Selected quotes @ Neurobonkers.

i just finished watching the whole debate, many aspects were quite frustrating for me, the against team not surprisingly spoke in such a convoluted way, and perpetuated much discourse, the for team didn't seem to have the most articulate and eloquent of debaters which was very disappointing.

it broke my spirit a little bit...

some of the australian members here may have seen the australian iq(squared) debate consisting of 3 for and 3 against speakers like a more traditional debate, it was far better in many ways, though i'm unsure if it's available for viewing online.

Thanks for that, shame there was so much emphasis on coke meth and heroin, though I guess these are the ones causing the problems and need addressing.

Some of the members of the right hand side of the board are utter fools, and I was outraged when one of those paranoid beady eyed little fools almost got the last word. Thankfully he was promptly corrected and outspoken.

I feel that the debate of this topic is more harmful than it is helpful because it's all very simple in theory. The need for decriminalization of currently prohibited substances (not drugs) is obvious, whether or not everyone sees it, but the machinery of politics and economics have complicated it a great deal. For me, the prohibition model is inherently flawed because substances cannot be prohibited unless a dimensional shift occurs and we find ourselves in an alternate reality where they don't exist, but I don't expect that to happen. If prohibition doesn't work, than neither does criminalization, because if a substance is available then it will be trafficked, possessed, and ultimately used. This is a simple cause-and-effect relationship.
Both sides of the argument scoff at the idea of alcohol prohibition because it is absurd. The same is true of the prohibition of any substance and for the same reasons. The proponents of the war on drugs will go on about how it has been successful and they will acknowledge the dangers of legal substances like alcohol and tobacco, yet they never suggest or actively pursue the prohibition of any pharmaceuticals or alcohol or tobacco. This is curious. And why does no one propose a disambiguation of the term drugs? Overdub psychedelic with the word heroin in this debate and it starts to sound even more ridiculous than it already does. I wouldn't be invested in this issue if dangerous substances were differentiated from medicinal ones. Oh why couldn't someone liken the legalization of prostitution to the legalization of so-called "drugs'" to Spitzer? Also, what would he have to say about undercover police arresting high school students for marijuana possession?
Would decriminalization and regulation lead to more substance use? It could and probably would. This is obvious and is a far cry from an emphatic point. But there is not too much in the way of someone who wants to get a specific substance in the current system. These debates also focus heavily on heroin, and so will I. Would heroin use increase? Yes, but this really only applies to people who want to use heroin. And besides, would heroin suddenly become available at convenience stores? The dangers of heroin are widely known and understood to someone like myself. As someone with access to the internet and access to information, I can make educated decisions. I, in fact, choose NOT to use legal substances and instead use illegal ones, so legalization does not equate to usage.
Lastly, the entire premise of prohibition is that a substances or substances are dangerous for whatever ambiguous and faulty reasoning and an organization needs to stop a group of people from using it. Again, this might work if only it were possible. Instead, right now what we have is criminalization without effective prohibition. The question that remains to be answered and is hardly ever discussed, however, is what is truly the root of issue: why do people take drugs to begin with? Because there's a lot of other broken shit in society that everyone wants to ignore and pretend doesn't exist. A lot of peoples lives suck. Western society is a breeding ground for psychological disorders, deceit, corruption, and and a poor self-image. Continuing the war drugs is a distraction from much larger social issues. I almost forgot to mention that, most importantly, there's just too much money in it.

if i could be bothered debunking every single argument the prohibitionist made i would, but i dont have the time or motivation for that...

a few things i will say though.

they argued that many more people die from alcohol and tobacco because they are legal.

how about, alcohol and tobacco are way more harmful than most of the illegal drugs, and of the illegal drugs that are equally or more harmful, this is due to the fact that they are illegal and unregulated therefore are usually impure and the impurities are what causes them to be so devastatingly harmful. looking at it from this perspective one could say that it is more important to legalise/regulate the most dangerous illegal drugs.

they argued that legalising drugs would create a capitalist free for all and that of course if you legalise then consumption will go way up, just look at alcohol and tobacco

firstly, why are alcohol and tobacco so commonly used? is it perhaps because they are so socially accepted and in many cases socially encouraged? look at how these substances have been marketed through history, through popular culture and media, they have been very carefully marketed to be cool and in and these factors are continually perpetuated through popular culture and media, smoking is inherently cool, drinking is normal to the point of non-drinking is not normal and non-drinking is bad. advertising for tobacco is obviously not legal any more, but regardless its cool factor is still perpetuated through popular culture and media, alcohol advertising is abundant, and this has a powerful influence on the masses. children are influenced from a young age and the cycle continues generation after generation. one could write a book on the ideas in this paragraph alone.

secondly, this capitalist free for all angle they are perpetuating is bullshit...
through correct regulation this would not occur, you dont walk down the street and see billboards advertising codeine, tramadol, oxycodone, morphine, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam, etc etc etc, they are regulated. this is a completely unrelated factor, if this capitalist free for all did happen, it is a separate issue, it is not the fault of drug legalisation/regulation but the fault of once again bullshit governmental laws and regulations or lack of that allow this shit to happen, and allow marketing to be perpetuated through popular culture and media, i could even imagine the government allowing this to happen so they can re-criminalise drugs in the event that they were legalised/regulated.

thirdly, as for consumption increasing if drugs were legalised/regulated, the most important thing is always harm minimisation, with this in mind, an increase in consumption would not be a factor, because consumption does not mean abuse, as both sides of the argument agreed, they even said that something like 5% of users have a problem. it's the drug's impurity that causes its harm in cases like heroin, legalising/regulating heroin would result in a huge reduction in harm even if consumption went up.

there are many other important factors to consider here... another is the perpetuated cycle. legalisation/regulation would end these harmful perpetuated cycles. they argued that legalisation/regulation would vastly increase consumption and that people would naturally go for the strongest possible substances... once again we need to consider harm minimisation, and in this context we need to look at the long term, and the perpetuated cycles of generations.

in the event of legalisation/regulation, it is true that some people would seek out the strongest possible substances, these people are more than likely always going to be current drug abusers, especially abusers of the hardest drugs. through education and through legalisation/regulation, there will be a shift in behaviour, younger generations will seek out safer substances, and will be encouraged to do so, further increasing harm minimisation and decreasing use of the hardest substances. the way it is currently, many young people do turn to drugs for what ever reason and there are many reasons... most choose cannabis, through the current model, the way people get cannabis exposes them to harder drugs like impure heroin and impure meth, this would not happen under legalisation/regulation which further reinforces my previous statement.

eventually the older generations will die, and use of such substances as crack cocaine will be rare or non-existent, use of cannabis may go up, but regardless harm minimisation will be at its highest, an increase in cannabis use may also lead to a decrease in alcohol use which will also increase harm minimisation. if regulation of media/popular culture became "better" this would also decrease tobacco consumption though with the current model, an increase in cannabis could also lead to an increase in tobacco use, this is not the fault of cannabis but the fault of other factors.

what is harm minimisation?
harm minimisation does not mean a reduction in consumption, consumption is not a factor of harm minimisation. harm minimisation means a goal of reducing the negative effects of drug culture to a minimum, this means reducing crime, reducing negative health effects and reducing the cost to society and the environment.

the current model causes the opposite of what is needed, which is harm minimisation.
the cost to the environment is huge and devastating, the cost to individual health and health care is huge and devastating, the result on crime is huge and devastating, i cant really be bothered going into the why for all of these things... but i will copy paste something i wrote on another forum pertaining to the environmental costs

"the WOD is a huge environmental problem, the WOD is in my view the most important world issue, with all the different elements to it, it is devastating in so many ways, you could write a book about everything it causes, from environmental to health to economical to what ever... the list goes on. with environmental it works in 2 basic ways, drugs being illegal creates a black market that produces drugs with no care for the environment, polluting it with chemicals, destroying many forests and much more... law enforcement that targets these drugs rape the land with mass burnings of crops, not to mention that of the drugs produced a large amount gets seized by police, this huge inefficiency is icing to the cake of environmental concerns among other things... the other side to this is that with the current drug laws and social views on drugs, hemp cannot be mass produced, hemp is probably the most sustainable plant on the planet and could be immensely beneficial for the environment in many many ways, ending the war on drugs would not only put an end to the devastating environmental effects but also immensely help the environment with a mass hemp industry."

i've pretty much lost interest now...

Gantz, you are the man, I agree with just about all of that.

thanks orion, lets be friends!

i'm interested in your choice of words, can you tell me what exactly you didn't quite agree with and why?

obviously this is a massive and very complex issue, and it is not limited by what i said... there are so many aspects to this it is hard go into them all, i have barely scratched the surface...

by the way, if it was about this comment "looking at it from this perspective one could say that it is more important to legalise/regulate the most dangerous illegal drugs."
let me say that, i am specifically limiting the argument to one angle when i make that statement. when looking at the issue from that angle, my statement can be made, but that is from one angle only, and there are many many angles. from other angles it is more important to legalise/regulate the substances which have the least potential for abuse. it depends on what you are talking about specifically.

i personally believe there is basically an equal need to legalise/regulate all classes of "drugs" regardless of their potential for abuse or lack there of. some reasons as to why i believe this pertain to environmental conservation factors, sustainability factors, humanitarian factors, personal liberties like freedom of choice which is an extremely important concept, and other factors relating to social conscious and hyper-reality, mental health, etc...

thanks for your time and kind words

We are already friends

I should have left out the 'just about', I mean I do agree with all of your points. It's blindingly obvious why we need to have a system of support and control, not an outright block.

Again this mostly applies to 'hard' drugs like heroin and cocaine, but that would be a step towards bringing psychedelics into the light, as they are even more 'obscure' to the powers that be, they are pushed aside.

As you and the better members of the board of pointed out, we need to bring the issue into the public interest, not spend massive resources pushing this into the shadows and only concentrating on the negative effects in order to CREATE a widespread opinion.

I'm surprised this debate was ever even allowed to take place, and I'm glad some of the deceitful fools embarrassed themselves. I'm unsure if it's because I have personally taken more interest in these issues in recent years, or if people really are beginning to really push for some justice on this issue (more than before) using tools like the internet.

sweet, i'm glad we're friends, i like your avatar too.

what i really want to do is write a thesis on the whole drug culture/war on drugs debacle/entity, what ever... i just dont have the time or motivation.

perhaps an idea worth considering would be if the dmt nexus created an FAQ as such on this whole concept... reference studies, articles, and what ever else, and go through one by one and state why drug prohibition is bad, and why legalisation/regulation is good, and especially try to go through every point prohibitionists make and refute it with good arguments and references.

it could be an on going thing that is like a wiki as such where any member can add their bit and eventually it could be used by anyone trying to promote an end to drug prohibition.

many hands make light work, and the dmt nexus is home to some very awesome hands.