Thank you for the silly image but thats not what this is about. please debate properly.

I do not approve of strong drug use (caffeine is about the only substance I know I ingest a lot of, but it can be hard to avoid), I don't drink, Smoke .etc, but for the sake of others, I'd like to see it taxed, monitored and controlled so that people who do use the substances don't abuse it and screw themselves up. It's the SAFEST thing to do.

I wonder how many people get into trouble as a result of the illegal nature of these substances.

I would prefer that nobody used them at all, but we all know that's a practical impossibility.

At least taxed, a lot of money could be pumped into other social projects like education and healthcare, not to mention money saved getting rid of drug cops and removing pot smokers from prisons.

I don't like it, but legality is a good thing.

If you aren't going to debate, then don't comment.

Please stick to the topic at hand. If you are struggling with the definitions of words here please use google.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drugs
Please see 1b and 3 and debate properly here.

you were whining and complaining. not debating.
last time i checked, UMS and UHS and YOUS are not used in a proper debate.
Im sorry you cant see things clearly.
Try studying some proper debate techniques and join in this weeks debate.

If your really that bothered you can walk away, especially if you're not going to debate or learn to debate properly.

Alrightie, i understand you are still having a problem accepting the rules this is: WARNING #1

If i hear anymore sas outta you, boy, then youre on the block list.

Now please, move along.

How are we defining drugs? Are we talking recreational drugs, including natural herbs? Synthetically produced substances that are injested for medical reasons or recreationally? Substances that can be or are frequently abused?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drugs
Please see 1b and 3

Have drugs got a bad name from the supporters or the anti-supporters? Do you believe that abusing any substance is harmful? Do the benefits outweigh the risks or is it vice versa? Should drugs be legalized with no holds bar, taxed, or kept banned outright?

Drugs have received a bad name due to the rather extreme side-effects. Even medicinal drugs can cause a lot of harm if used in the wrong situation. Some of these drugs have such bad side effects that they have been limited, taxed, and sometimes banned outright. These are grouped into hard drugs, which cause severe addiction, and soft drugs, does not cause bodily addiction.

Hard drugs such as strong amphetamines, cocaine, and opioids are severely addictive, and have harmful effects to the body, sometimes lethal. This debate isn't over the personal effects though. The problem with hard drugs is generally how a person addicted to these drugs will act in society. The addiction becomes as strong a need as thirst and hunger according to psychopharmacologist Ronald K. Siegel. Addicts that cannot control the usage of these drugs will lose their job or monetary support, and often resort to illegal activities in order to fulfill their drive. those illegal activities affect society, such as murder and theft. Nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol are under the category of hard drugs, but since the harmful effects of them are less harmful to society (and lol, prohibition) the government has opted to tax and limit the usage instead of banning. People who smoke cigars or need coffee in the morning are less likely to mug a random pedestrian in order to support their addiction than people who inject with heroin.

Soft drugs include Barbiturates and cannibis. These are non-physically addictive, though evidence points to some psychological and social addiction. These are the most common in "recreational drug use," a philosophy in drug use that is meant to legitimize the usage. Don't be "high" during activities that require focus, do it at home, basically minimizing the effects of utilizing these soft drugs on society. Cannabis has the greatest amount of debate concerning this subject. successful people have admitting to smoking marijuana, and recently has gained medicinal legalization. there seems to be little adverse effects to smoking cannibis when in a controlled enviroment as the recreational drug use philosophy promotes. This is very similar to smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol, which are safe when consumed in a controlled enviroment. There are those who dislike cannabis for very similar reasons that some people dislike smoking or drinking alcohol. So perhaps there should be legalization of marijuana, as long as it is under the same restrictions, including a tax and limitation. DUI laws still apply, and so would public smoking in non-smoking zones. Non-responsible usage would be discouraged.

To summarize, hard drugs are highly addictive, and many increase the chance of being detrimental to society. The drugs in which addiction cannot be controlled are banned, and rightfully so. Soft drugs that are not addictive, should have more inquiry into legalization with taxes and limitations. If alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are available, then perhaps a drug such as marijuana should receive some acceptance.

WARNING #1: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING COURSE LANGUAGE
IF YOU CONTINUE, YOU WILL RECEIVE A BLOCK
REVIEW THE RULES AND PLAY NICE

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drugs
Please see 1b and 3 and debate properly here.

Im going to assume this means drugs like pot and others. Im very much 4/20 friendly, because i actually know the facts about pot. I know it causes almost 0 deaths, has almost no negative side effects, and at the very worst makes you lazy and hungry. As opposed to alcohol which causes hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from over consumption, drunk driving, domestic abuse, liver disease and other cancers and general stupidity. Ive always been against the bullcrap lies of the above the influence campaign as well. They are nothing but an organization that puts stigmas on pot, stereotypes the people who use pot, and gives an unwarranted sense of self righteousness and holier than thou attitudes to the ignorant teenagers who follow it. Not to mention their obviously false "statistics" and purposeful misinformation directed at stupid parents so they donate lots of money. Now on the other hand i am very much in favor of getting rid of hard drugs like pcp and heroine and crack, because those have obvious negative consequences that are detrimental to our society. Now on terms of hallucinogens like lsd and mushrooms im on the fence with since i really dont know much about them other than they make you go batty. I personally dont use them but i really dont see the issue with doing so. Though apparently lsd does have proven negative effects on the brain and overuse could fry it.

Any evidence of false statistics and organizations? A name or something would suffice, because you may have been following a stereotype of people against pot without evidence. You also say obvious a lot, as if the debate is common knowledge. There would be no debate if it were common knowledge, so please treat it as a serious subject. Also, alcohol causes 75,000 deaths per year in the USA, which is the government regulation that is being refered to, not hundreds of thousands, which sounds like the purposeful misinformation you are referring to.

To be clear, I am not debating against opinion, but your method of debate.

Above the influence posts many falsities in their ads, mainly by making people think they are some how better people and better than others just for the choice not to smoke pot. That is indeed very misleading, antagonizing, and false. If you want the proof for that, simply watch one of their ads, they all have the same feel of moral superiority and condescending pandering while at the same time providing zero facts. And i do debate this as common knowledge as it should be common knowledge and sometimes i do forget there are large numbers of people still controlled by the propaganda machines that have been creating a false reality. And when i read it i saw 750,000 on the alcohol thing, so yea, that was a misreading on my part, zeros all blend together with me. (need glasses) As for following stereotypes, i base them on the people i interact with both online and in person, where they get their opinions, and the groups that found those opinions, and by my experience, these people tend to be self righteous, rude, holier than thou people who think they are somehow better than everyone else because of their loud ignorance of a harmless plant. So thanks for letting me clarify my position better.

Welcome, and remember to support your arguments next time :3 because you really must assume the person listening has zero information on the subject. Build your stance on that ideal, and you will have a successful debate.

Actually, a lot of facts about marijuana are common knowledge, if the over 90% of Americans who have tried pot and the knowledge they have counts as common.

But disinformation campaigns, like the ones run by Above The Influence and the federal government, tell outright lies, exaggerate the truth, and plainly- try to use scare tactics instead of facts to prevent people from trying drugs. When people believe the lies, debates happen.
I am NOT, let me repeat, NOT in favor of children using drugs, in any form other than medicinal (and even then, I think kids could stand to be less medicated in general) but if you want a child to make correct choices, it should start with honest information. Lying makes them distrust anything you would have to say. When a company is willing to lie about one thing, all of their information should come into question.

For instance, Above the influence claims that smoking marijuana will make you shoot yourself in the head,(no one has ever died because of Marijuana) lose all will to continue with your daily life and be unproductive(1), put friends and family at risk of death and other such outright lies(again, no one has ever died of marijuana).

There is absolutely no evidence to support this, a lot of evidence to the contrary. And despite the government accountability office finding evidence that anti-drug campaigns aimed at teenagers are actually -counter-productive.(2)

(1)http://bleacherreport.com/articles/.....sports-history
(1)http://coedmagazine.com/2011/12/26/.....-who-admit-it/

(2)http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06818.pdf
Evidence of false statements: http://norml.org/library/item/your-.....bout-marijuana
Oh, and a big one- the FDA announced (on April 20th) a few years ago that Marijuana was bereft of any medicinal applications. Even the most anti-drug advocate has to admit that marijuana DOES have medical uses, but apparently, not our government.

http://coedmagazine.com/2011/12/26/.....-who-admit-it/ Corrected link

Also the prescription drug industry is sickening. Based on experience with medical science (i often would watch my mom work at experimental hospitals like UCSF) i can attest that it is a fact that the drug industry has much more mind on profit than actually curing anything. Look at diabetes for example; the disease was cured in the 90s at stanford university by their departments and big pharma refused to release it because it would not make enough money. The prescription drug industry gets its money from sales to hospitals and pharmacies and the like and since diabetes is a very large money maker a cure would most likely cause a dip in profits over the long term. These companies also (i would think purposefully) release these drugs knowing they cause side effects that are often worse than the illness they are meant to treat. (death being a big one, for things even as minor as skin conditions.) And of course this leads to people buying more drugs to combat the side effects and turning in a large and costly loop. Which is why im more in favor of holistic medicine, which often times, works far better than the pills millions buy. I know many doctors say holistic medicine is bullshit, but i cannot trust them while they are still pawns of the pharmaceutical industry. Of course they are going to say holistic is bullshit, they work for the opposition. And in my experience, holistic has worked immensely better than the other stuff. Now for the things like broken bones or brain surgery, of course modern medicine is the way to go, but when it comes to illness, holistic medicine is the only way for me.

I think that pharmaceutical companies are probably ditching remedies to more low profile diseases to create more income for funding of research into more dangerous diseases e.g. cancer, rather than that they are caring more about profit than helping the people, which in the end is true to an extent and is what it comes down to in any successful business.

Then where is all the donation money going? And if they deny a cure of a more common disease in place of funding for others then it is just as immoral as ditching them for profit. The pharmacies shouldnt be for profit, it detracts from progress, adds to corruption, and hurts the people. Knowing them they would probably ditch cancer cures too since chemo is a huge money maker for them.

The FDA shouldn't be thinking of itself as a "business". At least in my opinion

Can I just point out, I think the question Beneficial or Harmful is probably meant to be vague as a way of opening up a wider range subjects under drugs to debate about which is the point of this group. I think it's also obvious the question did well to provoke so many long comments.

Nice point! A debate that provides the most amount of discussion would be one with the most amount of participation and varied opinions :3

You are very correct!

Hard topic to tackle But I'll throw my two cents into my first debate with you furs :3
what I dont get and for the few moments that I've thought about it, those that have medical marijuana cards and abuse its use for the sole reason to get high. Then there becomes an issue like, is everyone else doing that? Maybe there is some beneficial medical practices with it, but for the majority, when there's an opportunity for exploitation most people take it. So that's a problem i see, i guess ^^"

Some drugs are worse than others. There are definitely drugs that need to stay illegal like heroin, meth or cocaine. Did you know that you can die the first time you use it? There are softer drugs like marijuana for example. It's not healthy, obviously, but it won't hurt you like the other drugs I mentioned. And yes, i believe in the gateway theory. It's not true with everyone, but it does occur. You see, sometimes a marijuana user will feel like the effects of weed are not strong enough, so they decide to 'kick it up a notch' but switching to more powerful drugs. Most of the negative effects of it are longterm, while the other drugs can affect you right away. We have seen that marijuana can be used as treatment for cancer and glaucoma. Weed could be legalized, but be careful if you ever have to vote on it.
Pros:
-Drug cartels would go out of business
-The crime rate would go down.
-More cancer patients can be treated.
Cons:
-Increased car accident rate (driving while high)
-The possibility of harder drugs being legalized.
-Some people consider using marijuana to be immoral, so that could cause conflict.

In summary, I think that it should be legalized, but regulated. I'll never do it, because I tried it once and didn't like it. I don't like being intoxicated.

And it's not a matter of "wanting more". It's a matter of getting bored with the effects of the drug and moving on to more stronger drugs.

You can't compare beer to milk. They're two completely different substances.

Here's another possibility that might be more convincing: The marijuana user might get used to the effects of marijuana. The user might simply stop using drugs altogether, or move up to the harder drugs. You may not believe me, but it happens all the time. Saying that something like that never happens is close-minded.

I disagree in that if you know drug dealers and people who smoke pot you are more likely to be offered something else. As for will weed MAKE you want to do coke... no.

One more thing: I don't see "it makes me feel good" or "it's fun" as a legitimate reason to legalize any drug. Some people think rape is fun, and it makes them feel good, but there's no way in he'll that will ever be legalized...and no, I'm not comparing the two. I'm just saying, indulgence is not always a good thing.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. It is a neutral thing, that can be good or bad based upon a multitude of factors, many of which have to do more with the person than the drug.

REMINDER: PLEASE REVIEW THE RULES BEFORE COMMENTING. I HAVE ALREADY HAD TO HIDE MANY COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE NOT DEBATING PROPERLY AND SIMPLY ARGUING.

ALSO, PLEASE NO FOWL LANGUAGE HERE. THERE ARE MINORS ON THIS SITE AND THE USE OF COURSE LANGUAGE DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS MORE RIGHT; IT ONLY SHOWS YOUR STUPIDITY FOR NOT FINDING OTHER WORDS TO USE.

AND ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ATTACKING ONE PERSON OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE.

IF YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS UNDERSTANDING THE USE OF THE WORD 'DRUGS' HERE PLEASE SEE THIS LINK BELOW:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drugs
(Please see 1b and 3)

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS OVER AND PLEASE CONTINUE THE DEBATE.

*Foul* language

aahhhhhh my mistake lol yes

Here's the way I see it.

Honestly? The government doesn't really give two shits about us. The ONLY reason they make drugs like marijuana illegal is because they can't tax it.

I mean cigarettes and beer actually do more damage than marijuana. Cigarettes fill your lungs with tar and pesticides while beer fills your liver with poison that eventually kills it if you drink too heavily for too long. But are they illegal? As long as you're at least 18/21 (in my area) hell no.

It's because beer and tobacco can be taxed

Now I don't do marijuana. I have friends who do and I don't mind them but honestly I hate that 'high feeling' and the smell makes me sick. Also I really generally stay away from people who are hooked on more extreme drugs because they're all generally untrustworthy douchebags. Thanks to some people who are unfortunately related to me I have some prime examples of what happens when you're on that shit.

So I'm not really advocating drugs. I'm just saying people need to go about this issue with some common sense.

Why couldn't marijuana be taxed as well if it were legal? It's a plant that needs to be cultivated just like any other, and taxes are imposed on them after all.

I think the main reason weed is illegal is simple, it's a recreational drug that's just simply not as popular as alcohol or tobacco. When something is popular enough, things change in it's favor. There's a reason the prohibition of alcohol only lasted a little over a decade.

But it is just as popular if not more so the problem is its legality keeps people from being open about it, where I come from "do you blaze" is a common a question as what's your name if not more so, I can see where the not being able to tax it comes in because in reality if it were legalized completely the market would drop because that would give recriational smokers and patients alike the ability to grow at home without fear of prosecution, one plant can average about a pound even at the beginning of its life this would mean that buying 8ths for 50$ would be rediculous when a clone cost 15$ and with time and care will produce hundreds worth of marijuana. In that aspect I can see why the whole taxing it might not work out like many people think it will.

I see what you're saying, however as an example, it's not illegal to brew your own alcohol (in most places) - yet micro-breweries pose absolutely no competition, relatively speaking, to the major distilleries and alcohol-producing companies.

How many people would actually have the time and willingness to put the effort into growing and cultivating their own marijuana, over just buying the stuff at a store once it became legal? I mean, I know I would rather pay for that service. I think that if weed were legalized and regulated (that's a key word) you'll see a proper, legitimate industry grow around it.

While I think you're right that the price of the plants would decrease, (and thus the tax revenue wouldn't be as high) wouldn't that be a good thing for us, the consumer, in the end?

That's a very good point!

Just randomly came across this journal and have to say that $50 for an 8th is already ridiculous, I only pay 25 for an 8th

top shelf medication cost more I could get an 8th of shake for about that price of some decent meds, but what i need for what i use it for, im out of luck

*I speak about America, I cannot speak for people and policies elsewhere, because it is outside my knowledge and experience. Also, though I am on the account, and am the moderator, I would like to state clearly that I am NOT trying to speak for all Weed users, only myself.*

I believe that both sides give each other a bad name because of the deeply held feelings involved. Disinformation is abound, and I think it is not unfair to say that most of that comes from the anti-drug side. This is because SOME drugs do more harm than any good they could ever attempt. Some drugs are dangerous, and should be kept illegal, because to legalize them would do no good, but to give the impression of safety. These some drugs I refer to are things like Crystal Meth, PCP, and Heroin etc.

But there are a class of drugs that, with moderation, true and useful information and education, I honestly believe would be as safe as, (and in come cases safer than) legal intoxicants and stimulants. These would include Salvia Divinorum, Marijuana, and Shrooms.

There are others that could fit into either or both lists, and for various reasons, but that is because of a general lack of faith in the common sense of the general public than because of the drugs themselves. These would include ecstasy, acid, peyote, DMT, mescaline and cocaine.

Of these, I believe that only Marijuana, Shrooms and Salvia Divinorum could be safely viable if legalized, and that only these should be. At least for the time being. As Americans, we have had nothing but caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol to go by. It would remain to be seen how entheogens, especially hallucinatory ones, would fare in a regulated, legal state. Salvia is still legal in some places, but because the general reaction to most things not culturally accepted as worthwhile pursuits (all forms of sexual behavior, religious exploration and intoxication) misinformation and in general a complete void of information has caused this drug to be severely misused and abused- to the point it is being eschewed as unsafe. The situation would be likened to if there were a void of alcohol information- people would use it without restraint, and make severely mistaken choices in reference to it. When that happens, the incidence of accidents, injury, abuse and death skyrockets. No one can make safe, informed decisions and choices if they do not have the information readily available to them- but that will not stop them from making the choice anyway.

In reference to marijuana legalization, I truly believe that this SHOULD be done. The other two would be nice, but I do not believe there is as great a need as there is for pot. Yes. I said NEED, because it IS, or COULD BE beneficial. Marijuana/Hemp needs to be legalized, for a variety of reasons.
It can replace or restrict our dependance on many less renewable resources, by replacing what these items are made of with hemp (which actually almost always yields a BETTER product than the original): fuel, plastics, rope, paper, cloth, coffee filters, tea bags, canvas, cord, lace, thread, milk, oil, cereal, caulking, cement, fiberboard, flooring, insulation, spray-on insulation, paneling, particleboard, plaster, reinforced concrete, concrete pipes, bricks, plywood, stucco, reinforced concrete, mortar, biodegradable plastic, dynamite, cellophane, and of course, pain, nausea, appetite and inflammation medicine (and it can be administered in a number of ways that do NOT involve smoke inhalation) with fewer and essentially harmless side effects than legal drugs currently used. It has countless more possible applications that science needs to look deeper into, including treatment for Alzheimers and Cancer.

In addition to all the things that would be better if replaced by marijuana and hemp, the economic returns would be IMMENSE if one takes into consideration the following:
The government allocates appx $8.7 billion dollars ANNUALLY to fund the drug war. (This is not counting the money and effort police, or the court systems expend)
Over 800,000 people PER YEAR are arrested for marijuana offenses.
Appx 41,000 people are imprisoned right now (room, board, necessities, every day) in state or federal prisons- NOT including county jails.
Marijuana is the US's most valuable cash crop. It is the #1 in 12 states, and in the top three in 30. The potential (as in, money we're NOT getting) revenue from marijuana is approximately 35.8 -billion- a year. That is more than corn and wheat combined. (Remember, thats just an estimate based on the crops they're aware of and a guess of what marijuana would bring in. The actual number is almost certainly much higher)

As far as harm: A grand total of zero people have died of marijuana in the history of humanity. The potential for addiction is low, and in cases where addiction DOES occur, it is psychological, not physical. There are few withdrawal symptoms, and these are mild at worst, less severe than the withdrawal for cigarettes, caffeine or even internet addiction. The physical risks to health are completely avoidable if the method for ingestion is changed from combating of the plant matter- because the risk is in the inhalation of smoke, not in inhaling weed smoke. Marijuana does not cause drastic changes to the personality of it's users upon use, even with heavy use, unlike alcohol.

Some drugs should definetely stay illegal because they can kill you the first puff or hit you take up. I also think that cigarettes and alcohol are horrible substances. My parents smoke and I am suffering because of it. Their smoking has given me breathing problems and thousands of other people. My grandpa was a heavy drinker and he died not that long ago because of throat cancer from it. It is awful seeing on the news that somebody had died because of a drunk driver who shouldn't have been driving. Prescription drugs are also an issues when people get addicted to them and get liver problems and cancers.

The only thing I find wrong with marijuana at the moment is how annoying it is to hear somebody who actually smokes only talk about it and nothing else. This is out of my own personal experience. The fact that people force it into your face like any other drug is what gets me honestly.

Insofar as I know, THC (the psychoreactive component of cannabis) is the only american-banned drug that carries no risk of physical dependency, and only mild risk of mental dependency. It also, to my knowledge (and I have researched the topic), has no negative physical side effects save for temporary loss of energy or sexual potency in some uncommon cases, and is the only american-illegal 'drug' that I know to be so.

This said, I can see no reason not to partake of it save for personal preference, and I feel it should be sold as commonly as alcoholic beverages, and under the same restrictions.

Most other drugs, however, carry both risk of dependency and severe physical and psychological side effects such as hemorrhaging, 'the shakes', vomiting, temporary psychosis, vivid hallucinations that make the user a danger to themselves and others...
At this point the question of restrict/ban becomes a question of government paternalism - is it a good idea to do these? No. And not just in my opinion, but objectively, as there is a strong likelihood that the user or third parties may suffer injury. But does the government have the right to step in? Do we allow it to 'protect us from ourselves'? Or do we try to stand on our own two feet and be responsible, but with the overhanging knowledge that some people just don't give a damn and will even go so far as to intentionally abuse this freedom?

sadly I don't have the answers to that one

It really depends on what kind of drug you are looking at. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal drugs, stuff like meth is illegal for a reason because it screws you up VERY badly and then there are the almost entirely harmless drugs, like pot.
In that regard I think it is silly to ban the harmless ones. As I said, alcohol and tobacco are legal even though they are quite dangerous and the cause of many deaths every year.
Legalizing something like pot would also have quite a hefty lot of benefits. They could tax it, people who are addicted to other stuff could have it as a legal alternative and most importantly, if you legalize it people don't have the desire to do it anymore because now it isn't forbidden anymore. It isn't exciting to smoke pot if it is perfectly legal.
In my opinion it is just silly to ban it. I'm not at all interested in it or any other kind of drug myelf, I just think it is stupid to ban something that is almost completely harmless but at the same time to allow something that is actually very dangerous. It makes no sense to me.