The US Governments position on Drugs.

[...Why?]

How can the government rail on innocent and non-harmful drugs such as cannabis and endorse perscription drugs that have ingrediants that can destroy the body?

 

[SHodges]

Prescription drugs can destroy the body when abused, where as most of the illegal drugs destroy the body in one way or another regardless of how they're used. With that said, I agree that making them illegal is just stupid. It contributes to prison over population, it robs us of tax dollars, and gives many drugs a "cool" factor they otherwise wouldnt have, giving plenty of kids a reason to start. If you want to take them because you really want to, great, don't do it because popular prep sue told you to.

 

[...Why?]

Illegal drugs are illegal because after being used as perscription drugs and a few people overdosed and died, they made them illegal. Perscription drugs kill more people than all illegal drugs. Most to the youth today do take drugs because of the cool factor instead of the enlightenment that comes from their uses.

 

[MrFungus420]

The comments about drugs destroying the body, and about people overdosing and dying don't even apply when it comes to marijuana.

Every drug has what's called an "LD-50", Lethal Dose 50%. It is the dosage at which it is lethal to 50% of people. In the case of marijuana (well, THC to be accurate), the LD50 is so high that it is entirely theoretical. The estimated amount to be lethal is about 50,000 times the amount required to get high.

And, any deleterious effects on the body are strictly from inhaling the smoke from the burning of the vegetative material. Other methods of injestion totally eliminate that hazard.

 

[mistermain]

Perscription drugs kill more people than all illegal drugs.

I have a hard time believing that. Can you back it up with a study or facts?

As for the Marijuana debate, this is another issue where my conservative brothers will grill me. I too believe it should be legalized. I have smoked weed and drank alcohol in the past (I do neither now). Aside from killing my ambition, weed was pretty tame. Alcohol, on the other hand, caused my normally calm temper to explode at the drop of a hat. If the government is willing to legalize a drug as powerful as alcohol, how can they validate keeping marijuana illegal?

That being said, marijuana is still illegal, so I do support any punishment handed out to offenders (use or sell). I do not agree with the law, but I do agree we must abide by it.

 

[RecoveringPunk]

Yeah, it has been deemed completely impossible to overdose on Marijuana. You would literally have to gorge yourself eating it to even require a trip to the hospital. Even then, the worst that could theoretically happen is you get your stomach pumped. I have yet to hear a valid argument against the legalization of marijuana that isn't EASILY outweighed by the benefits.

I guess the best way to summarize my opinion on the legalization of drugs in general is this; The goverment's role in society is to protect the population from outside forces, from eachother, and help them when in need. There is no reason the goverment should stop someone from doing something that only affects their own life.

 

[zero18]

How can the government rail on innocent and non-harmful drugs such as cannabis and endorse perscription drugs that have ingrediants that can destroy the body?

Marijuana and hemp were originally made illegal not necessarily because they were dangerous for individuals but because they were dangerous for certain businesses. http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_5.shtml

Corporatism in action.

 

[zero18]

That being said, marijuana is still illegal, so I do support any punishment handed out to offenders (use or sell). I do not agree with the law, but I do agree we must abide by it.

Saying 'Its against the law' is not a moral argument. Would you stand by your quote if we were referring to black people as property during the 19th Century?

 

[mistermain]

Saying 'Its against the law' is not a moral argument. Would you stand by your quote if we were referring to black people as property during the 19th Century?

The answer to your question is that if the law allowed slavery, I would join the fight to repeal it, but I would still abide by it (meaning I wouldn't shoot the slaveowners and free the slaves). Vigilantism is not right under any circumstances.

 

[zero18]

The answer to your question is that if the law allowed slavery, I would join the fight to repeal it, but I would still abide by it (meaning I wouldn't shoot the slaveowners and free the slaves). Vigilantism is not right under any circumstances.

Well I wouldn't shoot the slaveowner either. That would be murder. However, I would indeed help free slaves. Just because they were considered property under the law does not make it absolute.