What drugs do you think should be legal and what drugs should be illegal?
what kinds and what types and should you be albe to grow drugs and what drugs should be albe to make?How old should you be albe to use drugs and grow drugs and make them?
Answers:
I guess this was the right question to ask me today! This isn't something I cut and pased; I wrote it in response to your question. Thanks for asking.
In considering whether a particular substance should not be allowed, or only allowed to certain people or in certain situations (or only in certain places), I think we should think about, and answer honestly, these questions:
1) Is it addictive? Part of the harm of some drugs is their addictive nature, such as the case with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates (heroin, morphine, codeine, and so on), and barbiturates/downers. Other drugs don't share this same quality, including cannabis, LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, and DMT.
Incidentally, the physically-addictive drugs tend to be
"uppers" (like nicotine), "downers" (like alcohol), painkillers (like the opiates), and muscle-relaxers (like many prescription drugs). Many people use these drugs to try to cope with reality by changing their bodies' energy level (up or down) or reducing one's level of awareness. These addictive substances are the principal drugs of cartels, street gangs, pharmacies, and rehab clinics.
The non-addictive ones tend to be entheogenic, or "mind-expanding" substances--drugs used to experience altered perception. There is less "street" value in these substances, since they aren't addictive and are usually used only occasionally. People tend to use them to experience reality more (or just differently), unlike addictive drugs that are used frequently, or even daily, to enable someone to cope with or escape reality.
Non-addictive entheogens ("mind-expanding" substances) tend to be bought and sold more to "get them out" or share them than to make a lot of money, also unlike the "street" drugs. Most of them have many generations of historical use by tribal shamans, mystics, and creative types.
2) Is it harmful to the user? No substance is completely safe to the body. Even oxygen, the most important substance we need for moment-to-moment consciousness, is dangerous in high doses or purity. (In our atmosphere, Nitrogen comprises most of the air we breathe, and oxygen is only a small percentage.) Many of us today routinely eat (legal) food that will eventually kill us or limit our ability to function, such as red meat, fast food, and processed-flour products.
When considering the use of a substance, its short-term and long-term effects on the body are important information to have. The fewer bad effects, the less regulation there should of the substance. We already do this to some degree; for example, nicotine is legal at age 18, while alcohol is only available at age 21, morphine is only available with a doctor's prescription, and methamphetamine is always illegal.
Some substances are currently illegal which have fewer documented ill effects than long-term caffeine or alcohol use, such as cannabis or psilocybin.
3) How potentially harmful is it to others? Anyone can hurt someone else, and some people are more dangerous even without ingesting a drug. For this reason, the typical behavior of an "average" person while on the drug should be considered as the benchmark for answering this question, not the behavior of an extremely emotionally disturbed person (as is often the case today).
The people making these decisions should be medical doctors, not politicians, corporations, or religious leaders.
If a substance renders someone unable to safely operate machinery or drive, I think this should be a situational limitation on an otherwise typically harmless substance, like mescaline.
The drug's addictive (or non-addictive) nature comes into play again here because drug-addicted people tend to be more dangerous to others than most people. If a crack user runs out of crack, he is much more likely to rob someone for money than an LSD user, for example.
There are also at least two more differences to consider here: 1) who is likely to use the substance, and 2) why the person is using it. Question #4 will address these considerations.
4) Who are the primary users of the substance, and why do they use it? People who use Valium to escape reality are largely not the same people who eat "magic mushrooms" to expand or temporarily change their consciousness. Is there a difference between escaping reality and expanding consciousness? Yes, obviously.
This begs the question of whether limiting one demographic group's access to their preferred substance, while allowing another group's access to theirs, is an equitable and fair practice. What if one group generally commits crimes while using a certain drug, and another group's use is hardly noticed because it results in peaceful behavior or even lovingness? I think distinctions should be made here.
Also important is the question of whether the reason for the drug use is itself a healthy state of mind. Perhaps counseling or therapy would help keep some people away from drugs who use them to hide (or hide from) problems or emotions.
This would not, of course, "correct" the mindset of an otherwise healthy but curious person interested in learning by experiencing a substance's effects on the mind and body. Such a person is generally no danger to others and would most likely benefit from the regulation that would normally come from the substance's legal production. This would ensure both quality and quantity of the substance taken--two variables that are impossible to control under drug prohibition.
5) How far removed is the substance from its natural state? In general, the farther removed a substance is from its natural state, the more dangerous it is to the person using it. For example, the leaves of the coca plant are much less harmful and addictive than cocaine, its refined form, or especially its further-refined form of crack.
6) Under what conditions might or might not the substance be used safely? Many substances are relatively safe to use in one's own home. Some make driving a vehicle or using power tools dangerous to oneself or others. A few are dangerous to oneself and/or others when used or (especially) abused under addiction. None are completely safe.
To criminalize a substance or behavior that harms no other person is, in my opinion, legislating a certain religious belief that has little bearing on reality. Simply put, many currently-illegal substances shouldn't be illegal because they aren't addictive and don't cause people to harm others. The only reason they're illegal now is to give power and money to certain government officials and agencies--and to the much-privatized correctional industry and the contractors who build and run its prisons.
7) Why should the use, production, sale, or possession of the substance be punished? If it causes harm to others--causes, not "promotes" or "encourages" or "facilitates"--limit its use. If it doesn't cause harm to others, let freedom ring!
8) I think licensed people or companies should be allowed to produce any legal (after considering the previous seven questions) substance for sale or distribution. I think people should be able to grow any legal plant or fungus for personal consumption or sharing.
In the current state of things, drugs are largely criminalized in order to give power and money to various government and law-enforcement agencies and officials (and to corporations who also benefit from these laws), both in the USA and overseas. The drugs' actual harm or usefulness is largely ignored by many politicians who I think care more about money and power (derived largely from religious interests) than their constituents' personal liberty/freedom and health.
When we grow to the point where we understand that some drug use isn't harmful, other drug use covers problems, and these problems can be fixed or prevented (thus preventing bad drug use), we'll be doing pretty well as a society, I think.
its not us who decided that its the FDA they make schedules that they put drugs according to its harmful and potential for abuse (the drugs that lead to physical and psychological dependent)
go to food and drug administration
www.fda.gov
I believe unless you buy drugs legally which should be safe if you have read the instructions to make sure they are taken wisely,that these are the only drug that anybody should take.They did not make certain drugs illegal to take to make you healthy.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: