If it were as simple as what you say above. I would agree, but it is not that simple. When people put drugs into their system it alters their personaity and functionality. They become impaired. Many times this impairment causes harm to others as in auto accidents. Therefore people who use drugs can and do harm to more than themselves. So I believe taking drugs for recreational purposes should be against the law.

So do drugs and cigarettes though and we have legalized them. I just don't understand that 1. We only ban SOME drugs but alcohol and cigarettes are fine and 2. What gives the goverment the right to stop a population from putting something in their body willingly.

I personally would not mind the banning of alcohol. It is good that they have made it illegal to drink and drive. That at a minimum is good. As for the general statement that has been made that cigarettes alcohol and drugs are okay to put into your body and no law should ban this behavior. I say, that would in general be fine but once again in a direct manner placing harmful chemicals into your body will eventually cause disease. That disease will need to be treated by medical establishment which will cost us all money and resources to treat, especially if the government gets involved in medical treatment (Obama Care etc.). I could almost be fine with people who abused drugs if they would be forced to pay out of their own pocket for their medical treatment.