Poll: If all drugs were legal...

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I would try a few more.

I certainly wouldn't go for anything insane like PCP or Meth. That's just a bad idea.

Normally, I would say more about the topic, but this is the sort of thread that becomes a ban/warning hunting ground all the in the name of "Admitting to illegal practices," so I'm going to say I have never done illegal drugs and never will as I am a proud upstanding member of society who pries himself on being extremely straight edged.

"Strength of the mind rests in sobriety" - Pythagoras

Now that's just silly. Some of the greatest art ever created is a direct result of mind altering substances.

 

[Ickorus]

Nope, same reasons as why I don't smoke, negative health implications.

And I wouldn't smoke cannabis because I don't need to be any more laid back than I already am, people already question whether I'm high or not and I'm certain some still think I am despite my denial.

 

[Yopaz]

I'm not sure how knowledgeable some people are of the rules, but just it's against the rules to admit to taking part in illegal activity so just be careful. Me? I'd never touch the stuff. Honest.

Yeah, this is a good reminder for people. Also a rule that makes discussing drugs kinda difficult. Do you want legalized pot? Yeah, I've never tried it myself, but a friend of a friend of a friend told me it's quite fun.

OT: The closest thing I have come to trying illegal drugs is morphine which I was given because I had to be sent in an ambulance with extreme pains that had kept me awake most of the night and had me screaming in pain. Now to explain the feeling is hard. Everything felt good, life was awesome. I have never felt such euphoria before or after. Because of that I would have to say that I would not take any heavy drugs even if they were legal. That amazing feeling was so good that the world started sucking when it left my system.

Now I am one of those who care about my health and I barely even drink because of the negative effects alcohol has on the body so I guess I am boring.

 

[shootthebandit]

You can drink booze, get wasted, fuck prostitutes and start fights all night but as soon as someone has a spliff or something the whole military core collapses? Why do you eat this bullshit up?

The armed forces are full of people who love getting coked up, pilled up, whatever. Legality would make no difference whatsoever. When it comes to partying the armed forces are worse than students. Young males buzzed up to their tits on testosterone with a steady income and not much opportunity to spend it. Not exactly a recipe for a quiet night in.

I think destroying your life because some of your squadmates tried some speed might be a bit of an over reaction.

Spoken like a true chap talking about something he has barely any knowledge about... Congrats.

Yes... we have army squaddies (I am not army, nor am I a squaddie) who take drugs. And yes, we know how to party. The druggies invariably get caught out... mostly because they are oft coupled with heavy debt, their digs aren't up to standard, their work level decreases and they become disinterested with the service... then they get turfed out.

If we lost the ability to turf out the weak links then the entire services would lose its professional grounding.

I agree most of the RAF guys i know and MOD civilians are great lads. Theres a few i know that have dabbled but overall they are probably the most fun guys to be around. The fact the RAF camps have random drug tests for all employees so its hardly worth risking your career

I agree that drug use should be regulated but being under the influence while driving or at work should be prohibited

 

[Milanezi]

I said "no", but that applies to the rules we have today. You see, if all drugs were legalized we would have an impact on the way society works, in terms of economics and industry most of all, so it's hard to say because, well, it would be another world, so different from today that I dare not choose at all...

For instance, let's mention one of the least (?) damaging dudes, marijuana. My father-in-law is a neurologist, I know not how to go into specifics the way he did, but once I mentioned how I saw no problem with legalizing marijuana, since common cigars are legal and so damn damaging. His answer was unexpected, though he agrees that it is hypocritical, he stated that there is an inherent damage that (abusive use of) marijuana causes and that many people ignore, it has to do with brain cells in a brain area and whatnot: ultimately, it won't kill you, but it will damage your speed for processing your thoughts for good... And that's when I strated thinking about the "funny and constantly anesthetized" manner of speaking of most of my heavily pot headed friends (not the guys who'd do it once in a while, the ones who'd eat it for breakfast if they could).

My point? If everyone exaggerates on a drug that "slows you down" like pot, we would have dramatic changes in many society levels, because, well society is nothing but a pact between the people that comprise it, a pact that comes out of common sense, culture, subconscious et cetera, you guys know the deal. Those changes could be for the worse, better, or even be dramatic but still "keep things as whole the way they already are"; I don't think we would be led to a drug post-apocalypse though, I really can't believe the majority of people using heavier drugs that render you near 100% inoperative (like crack). Point is we adapt, a quick search in wikipedia and you'll see that cocaine was at a given point sold to children, it was advertised like a sort of energetic to keep keep a-buzz at work. Hell, cigarets were meant to keep you younger and was a guarantee of prettier skin, alcohol was prohibited, the world takes some wild turns. Choose your presidents but remember: it's your companies that have all the leverage...

I am sceptical about your father in law's claims. I'm not a pot smoker but I don't think its illegality has much to do with neurology. No doubt, the dutch would have it banned in an instant if that were the case. Also the effect of the drug on what we commoners call "thought" is complicated. Neurology as a field of medical knowledge doesn't really communicate in terms of "thought" as far as I'm aware and if you've been to see one you'll know that if you start talking in those sort of general terms they'll put it into more specific pathological lingo. I think you're right that if it were to become part of a substantial part of the population's lifestyle, we would adjust without any major problems, like the Dutch.

I guess I didn't make myself clear, he didn't say that neurology had to do with the reason why it's illegal, he just clarified that it is indeed damaging to the brain, whereas many users claim it's a drug that is not damaging at all. And I used a very poor word, I shouldn't have used thought, but I must admit I'm short to express the term, as you said thought is a much more "insubstantial element", that's not what he meant at all. What he meant is that it makes you "slow", "cloudy" due to the killing of certain cells and whatnot. Now that's me, trying, in what has proven to be a sad attempt, to pass on his words (which were very well explained, he's one of the best neuros in the country - Brazil); he gets some pretty heavy cases... Heh, there's a funny video on the subject (though not serious), but it's in portuguese otherwise I'd post it here, old lady goes like "They say that pot can become an addiction, heh, I've been smoking for over 40 years, I never miss a day, and I'm still not addicted!" (it's a fake, but very funny hahaha).

Edit: found said video with English subtitles, I repeat, it's a work of fiction

 

[flarty]

...would you use them? So I'm currently in the process of writing an EPQ at school, and I've chosen the topic of drug decriminalisation. This got me thinking about whether or not it would change anything, as in whether drug use would increase. So, would you take recreational drugs if they were legal? If so, what would you use? For me, I'd probably try cannabis, it just sounds like my kind of thing, even though I've never really felt like I've ever needed to enhance my life with drugs. I could probably even try some MDMA or LSD, assuming that I knew exactly what I was taking. What about you guys?

Well the problem is there is already an alternative economy where criminal elements profit off selling unsafe, unregulated adulterated substances. If they were to be legalised, countries would save vast amounts of money immediately from the failing war on drugs. The fact that 15% pollsters say they already take drugs demonstrates if people want to get high they will get their hands on their drug of choice. If regulated properly vast money from taxes would be earned and people given the proper education it would not have a detrimental effect on society and users would have access to proper gear which would be less harmful to their health. Best example i can think of is no one would be taking this shit if their was access to cheap clean heroin http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-krokodil-heroin-arizona-20130927,0,7644763.story

Also something that may help you with your studies
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I said "no", but that applies to the rules we have today. You see, if all drugs were legalized we would have an impact on the way society works, in terms of economics and industry most of all, so it's hard to say because, well, it would be another world, so different from today that I dare not choose at all...

For instance, let's mention one of the least (?) damaging dudes, marijuana. My father-in-law is a neurologist, I know not how to go into specifics the way he did, but once I mentioned how I saw no problem with legalizing marijuana, since common cigars are legal and so damn damaging. His answer was unexpected, though he agrees that it is hypocritical, he stated that there is an inherent damage that (abusive use of) marijuana causes and that many people ignore, it has to do with brain cells in a brain area and whatnot: ultimately, it won't kill you, but it will damage your speed for processing your thoughts for good... And that's when I strated thinking about the "funny and constantly anesthetized" manner of speaking of most of my heavily pot headed friends (not the guys who'd do it once in a while, the ones who'd eat it for breakfast if they could).

My point? If everyone exaggerates on a drug that "slows you down" like pot, we would have dramatic changes in many society levels, because, well society is nothing but a pact between the people that comprise it, a pact that comes out of common sense, culture, subconscious et cetera, you guys know the deal. Those changes could be for the worse, better, or even be dramatic but still "keep things as whole the way they already are"; I don't think we would be led to a drug post-apocalypse though, I really can't believe the majority of people using heavier drugs that render you near 100% inoperative (like crack). Point is we adapt, a quick search in wikipedia and you'll see that cocaine was at a given point sold to children, it was advertised like a sort of energetic to keep keep a-buzz at work. Hell, cigarets were meant to keep you younger and was a guarantee of prettier skin, alcohol was prohibited, the world takes some wild turns. Choose your presidents but remember: it's your companies that have all the leverage...

I am sceptical about your father in law's claims. I'm not a pot smoker but I don't think its illegality has much to do with neurology. No doubt, the dutch would have it banned in an instant if that were the case. Also the effect of the drug on what we commoners call "thought" is complicated. Neurology as a field of medical knowledge doesn't really communicate in terms of "thought" as far as I'm aware and if you've been to see one you'll know that if you start talking in those sort of general terms they'll put it into more specific pathological lingo. I think you're right that if it were to become part of a substantial part of the population's lifestyle, we would adjust without any major problems, like the Dutch.

I guess I didn't make myself clear, he didn't say that neurology had to do with the reason why it's illegal, he just clarified that it is indeed damaging to the brain, whereas many users claim it's a drug that is not damaging at all. And I used a very poor word, I shouldn't have used thought, but I must admit I'm short to express the term, as you said thought is a much more "insubstantial element", that's not what he meant at all. What he meant is that it makes you "slow", "cloudy" due to the killing of certain cells and whatnot. Now that's me, trying, in what has proven to be a sad attempt, to pass on his words (which were very well explained, he's one of the best neuros in the country - Brazil); he gets some pretty heavy cases... Heh, there's a funny video on the subject (though not serious), but it's in portuguese otherwise I'd post it here, old lady goes like "They say that pot can become an addiction, heh, I've been smoking for over 40 years, I never miss a day, and I'm still not addicted!" (it's a fake, but very funny hahaha).

Edit: found said video with English subtitles, I repeat, it's a work of fiction

I think your father in law is making things up. I find it hard to believe that any country would allow a drug that kills brain cells to be sold to the public (Netherlands) and used as a medical treatment (USA). As far as I'm aware the effect is similar to alcohol - causing the release of certain chemicals which have psychological and behavioral effects, and can be abused if used excessively, but don't cause any direct damage to brain tissue.

 

[Mr Fixit]

No I'll stick with the booze, might go for some weed... but after having my lungs burned when I inhaled some acid fumes, yeah smoke of any kind just about kills me.

 

[DugMachine]

edit: Forgot forum rules lol.

If they were legal I would partake in Marijuana and nothing more. Hard drugs are gross and I already use tobacco and alcohol so I have no problem with destroying my body like an idiot

 

[Da Orky Man]

I don't even drink alcohol much, and being on a student budget, I doubt I'd be able to afford them.

 

[FamoFunk]

I'm happy to touch drugs while illegal, so yes, I would use drugs if they were legal.

 

[The Gnome King]

...would you use them? So I'm currently in the process of writing an EPQ at school, and I've chosen the topic of drug decriminalisation. This got me thinking about whether or not it would change anything, as in whether drug use would increase. So, would you take recreational drugs if they were legal? If so, what would you use? For me, I'd probably try cannabis, it just sounds like my kind of thing, even though I've never really felt like I've ever needed to enhance my life with drugs. I could probably even try some MDMA or LSD, assuming that I knew exactly what I was taking. What about you guys?

I think it depends on what drugs you are talking about, and with the realization that people use legal drugs every day, constantly. (And even with some drugs legal, there are certain people who choose to limit their exposure to drugs and eschew even caffeine, for example.)

That having been said, I think that I'd follow the example of the old Colorado hippies I know. They're in their 60's (or older) by now and all have legal medical cards to smoke cannabis - and they do. Smoke cannabis. A lot. And they drink a lot of tea. So, cannabis and tea, probably. Anything harder I've either already tried in my youth and had my fun with and set aside or decided that I never wanted to mess with in the first place - crack cocaine and injectable heroin, to name two. Or that new stuff from Russia that melts your skin off. I'd stay away from that.

So, yeah. Cannabis. And tea. Pretty strong safety record for both of those drugs and I hear they go lovely together.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Or that new stuff from Russia that melts your skin off. I'd stay away from that.

Not to advocate it or anything, but desomorphine is nothing new and it isn't the active ingredient that's the problem. The reason the Russian stuff is so dangerous is that it's being made by amateurs in their kitchens and if done incorrectly the various processes used to synthesise it from codeine leave behind loads of toxic shit. It's the equivalent of Bubba and Cleetus' back alley moonshine, except even more full of unwanted toxic by-products and it's going straight into your bloodstream, unfiltered.

 

[The Gnome King]

Or that new stuff from Russia that melts your skin off. I'd stay away from that.

Not to advocate it or anything, but desomorphine is nothing new and it isn't the active ingredient that's the problem. The reason the Russian stuff is so dangerous is that it's being made by amateurs in their kitchens and if done incorrectly the various processes used to synthesise it from codeine leave behind loads of toxic shit. It's the equivalent of Bubba and Cleetus' back alley moonshine, except even more full of unwanted toxic by-products and it's going straight into your bloodstream, unfiltered.

It's nothing new but it looks that it had a (brief) period of time on the Swiss market before being withdrawn by Roche... the brief, intense high with the short half-life increased likelihood of addiction, etc. And this was the pure form, medically prescribed by doctors. Doubtful that it produced problems injection users would experience like infections, etc., but... still. Utilizing an opioid that was pulled from the market because of the addictive nature seems like a bad idea in any form considering the stuff that we still do have on the market - morphine, oxycodone, methadone - etc.

In other words, even extremely pure heroin or methamphetamine has downsides to its use - though I'd say that in the name of harm reduction it's probably better to have the drugs decriminalized and the users offered treatment. Those who can't/won't kick their drug habits can at least be offered the "least harmful" forms of the drug. Though I've never seen long-term opioid dependence end terribly well, I suppose my experiences there are subjective.

 

[AD-Stu]

It's probably one of those questions where the only real answer is "it depends".

As a general answer though, probably not - and certainly not on a regular basis. Smoking tobacco is 100% legal but I don't do that, and as I've gotten older I don't even drink that much any more. So I can't see myself rushing out to do heavier drugs just because they've been made legal.

Still, never say never, right?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I already smoke weed so the legality there doesn't bother me. However even if harder drugs were legal I still wouldn't touch them because I'm just not interested. Too many of my old friends have fucked themselves over on speed, ice etc.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

It's nothing new but it looks that it had a (brief) period of time on the Swiss market before being withdrawn by Roche... the brief, intense high with the short half-life increased likelihood of addiction, etc. And this was the pure form, medically prescribed by doctors. Doubtful that it produced problems injection users would experience like infections, etc., but... still. Utilizing an opioid that was pulled from the market because of the addictive nature seems like a bad idea in any form considering the stuff that we still do have on the market - morphine, oxycodone, methadone - etc.

In other words, even extremely pure heroin or methamphetamine has downsides to its use - though I'd say that in the name of harm reduction it's probably better to have the drugs decriminalized and the users offered treatment. Those who can't/won't kick their drug habits can at least be offered the "least harmful" forms of the drug. Though I've never seen long-term opioid dependence end terribly well, I suppose my experiences there are subjective.

As I said, not advocating, just pointing out that the "skin melting" is not down to the desomorphine.

And yes, I would wholeheartedly agree with the second paragraph, but add the caveat that the problem in most long term opiate users is that they aren't prescribed what they want, so they keep using street grade heroin on top, even on opiate antagonist drugs it's pretty easy to get round and unfortunately prescribing diamorphine is rare because methadone is cheaper and politically more acceptable.

 

[ShipofFools]

If all drugs where legal, it won't change a thing for me.
I know what drugs I like, and I know witch drugs I won't touch with a ten feet pole.

It would be fun if you can buy a big bag of magic mushrooms in the headshops again, though.

 

[The Gnome King]

And yes, I would wholeheartedly agree with the second paragraph, but add the caveat that the problem in most long term opiate users is that they aren't prescribed what they want, so they keep using street grade heroin on top, even on opiate antagonist drugs it's pretty easy to get round and unfortunately prescribing diamorphine is rare because methadone is cheaper and politically more acceptable.

I don't even think it's prescribed anymore, ever. (Diamorphine, that is.) Nobody manufacturers it, Roche was the last pharmaceutical company to bother with it and that was only in Switzerland.

As for long-term opiate users, I'll have to respectfully disagree. I have several long-term opiate users that are family members or in other ways very close to me, they are wealthy and they get *exactly* what they want from their doctors and... it's still not much of a life. Again, this is my subjective opinion. Doing as much pure, pharmaceutical grade morphine or heroin as you desire if you're an addict is certainly the *least harmful* way to be an addict, though I wouldn't say it's a fantastic life. Especially for the addict. (Though certainly more convenient to society than incarceration.)

Even most heroin addicts who are getting exactly what they want usually won't wax too rhapsodic about their lifestyle, this I've noticed as well. It's generally not something we want for our kids.

Though on the other hand... William Burroughs. He managed to live a fairly productive heroin-fueled life.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

I wouldn't take any more than I do now. I've been safe in my experimentations and know where my shits coming from so I've taken what I've wanted to take and stuck with what I find most pleasurable. I don't find I need to enhance my life but I enjoy the feeling it gives, same reason I'd rather eat buttered toast than plain, shit tastes better.7

Same conversation has come up amongst friends several times (philosophy students, so of course it has) and the general consensus is we're all comfortable where we are with a couple of people wanting to try a hallucinogenic or two and those who haven't wanting to try pot and maybe E. I can abide by all those decisions as being sound, rational and likely to lead to a good or at least interesting time. Bring on the legalisation, watch as the world doesn't spontaneously burn (and starts to get a little brighter in actuality).