It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

5 Shocking Reasons to End the Drug War (And Consider Legalization and Regulation)

page: 2
29
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
If we do legalize currently illegal drugs

we should also make all prescription drugs

over the counter.

It is such a waste of my time to go to the Dr. when I know I have a UTI or sinus infection and need an antibiotic.

ALL drugs should be over the counter, if you think the illegal drugs should be legal.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Interesting thought process.

What are the numbers for people getting prescribed medication and the numbers for people on drugs?
edit on 10/21/2014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
We all have choices in life. Drugs are against the law is getting high worth more then your freedom?

I've seen a lot of lives ruined from addiction. I don't think it's wise to send a message to our youth that it is ok to do drugs by legalizing them.

I've been drug free for 20 years and I'm still living with the consequences from doing drugs when I was a teenager.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: wantsome

Has the drug war prevent any drug use?

Is it better to guide this person out of addiction or to Incarcerate them?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
If we do legalize currently illegal drugs

we should also make all prescription drugs over the counter. It is such a waste of my time to go to the Dr. when I know I have a UTI or sinus infection and need an antibiotic. ALL drugs should be over the counter, if you think the illegal drugs should be legal.


Well, one thing is for certain, if we end the War on Drugs a lot less people are going to be arrested for possessing prescription meds without said prescription and that's okay by me. But yeah, I don't necessarily see one having the ability to purchase say... Zoloft at the local 7-11 but I am willing to bet that if the War was ended there would be hundreds of businesses opening up to cater to those individuals that were in the mind of purchasing drugs. Basically, like it is now in Colorado with the MJ dispenseries. I don't think that it would be necessary to have a prescription to purchase them, that's the point of ending the War, they're legal, but what would be the point of going and buying something like AIDS medication or something similar, if you didn't have the disease associated with the medication. So I see no problem.

You walk in, say, "I wan't Codeine." they give you the drug you pay for it and the economy benefits. A legitimate business transaction just occured on the open market as opposed to the black market. That's a good thing.

kallisti



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

So your suggesting we also redefine the word drugs and change our perspective on what our idea of a perspectiption medication and a drug is?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

Glad to see you agree with me.

I think most prescription drugs should be over the counter legal, as why would anyone take the vast majority except for the condition they need them for.

If illegal drugs that affect the brain are legalized, then all drugs, including Prozac, Xanax, and Hydrocodone should also be legal over the counter.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: wantsome
We all have choices in life. Drugs are against the law is getting high worth more then your freedom?

I've seen a lot of lives ruined from addiction. I don't think it's wise to send a message to our youth that it is ok to do drugs by legalizing them.

I've been drug free for 20 years and I'm still living with the consequences from doing drugs when I was a teenager.



a reply to: wantsome

Has the drug war prevent any drug use?

Is it better to guide this person out of addiction or to Incarcerate them?


Still, it should be MY decision. I understand that drugs ruin families. I spent a year and a half in foster care because my mom and dad were alcoholics and meth addicts on and off through the years, so I didn't live with them most of my life. They're both clean now but that is not the point of ending the War, it is about freedom and personal liberty, that's what you don't seem to get. And like onequestion said, is it better to rehabilitate or incarcerate? Under current policies people are being imprisoned for just possessing narcotics, some of them go to jail for a very long time (a consequence that is most detrimental to that individuals family) some of them are run through the ringer of probation and parole, a system that is CLEARLY built to fail. If we stop arresting and imprisoning non-violent drug offenders then maybe we can start focusing on getting them the help that they need.

Addressing your point about making drugs seem okay to the younger generation, first you have to understand the psychology of an adolescent mind, more often than not that individual is looking to establish his/her personality and one of the ways this usually manifests is through the act of Rebellion, going against the "norms" to establish oneself as a specific, individual entity, even if that means drinking, smoking or doing drugs. Often times these acts will lead to the formation of cliques and kids of like-mind bond together. By removing the stigma and taboo of drug use you thereby remove its usefulness as a tool for rebellion. Many kids will likely still do drugs, current policies haven't stopped that at all, we owe it to our society to at least try and fix things.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: wantsome

Has the drug war prevent any drug use?

Is it better to guide this person out of addiction or to Incarcerate them?
There are plenty of people that clean their act up because they don't want to go to jail. In some cases yes it is better to lock people up for some it's the only way to quit before they end up dead.
edit on 21-10-2014 by wantsome because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

So your suggesting we also redefine the word drugs and change our perspective on what our idea of a perspectiption medication and a drug is?


Not necessarily, what I'm suggesting is that we simply remove the taboo. I suppose that with time we will redefine our understanding of what a "drug" is though. Shamans have been using "drugs" for centuries to attain a higher state of mind in which they believe thay are actually "with the gods" who is to say that they are not just tripping on ayahuasca or fly amanita and that they actually are in contact with their "gods"? Is that not a benefit, even if these gods are just imaginations?
edit on Cpm4Tuesday4820140731Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:48:07 -05002014 by CagliostroTheGreat because: cannot abide a typo/ eta



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: wantsome

Has the drug war prevent any drug use?

Is it better to guide this person out of addiction or to Incarcerate them?
There are plenty of people that clean their act up because they don't want to go to jail. In some cases yes it is better to lock people up for some it's the only way to quit before they end up dead.


But what you are essentially saying is that someone should have the right to lock up someone else because they use a drug and that it is best to confine that person in that person's best interest? My point is this: who the hell decided that someone else should make decisions for ME? EVEN IF that means I am going to eventually kill myself using? NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT! but... thats just my opinion, I guess if you are okay with locking people up against their will then fine. But I am dead set against it.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: wantsome

Has the drug war prevent any drug use?

Is it better to guide this person out of addiction or to Incarcerate them?
There are plenty of people that clean their act up because they don't want to go to jail. In some cases yes it is better to lock people up for some it's the only way to quit before they end up dead.


But what you are essentially saying is that someone should have the right to lock up someone else because they use a drug and that it is best to confine that person in that person's best interest? My point is this: who the hell decided that someone else should make decisions for ME? EVEN IF that means I am going to eventually kill myself using? NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT! but... thats just my opinion, I guess if you are okay with locking people up against their will then fine. But I am dead set against it.
So what your saying is if someone is hitting their self in the head with a hammer it's better to let them kill thier self then take the hammer away because it's their choice right?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: wantsome

Has the drug war prevent any drug use?

Is it better to guide this person out of addiction or to Incarcerate them?
There are plenty of people that clean their act up because they don't want to go to jail. In some cases yes it is better to lock people up for some it's the only way to quit before they end up dead.


But what you are essentially saying is that someone should have the right to lock up someone else because they use a drug and that it is best to confine that person in that person's best interest? My point is this: who the hell decided that someone else should make decisions for ME? EVEN IF that means I am going to eventually kill myself using? NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT! but... thats just my opinion, I guess if you are okay with locking people up against their will then fine. But I am dead set against it.
So what your saying is if someone is hitting their self in the head with a hammer it's better to let them kill thier self then take the hammer away because it's their choice right?


Well, now we're de-railing a bit, but yeah, if they are going far enough to beat themselves to death with a hammer that is their choice. There must be a reason for. I know if I wanted to kill myself, I wouldn't want anyone to interfere but this thread is about ending the Drug War not "right to die".
edit on Cpm4Tuesday4020145031Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:40:50 -05002014 by CagliostroTheGreat because: cannot abide a typo



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: wantsome

Has the drug war prevent any drug use?

Is it better to guide this person out of addiction or to Incarcerate them?
There are plenty of people that clean their act up because they don't want to go to jail. In some cases yes it is better to lock people up for some it's the only way to quit before they end up dead.


But what you are essentially saying is that someone should have the right to lock up someone else because they use a drug and that it is best to confine that person in that person's best interest? My point is this: who the hell decided that someone else should make decisions for ME? EVEN IF that means I am going to eventually kill myself using? NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT! but... thats just my opinion, I guess if you are okay with locking people up against their will then fine. But I am dead set against it.
So what your saying is if someone is hitting their self in the head with a hammer it's better to let them kill thier self then take the hammer away because it's their choice right?


Well, now were de-railing a bit, but yeah, if they are going far enough to beat themselves to death with a hammer that is their choice. There must be a reason for. I know if I wanted to kill myself, I wouldn't want anyone to interfere but this thread is abou ending the Drug War not "right to die".
My comment wasn't made to be taken literally it was a analogy.
edit on 21-10-2014 by wantsome because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2014 by wantsome because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: wantsome

Has the drug war prevent any drug use?

Is it better to guide this person out of addiction or to Incarcerate them?
There are plenty of people that clean their act up because they don't want to go to jail. In some cases yes it is better to lock people up for some it's the only way to quit before they end up dead.


But what you are essentially saying is that someone should have the right to lock up someone else because they use a drug and that it is best to confine that person in that person's best interest? My point is this: who the hell decided that someone else should make decisions for ME? EVEN IF that means I am going to eventually kill myself using? NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT! but... thats just my opinion, I guess if you are okay with locking people up against their will then fine. But I am dead set against it.
So what your saying is if someone is hitting their self in the head with a hammer it's better to let them kill thier self then take the hammer away because it's their choice right?


Well, now were de-railing a bit, but yeah, if they are going far enough to beat themselves to death with a hammer that is their choice. There must be a reason for. I know if I wanted to kill myself, I wouldn't want anyone to interfere but this thread is abou ending the Drug War not "right to die".
My comment wasn't made to be taken literally it was a analogy.


obviously, not that my point is any less valid.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

I'll add that the analogy about saving people from themselves is valid, as long as we're talking about the temporary psychosis that is driving the suicide by hammer rather than a sober decision to end suffering.

With drugs, that works only if all the illegal substances ARE detrimental... and if used in moderation and knowledge, they certainly are not all "bad."

And the question about saving people from themselves is a loaded one ... one where blanket pronouncements are ludicrous.

In fact, Judges, people we entrust to make wise decisions, are left out of most drug cases due to reactionary automatic sentencing from legislators regarding drugs.

The lives ruined from drug prohibition far exceed lives ruined from drug abuse... and if that statement is not true, then how's that prohibition working?
edit on 10/21/2014 by Baddogma because: clarity



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Every single drugs should be legalized and somewhat controlled.

Warning labels with internet links that go into details like, the effect, secondary effects, health concerns, videos of users explaining the good and the bad of the drug.

The people have a right to choose what they do to themselves and they have the right to know exactly what are the concerns.

Add on top of this the legalization of prostitution and we just erased 80-90% of black markets, street gangs, mafia, bikers and the CIA's revenues...including what's already been said about the incarceration system, that's exactly why the "war on drugs" won't be stopped.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

Saving people from themselves is a very condescending attitude, patriarchal , overlording, and being a sort of slave master.

One that totalitarian and facist governments hold.

The attitude that I know better than you do how to run your life is patriarchal and treats adults like children who have to be taken care of.

Those over 21 are adults and should be treated by adults. If they screw up their lives, they have to live with the consequences.

It is a 1984 "big brother" liberal who wants to control every thing for everyone because only they know what is best for you, regardless of if it is or not.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

So your suggesting we also redefine the word drugs and change our perspective on what our idea of a prescription medication and a drug is?


A "drug" frequently has pharmaceutical purposes and many of them are used as prescription medications.

Having to obtain a prescription to get a medication is another form of infantilism of the general population making them dependent on "people who know better than they do."

I lived in Europe for 6 years. There you could go to a drug store, where "prescription" drugs were kept behind a counter. You could explain what you wanted and why you wanted it. The pharmacist then let you have it or explained why it was inappropriate in your situation.

We once were in a village when my friends son had a bad allergic reaction (on his skin) to a bee stings there was a drug store very close by, we went there, the pharmacist gave my friend the correct medication and her son was fine. She even went in a got a little extra to keep on hand. No rushing to the ER and a huge medical bill for a little medication that took care of the problem in less than 30 minutes.

If we decriminalized over the counter sales of prescription drugs in the US it would save a ton of money and wasted time in MD offices.

I have to see my MD every year, whether I want to or need to or not, to get refills on medications I have been taking for years. The worst is, 2 of them are skin creams, why the h--l do I need to waste a Dr. precious time and my money to see a MD for skin cream?

The disclaimers and side effects given to patients should be enough to absolve the drug companies of responsibility if an adult should take it incorrectly.





There is only one medication I take that I should see a physician for regularly, and that should be my choice, blood pressure. I can take my own blood pressure and know if I need to see a Dr again or not.

"Drugs" and "Medicine" are one in the same, both can do a great deal of harm, and the vast majority can do a great deal of good if properly used. Those adults who abuse have only themselves to blame and the rest of society owes them no paternalism if they abuse.

If you make "drugs" over the counter, then all prescription medications should also be allowed over the counter. There is absolutely no difference.

As a matter of fact "drugs" do not always have potential benefits and only bad side effects, whereas prescription medicines at least always have potential benefits if taken properly.

If you allow an adult to purchase crystal meth over the counter, why not an antibiotic or a skin cream for rosacea? You can not allow crystal meth with no redeeming qualities to be over the counter and then say that a skin cream for rosacea is too harmful to be over the counter.




edit on 9Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:18:36 -0500pm102110pmk212 by grandmakdw because: clarity



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: nugget1


The 'Drug War' is very lucrative, employing THOUSANDS. It keeps the economy from total collapse, and rakes in more government money than taxes do.
If it ever ended, the amount of unemployed people would be staggering. I don't see it ever happening.


Are you being sarcastic?

Yes there are thousands employed for the war on drugs and guess what, if it becomes legal, there are going to be other job opportunities opening up. That's what happens when one thing is replaced with another. Different jobs will open up, sure it won't be in the same field but it will still balance out at the end.

By the way, cops will still have jobs even if they aren't busting people for drugs.

No the war on drugs isn't keeping the economy from collapse and legalizing it wouldn't make it collapse either. There would be money being pumped into the system still. It's again just a different form but still cash will be coming in. Look at Colorado and how much money they are getting on marijuana. Their economy isn't tanking.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join