Should All Drugs Be Legal? A Soho Forum Debate

[@mindyvaughan9638]

If someone commits a crime, they should be charged with that crime. Putting substances into ones own body should not be considered a crime.

[@chaddeitz1906]

@P.D. Evans Unpopular here but I have always wondered why suicide is a crime as well. This side of body disposal I don't see it being a government issue. Of course it has a toll on family, friends and even parts of society but in the end it is your life to live, or end, as you see fit in my eyes.

[@chaddeitz1906]

@P.D. Evans Sir, thank you. You have restored my faith that common discussion can be had on KZbin . You make excellent points.

[@homewall744]

@P.D. Evans Somehow the state reserves the right to kill you, lock you up in solitary confinement (torture), and of course leveling war on others. Suicide should not be a crime as it follows the notion that you keep on living until death inevitable takes you. All living creatures die. Why criminalize what is true for all?

[@ivankrushensky]

@Mindy Vaughan One thing that isn't made very clear here is the fact that the Controlled Substances Act has only been around since 1970. Think about that for a minute. You say "If someone commits a crime, they should be charged with that crime. Putting substances into ones own body should not be considered a crime." Take texting and driving for example. In and of itself, you are not hurting anyone....assuming you don't cause a car accident. Alex gets at this...it is the RISK TO SOCIETY is the reason it is now illegal. Now back to your statement. There was a time when you could use such substances. Unfortunately, it became obvious that certain drugs were the precursors to committing crime. Back then, nearly half of those being incarcerated for committing CRIMES tested positive for one drug alone- heroin. So at some point, the government had enough of dealing with the CRIMES committed by the users, and took it one step further and made it illegal to possess certain substances altogether, to avoid this wild goose chase.

[@mindyvaughan9638]

@jean- we don’t get to predict the future. Most of the people in prison come from fatherless homes, does that mean divorce should be illegal? Of course not. Trying to predict/prevent crime will only infringe on the rights of the vast majority.

[@BFL491]

Being addicted to drugs if far from an ideal situation, but a felony possession conviction absolutely ruins someone’s life 100% of the time. You take someone who is most likely using because of some trauma or mental health issue and put them in a cage. Then kick their legs out from under them when they get out. I feel like we should be beyond this as a society.

[@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993]

@John Sampson their choice

[@douche8980]

I think hardcore drug addicts should be allowed to got to a place where they can freely and safely as possible do the drugs of their choice. But rehab should be tried first.

[@kd741]

Becuse drug abuse is a victimless crime…right?! kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYfGlHecpqxqa9E

[@CarsonHughes85]

@John Sampson I started a new-ish KZbin channel on politics and morals, and I’m currently looking into talking about drug legalization with others. Would you be interested in being a guest over zoom?

[@CarsonHughes85]

@John Sampson I know how you feel, I used to feel the same way. If you ever change your mind, let me know. And maybe I’ll see you in the comments section of my videos in the future. Have a good one!

[@annamoroz1632]

All drugs should be legal because it is not my business what my neighbors snorting, drinking, shooting. None! As long as doesn’t impact others , it is ok. War on drugs does more harm then using them.

[@Macheako]

Amen! If drug use becomes problematic, then we DONT imprison them and force them to be our slaves lmao 😂

[@klondike99]

so when your neighbor gets high on some drug and rapes or kills your child, then it's 'oh, well. that's the price of total freedom'.

[@jboss119]

What about their kids... does it effect them?

[@matthewpalminteri1408]

Bodhi Sattva, owning guns doesn’t make someone unstable. Using meth does...

[@spencerarnot]

“As long as it doesn’t impact others, it’s okay.” There should be some reasonable way to assess and predict this. Like what is the probability of addiction of a given substance amongst a population? What’s the estimated economic consequence of that addiction? What are the crime statistics associated with a substance? The health impact? If the answer is 90% addiction rate and high social/economic impact then the substance should probably be tightly controlled. (I’m looking at you Fentanyl) My point is that we should be making data driven decisions here based specifically on the property of the substance. If the probability of its use is practically guaranteed to negatively impact me - that’s now encroaching upon MY economic freedom.

[@jmhamilton87]

I’m totally for stigmatizing drug use... I’m against using threat of violence to control others!

[@JoeSmith-fr3hl]

Fucking exactly

[@shadykitty7493]

2 bad it will never end though huh?

[@Floccini]

That is my position too. I am even a teetotaler because I want to be a good example, though I have the ability be a light drinker. I'm anti-drug use and anti-drug law.

[@jmhamilton87]

Stephen Docherty Are you insinuating that using drugs=violence? We’re not talking about driving while using or stealing to get drugs, just the actual use... which the only victim would be themselves. You cannot victimize yourself, therefore using violence against them is immoral. No matter how much I disagree with their use, using violence to stop them is wrong.

[@jmhamilton87]

Stephen Docherty Then we should toss people who consume highly processed food into prison. As it is greater cause of death in the US than any drug. If a certain amount of paternalism is necessary for a functioning society, let’s go after the biggest killer, people’s shitty eating habits. Outlaw unhealthy food, mandate exercise! Let’s not just focus on the lesser of our societal maladies. I hope you don’t drink soda Stephen, I may have to lock you in a cage for the greater good.

[@WyattCayer]

It's amazes me that Alex thinks that it's impossible to stop the black market gangs from selling alcohol, but somehow with any other drugs, it's totally practical.

[@filthyan1mal588]

Because if you dig your heels hard enough, close your eyes and wish really hard. Then the rules of supply and demand vanish, crime stops and addicts quit without withdrawals.

[@douche8980]

I agree with looser drug laws bit that same black market argument couldn't used for other things like legalizing the selling of children or body parts. So it's not a good point on my opinion.

[@Zechaiii.]

The difference is as simple as it is complicated. Simply put, cocaine heroine and meth have different relationships to the general culture at large than alcohol. To compare those drugs to alcohol Simply because they were both at one point prohibited, is fallacuous.

[@douche8980]

@@Zechaiii. meh.. Cocaine could probably be legal in small quantity and there could be places for addicts to go and get their fix for a small fee to keep them safe from society. Meth is already legal in various medication sold on the legal market for narcolepsy quite literally.

[@CarsonHughes85]

@@Zechaiii. I started a new-ish KZbin channel on politics and morals, and I’m currently looking into talking about drug legalization with others. Would you be interested in being a guest over zoom?

[@ProtectrLifenLiberty]

Having had my life ruined by unjust laws rabid prosecutors and corrupt judges, I can personally say the worse thing about illegal drugs is that they are illegal.

[@bradsully6620]

Exactly, they should be legal. The only one I might not legalize is meth because when someone is on a meth binder and they have been up for days they can be dangerous and try to hurt people. But I would make a less potent meth like substance available, such as adderall.

[@gamebaby9253]

Amen

[@suzukisixk7]

@@bradsully6620 meth is too bad but crack isnt? What about something like bath salts/flakka/molly and anything else they are currently cooking up. How about straight up lsd? Sorry but the senseable argument doesn't go further than marijuana. The rest should absolutely remain illegal. I dont want a crack dispensary at my local mall.

[@bigbellyobie6204]

@@suzukisixk7 crack was invented because of the high price of cocaine. Even if there was a crack dispensary at the mall it wouldn't harm you , people just don't start doing crack because it would suddenly be available, sorry to blow your bubble but facts show that kind of thinking and logic is just wrong.

[@suzukisixk7]

@@bigbellyobie6204 isnt that exactly the excuse given for the black crack epidemic? That the CIA put crack into the community?

[@aaronpannell6401]

"Dont do drugs because they can ruin your life. And if we catch you with said drugs, we will ruin your life." the US justice department.

[@greengreengreen5132]

“ I wouldn’t want to let you ruin your life, so that’ll be sometime in prison and a felony on your record”

[@Aceshigh777]

Lololol look at Seattle...

[@sarjim4381]

I was a police officer for 27 years, retiring in 2005. I fought the "War on Drugs" all those 27 years and drug use is certainly no less now than when I started in 1978. the types of drugs have changed, but there is always an irreducible minimum of people who will take drugs for a plethora of reasons. We tried prohibition for 15 years, and we know the results of that. I've never been comfortable with the idea we should make drugs like heroin legal, and there are some drugs like flakka that present a clear public threat. I don't know the answer, but I know what we have been doing hasn't worked.

[@Gamer1st1]

Sar Jim We did prohibition for over 20 years.

[@sarjim4381]

@@Gamer1st1 18th Amendment passed - 1919 21st amendment, repealing the 18th amendment, ratified - 1933 1933 minus 1919 equals 14 years, but just less than 15 years by dates ratified. Do you post things like this just to make sure your keyboard is still working? Your calculator isn't and your understanding of historical dates obviously isn't.

[@cravinbob]

Obviously you know nothing about the laws you were paid to enforce and thus very little about those drugs. Try searching the internet for "new southern menace" and "illegal opium dens" you will find the origins which are not pretty and why many do not know how these laws actually started. If you think heroin is a death sentence you have been misinformed. Heroin becomes deadly when used in conjunction with alcohol. When propaganda is used they use it police as well. The projects and welfare programs promoted by democrats were not helpful but disastrous and that was the plan. Police are merely the hired guns to keep groups of people in line. If you made drug arrests and sent [people to prisons you actually owe your community an apology. After all they paid your salary and you never shot and killed someone who was about to shoot a citizen. You also violated Rights, enjoyed immunity and live on a pretty good pension with all the benefits. Time to give something back to your community.

[@sarjim4381]

@@cravinbob Kiss my ass. I was reserve deputy who didn't get paid a dime for my work. You know, a volunteer. In addition to knowing nothing about drug pharmacology, you know even less about the law and police work. Time for you to give something back to the community. Sitting in front of the computer and spewing out cop hating bullshit doesn't count..

[@cravinbob]

Oh now it is reserve deputy not police officer! I know the sheriff has a long history and is the law in a county while police sort of weaseled their way into communities without Constitutional mention. Limited government was the idea but police, district attorneys and judges became the tyrannical power we were warned about. Sheriff is an elected position while chief of police is hired by city government. Here is a link for some comprehensive reading on police in America www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[@billiondollardan]

My mom used all kinds of drugs when I was a kid. It sucked. It likely contributed to her forced admittance into mental institutions and made life exponentially more difficult for me and my siblings. That said, I am still for legalization of all drugs. I don't think the risk of negative outcomes associated with drug use mandate the establishment of nanny state laws like making drug use illegal.

[@JaneDoe-zs2vq]

That is just an experience of life to learn from..You can't understand an experience unless you understand the lessons learned from them. You most likely got bad distortions you still carry or worked through and learned positive abilities which made you the person are today still going through many experiences.

[@Rockyboxing]

@@JaneDoe-zs2vq idk how high you are but this response makes little to no sense lol - I'm guessing your one of these people that want to keep them illegal so it stays in the hands of criminals right? Keep the black market open? Make corrupt doctors richer, Is that your strategy?

[@JaneDoe-zs2vq]

@@Rockyboxing You must be high if you did not understand my reply. I was actually agreeing with the original post for legalizing it. I was stating the law of one to his bad experiences in his life, that's all. So please direct your negative energy else where bc I agree with you.

[@Rockyboxing]

@@JaneDoe-zs2vq ok maybe your right... I just re-read and its just that your post is still a little confusing is all

[@lxLanarchyxl]

@Banned4Life underlying mental issues are rampant in drug addicts, many things exacerbated by certain drugs aswell

[@chrisknorr1326]

Best question: What's your limiting principle for defining a "crime of risk"? His answer: Whatever we (government) decide is "reasonable." ...idk about you, but that sure seems completely arbitrary to me.

[@lilsaam]

That's because it is.

[@davidirimia6463]

He did talk a lot about studies though, so it's not arbitrary. To be frank, Alex is the first supporter of keeing drugs illegal that has solod arguments that I've seen. Let's not take his words out of context

[@margaretpollack4351]

@@davidirimia6463 yeah let’s not act in bad faith

[@filthyan1mal588]

My definition for a crime of risk. Anything that infringes on another person's safety or health.

[@gavinmurphy8905]

@@filthyan1mal588 That's very close to the definition of normal crime. A crime of risk is a crime that has the potential to infringe on another person's safety or health. The question was about where we draw the line on how much risk a "crime of risk" must pose for it to be illegal. Sorry I know that this thread is very old. Also I would like to mention that I think all drugs should be legal and it sounds like you do too.

[@ivankrushensky]

Never thought a guy who looked like Cosmo Kramer would be against cannabis use

[@mrbigboobs9222]

Fr lol

[@yashpatel261]

Omg i am dying 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@TheGreatHsilgne]

"I want to force everyone to pay for everyone else's healthcare through taxes, but oh, I just realized that some people are going to be more expensive, so we need to control what they do in private."

[@TheGreatHsilgne]

@HKZ P I imagine a lot of things are healthier than being an overweight workaholic smoker, lol.

[@brent89]

Heart disease and obesity are still the leading causes of health complications in the US. Our "government certified" food pyramid has killed more people than drugs could ever hope to.

[@beareble-lion4446]

@P.D. Evans because I'm American an the founding fathers would find the drug war tyrannical

[@TheGreatHsilgne]

@P.D. Evans Not everything privately done should be legal, but private matters where there's no immediate risk of harm to anyone but the individual making the decision are matters about which the government should not concern itself. (And I've heard good arguments that there are better regulatory forces than the government for those private matters which do pose an immediate public risk.)

[@cravinbob]

nicotine is the most addictive substance

[@jeffersonianideal]

0:36 "We have a right and a duty to protect people around people making terrible decisions." If society doesn't protect people from elected officials making terrible decisions about the arbitrary use of force, why should society obsess about the activity of someone who is not depriving any other citizen of life, liberty, or property?

[@jeffersonianideal]

@Bodhi Sattva Thank you. Humbled by your comment.

[@stephenjames3377]

You hit the nail on the head my good sir. Congratulations on your wit and ability to speak well.

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@stephenjames3377 Thank you for your kind words.

[@lZEOBA]

Well said sir! Indeed!

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@lZEOBA Thank you kindly.

[@FunnyGuyTimmy]

24:00 We already have cars that CAN drive 200 miles an hours. More vehicles on the road have the ability to go way faster than the speed limits.

[@trevynramsey531]

And self driving cars

[@pak3ton]

I dont know why him did not say anything about guns haha.

[@aaclendenen]

Chronic pain patients, like my mother, suffer under the war on drugs. Because she would NEVER buy or use illegal drugs, she has to go to her doctor every month and prove that she is in pain, prove that she is not drug seeking. It is stressful and demoralizing for her, and it makes me angry watching her suffer like this.

[@jefferywilliams5878]

I live in West Virginia. After going to the ER at 3am with a kidney stone which is extremely painful the ER doctor gave me two Motrin while I was throwing up and doubled over in pain. After three hours of extremely bad pain the xrays came back showing the large kidney stone. After throwing up and doubling over in pain my wife decided to take me to the Winchester Virginia hospital. They immediately hooked up a IV. Then gave me meds for pain and throwing up. Afterwards I passed the stone in 1.6 hours. West Virginia hospitals actually have a sign stating that they won't give pain meds regardless. Really people. West Virginia kidney stones hurt. And telling joke's while I was suffering to the nurses wasn't funny. Especially when the Doctor said out loud" if he thinks he getting pain meds he's crazy. My lawyer heard this on my Wiffys phone. Bottom line is if someone is is horrific pain doc give them one shot before laughing about it. You did take a oath. As my family members have. Shame on you all for doing this. Regardless of addicts coming through your door remember there's some people that are in extremely bad pain. Wake up and stop being a coward Doc. As you are clearly.

[@Alkerae]

I particularly enjoyed the argument about driving 200 mph and/or while drunk being crimes of risk. Neat argument, one I haven't heard before, got me thinking. Unfortunately, I thought up a rebuttal instead of deciding to accept it; a 200mph car should be perfectly legal in the safety of a one's own... race track. You can see the simile I'm aiming for here, I hope. The one thing I absolutely hate about law and politics, and the place where I draw my personal line of morality, is when it all inevitably boils down to controlling others. "For your own good" is possibly the most evil statement that I'm aware of, and it's use should only be tolerated between parent and child. Once an adult, one is responsible for themself. People dying because of opium? That sucks, lets find ways to make pain management safer, oh he wants more opium? That's okay too, as sad as I feel about it, he's an adult, it's his money, and it's not my place to control him.

[@filthyan1mal588]

I honestly think better info and education would control the uptake of substances. Especially in poorer areas. Also free physical and mental health care to combat problems that eventually devolve into addiction

[@dexterlacroy4132]

Short answer: Yes, legal but regulated to ensure purity and damage control while removing a large part (albeit not all) of the black market.

[@based_mediumchungus1788]

The only correct answer. if we legalized cocaine, heroin, crack, etc. there would be absolutely zero overdose deaths on it, other than idiots. its not hard at all to measure your dose with a mg scale.

[@ciaranthompson3375]

As long as they have to pay for their own healthcare.

[@redram5150]

All should have to buy their own

[@jonathanchildress9865]

The largest drug related costs to healthcare are tobacco and alcohol, not the illicit substances

[@jonathanchildress9865]

madwtube you mean people about to obtain clean needles so the spread of hep c is drastically decreased?

[@jonathanchildress9865]

dskmb3 his reasoning for what he said is proven false.

[@jonathanchildress9865]

madwtube how does the ability to clean medical equipment increase the rate of medical infection and diseases? The rate of alcohol poisoning increased in prohibition because of illegal alcohol and lack of sanitary equipment and quality control.

[@notchristianhodges8123]

I agree with discouraging their use. Like he said, tobacco usage rates decreased when social stigma was applied, no legislation was needed. Social stigma will keep hard drug rates low regardless of legislation.

[@vanmantalks]

What do you think to where they can be used? for example can cocaine be freely used in a bar?

[@Gabetexpro]

@@vanmantalks if the bar alowes it then yes. It's their property. Although It could be prohibited in public spaces.

[@filthyan1mal588]

E D U C A T I O N

[@ivankrushensky]

This is exactly my issue with the whole "legalize" movement right now. They basically talk as if drugs are the miracle cure to everyone's problems. They are not. People shouldn't be thrown in jail over it. But the use should not be promoted as some kind of healthy way of living life either.

[@ttimetotroll]

That is true. But when drugs are legalized, social stigma would change to reflect that. Porn and gaming are addictive and legal, the only social circles that have a stigma against it are the asians! I doubt society would have a stigma against drugs, especially since our current society is on a rampage to remove all kinds of stigmas: not only to remove stigmas against lgbtq and the mentally retarded (which I think is good), but now against pedophiles (people are trying to say that we shouldn't discriminate against them!), and common criminals (allowing them to go free if they steal less than 1k! Some states are releasing criminals from prisons on mass). We can not rely on social stigma to prevent drug intake and possession rates, because it is incontrollable. Unless you want to control society like 1984, the best way to discourage their use is still with the natural deterrent that comes with criminalization.

[@chopinbloc]

I may have missed it, but it seems like he just brushes off the higher rates of standardized mortality as being definitely a result of the drugs being more dangerous and not a complicated set of feedback loops induced by prohibition, that involve the pharmacological effect of the drug, cutting agents, potencies, and the socioeconomic conditions imposed by prohibition.

[@filthyan1mal588]

The most dangerous ones are pharmaceuticals like fentanyl. It's responsible for so fucking many "opiate" deaths. Heroin metabolised as morphine, fentanyl doesn't

[@chopinbloc]

He lost me at "Edibles make you think your friends are aliens."

[@jimmyjones8676]

Mayby pablo gave him space cake?

[@jack.1.]

In his defence he said the possibility. Cannabis has lead to psychiatric outbreaks.

[@chopinbloc]

@@jack.1. bullshit. Adverse reactions are extremely rare and almost exclusively are the result of preexisting schizophrenia and/or mega doses. This line is just more reefer madness.

[@jack.1.]

@@chopinbloc I actually generally agree with that but you can't deny it is a risk for people predisposed to schizophrenia. As someone with a mum who has bipolar disorder and schizophrenic episodes being admitted to psychiatric wards she shouldn't smoke weed. Does that mean it shouldn't be lefslused? I don't think do overs, but it's a risk that should be educated to consumers.

[@chopinbloc]

@@jack.1. certainly. My position is that the government should have no authority to tell a person what they are allowed to consume. The FDA should exist solely to conduct research with as little bias as feasible and to present their findings. They can and should publish guidelines and standards and even go so far as to certify that organizations are following the guidelines and products meet claims. But it should be left to the consumer to decide.

[@jefferywilliams5878]

After years of going to court every now and then for prescription drugs I stopped and tried to rationalize why I'm getting arrested for taking prescription drugs to relieve pain for multiple reasons. At 17 I started having kidney stones and at this time we didn't have the treatments we have now. Kidney stones are extremely painful and require strong pain meds. I suffered for 14 years with stones during this time I took lots of pain meds. I actually had doctors refusing to refill my pain meds saying that they would get in trouble for refilling pain meds and telling me to go to the emergency room. Remember this was long before the treatments we have now. Kidney removal was the normal procedure for large kidney stones. Anyway my point is this regardless of the reason for taking prescription drugs rather for pain or pleasure what gives another person the authority to make it a felony. The same category as a murderer or rapists. A felony conviction is a felony conviction don't think so. A person taking codeine cough syrup illegally is charged with a felony. A person that murders a family is charged with a felony. Both people are labeled as felons. Both people loose the same rights including voting and a possessing a firearm. But if you're caught driving a car drunk it's not a felony. Who makes the rules??? Drugs are illegal because I say so.

[@CarsonHughes85]

Jeffery, I started a new-ish KZbin channel on politics and morals, and I’m currently looking into talking about drug legalization with others. Would you be interested in being a guest over zoom?

[@bubullibooooo9928]

Are you sure your not an addict?

[@jefferywilliams5878]

@@bubullibooooo9928 I definitely am. But I've been clean for nearly 20 years. I've had doctors offer me extremely strong narcotics for a broken jaw and other things that cause bad pain like dental procedures and other things but narcotics and the lack of knowledge at the age of 17 ruined lots of years of my life. So yes I'm an addict but a clean addict.

[@bobann3566]

A real "crime" is when there is a victim. A law or government entity cannot be a victim, only an individual can be a victim.

[@jboss119]

Would a child be a victim if the parents use heavy drugs. What if it simply effects their financial stability?

[@bobann3566]

@@jboss119 A victim is an individual that has been harmed. If the parents harmed their child, whether on drugs or not, would be a crime. Experiencing Financial instability is a condition of life and does not qualify as a crime. Being robbed of ones money is a crime. So if a child had a college fund from a relative that was taken by the parents, then I would say that is a crime for that money was not theirs to take and use for themselves.

[@darksol99darkwizard]

It’s illegal to drive without car insurance. This can make sense since if you get in a wreck that is your fault (involving a victim), there needs to be a way to resolve the accident financially. Do you also think that we should not be lawfully bound to have car insurance because this potential ‘victim’ was not a victim of a crime? I’m confused.

[@bobann3566]

@@darksol99darkwizard Insurance does not negate harm, it pays for it.

[@jboss119]

@@bobann3566 how about needles... shooting insulin is a lot different then shooting heroin. One no longer allows for you to care for your children. Safe storage laws?

[@naughtyskweet6]

Things we stigmatized -tobacco -drinking and driving -drinking during pregnancy -drug use Addicts still do all these thinks you maniac. Drugs have been stigmatized. It doesn't help. But yeah, keep doing the same things with the same outcome

[@naughtyskweet6]

This guy has a poor understanding of effective legalization. Nobody thinks drugs aren't bad, and people shouldn't be discouraged from doing it

[@Lvl18Meep]

A government is meant to enforce the basic principles that allow people to be productive. From this perspective it's easy to see that the way we have went about reducing the use and secondary effects of drugs has been extremely ineffective. Reform is necessary to improve the life of everybody who is governed. The best plan is to use the most probable truths produced from honest science and apply that to regulation. Education is the key to happier and more productive people. Those that are informed are going to make better decisions.

[@based_mediumchungus1788]

@@naughtyskweet6 shrooms and weed and ketamine aren't bad.

[@quiksilver87]

The 200mph analogy cracked me up....we already have cars that can do that. Also, we have speed limits to protect the people who aren't speeding.

[@eb60lp]

The pro legalization argument was better rather you agree or not just on a pure argumentative point of view.

[@usffan5775]

As a productive pot smoker and military veteran, I get angry when I hear somebody stand up here and try to tell me I'm a risk. I smoke so much pot and I've never had a car crash, never been arrested, and I've never been to a doctor because I dont get sick at 28. But he would have me arrested. Please tell me, what am I a risk of?

[@usffan5775]

@Bodhi Sattva you too brother. The thing about weed is that it's such a great alternative to other drugs drugs that are so much worse. I dont drink or do anything else. Give me a puff and I'm good

[@Milther2]

Just to let you know, I'm on your side (pot smoker myself) but the other side would argue that you are a risk when driving, around children (because of "psychosis" 🙄), and as potentially supplying children

[@usffan5775]

@@Milther2 Driving high isnt dangerous, but that doesnt fit the narrative needed to keep it illegal. Smoke on

[@spencerarnot]

@USF Fan Each substance should be considered on a case by case basis. Pot is not very physically addictive, has minimal health impact (may even be helpful depending on how its consumed) and doesn’t disrupt productivity for most folks. I could make the same argument about most psychedelics and also MDMA (if pure). Meth on the other hand is very destructive. Highly addictive and the probability of social / health and economic impact is also high. We need laws that remove the wheat from the chaff. Not all drugs are the same obviously.

[@usffan5775]

@@spencerarnot oh yeah dude, because if heroine was legal, I'm sure itd be the new hip drug 🤡🤡🤡 you're a clown

[@MasonPelt]

How did you find someone who thinks drugs should be illegal?

[@SymmetricalDocking]

There's plenty of them, they just tend to not have good rationalizations behind their bad opinion.

[@MasonPelt]

@Gordon I think you may be confused about what the the word "forcing" means.

[@MasonPelt]

@Gordon yeah you're still not quite getting it are you... I want you to think about the Paradox of make legal. By nature of making something legal you're implying that the default position is not legal. But legislation exists only after it's created the default position of things is to be legal until such time as someone makes them illegal.

[@MasonPelt]

@Gordon So you're fundamental argument is that making something illegal isn't an act of force?

[@MasonPelt]

How do you make something illegal without force?

[@notatheist]

I was really excited to watch this debate. Sullum made my mind race with a new argument. I love hearing new ideas. I was also excited to hear Berenson's arguments, hoping to really empathize. I wanted to hear sincere, valid arguments on both sides. Berenson's understanding of his opponents positions appear to be one infuriating strawman followed by infuriating, ignorant strawman. Hanlon's razor is a saying that reads: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. With Berenson, there's NO chance that he hasn't been exposed to his opponents' actual arguments considering how much he has talked and written about it. He is being disingenuous at the least, while overt dishonesty appears to be the case. The fact that people are still out there lying and manipulating others gave me a massive kick in the ass to join the fight. I'm going to make a response video and break down everything in this video. I'm ready to fight!

[@thechemistamvs5033]

Make the video

[@hayfalahraoui8361]

still no video

[@animeman84]

I’m surprised neither of them mentioned the arbitrary drug scheduling the DEA has in deciding where to put a certain drug in a certain category which then stifles research into those substances

[@jeffersonianideal]

Just make the legalization of freedom all-inclusive.

[@jungxehuin9404]

So anarchy is what your saying

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@jungxehuin9404 No. Anarchy is apparently what *you* are saying.

[@jungxehuin9404]

jeffersonianideal lol do you know what anarchy is? Legal murder, rape and crack is called anarchy

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@jungxehuin9404 I am not an anarchist.

[@Cacowninja]

@@jeffersonianideal What are you if you don't mind telling.

[@daniellegler4011]

Alex: "Crime has gone down significantly from 1999-2019 because of the war on drugs. Also Alex: 1:06:00 "You can't say that because crime is multi-factoral". What a hypocrite.

[@david6ravy]

If you get busted enough times for possession, and are never found to have committed any actual crime of violating the rights of others, shouldn't that license you to use drugs, at least? You've proven yourself stable and non-psychotic.

[@resmarted]

We have to ruin people's lives with criminal convictions so they can't ruin their lives with drugs!

[@joshuamoyer4141]

I was completely unconvinced by Alex Berenson, mostly because he completely failed to adequately address and justify the inherent violence of the drug war.

[@vanmantalks]

I think both legal or illegal has its problems. But what do you think would have the worse outcomes on issues?

[@thisisme4169]

This one guy is making the same argument the anti gun people make because a small number of people do bad stuff NO ONE can have any

[@Rocking_J_Studio]

I am proof that what Alex said about medical marijuana not being effective against pain is untrue! I used opiods (Oxycontin & Methadone) for 25 years for pain caused by a motorcycle accident when I was 25. The pain didn't start until I was 40 or so but it was debilitating at that point. I had neck surgery in 1990 and 2010 & major back surgery in late 1993 as a result. At times I used three Methadone & four Oxycontin a day and even that wouldn't knock out the pain all the time. About three years ago, I decided that I had been taking opiods for too long & against the advice of my doctor I weaned myself off of it over a period of months. After the last opiod I took I had nothing to relieve the pain and OTC products were worthless for me. The state I live in passed a medical marijuana law not long after and when it became available I acquired my medical marijuana license & started using cannabis. After a year of cannabis use I use much less than when I first started and I'm more active, alert and motivated. I drive on a regular basis and have absolutely no problems because I don't get stoned out of my mind. I only use sativa (one puff) once a day & indica (2-3 puffs) at night to help me sleep. My digestive functions have improved dramatically (I was constipated for 25 years) and I've lost weight since quitting opiods. Don't tell me it's not effective with pain because I'm living proof it is!

[@davidthomas9190]

In short..... Yes they should

[@Cacowninja]

@Marshall Kinnaird The drug war/government has done that not the drugs.

[@CaryHawkins]

2nd guy lost me at "vaping crisis".

[@flyinryan7773]

@P.D. Evans I mean right now it's anecdotal. Only a small handful of people have died and that isn't even related to vaping itself but rather the black market chemicals they put in them. It isn't a crisis just like mass shootings aren't a crisis. The media blows things out of proportion and people fall for it.

[@RM-ff1lm]

@P.D. Evans Black market thc vapes are already banned. People put Vitamin-E oil in the the thc carts and that is what killed those people.

[@RM-ff1lm]

​@P.D. Evans They are not talking about banning the devices, just the flavored juice. In NY, the ban the governor signed, was for all flavors except menthol and tobacco.

[@RM-ff1lm]

@P.D. Evans Yea who cares if our politicians are bought by big tobacco? We should just sell the whole government, everything for sale. Why don't we just let every politician sell all of our rights cause who cares right?

[@0ne0fmany]

2nd guy lost me at "I used to be a journalist for the new york time" anazing how long that globalist money lasts for these champagne socialists, with their holier than thou, "I have the rights over your bodies" attitude.

[@fanaticalplel1003]

If America is the land of the free and all about freedom, then it’s citizens should have the right to consume whatever they want. The government shouldn’t tell them what they can and cannot consume, just warn them about the dangers.

[@healthhavencom]

Yes. Next question.

[@showmevids1984]

In the debate Alex’s argument fell apart like a cheap suit he almost looked embarrassed

[@jameskidd7499]

Decriminalize all drugs and the crimes will go down 99%

[@prospero4183]

Change the crime not drop it

[@filthyan1mal588]

That's optimistic

[@WyattCayer]

Basically, "alcohol has way too many casual users, and no other drug can be used recreationally." Get outta here Alex!

[@curtbressler3127]

Alex just discredited his entire argument....he states.... "There are only 2 ways to convince people to quit using drugs; quit on their own and medicated assisted treatment" Keeping drugs illegal would accomplish neither of the above methods and; therefore, as history has shown and the judicial system and criminal justice systems have proven, keeping drugs illegal is NOT THE SOLUTION.

[@Knardsh]

I can’t take even remotely seriously anyone against cannabis legalization at this point. Gtfoh.

[@brent89]

I'm ok with universal drug legalization as long as we have universal stand your ground laws.

[@mrchowhua7933]

Can you imagine having a crackhead, heroine addict and meth addict kicking in your door to steal so they can get their next high.

[@ByzantineDarkwraith]

@@mrchowhua7933 i think he did that's why he fucking posted in regards to self defence ?? also the US basically already does, except in like a couple northeastern states IIRC

[@tomgordon2048]

@@mrchowhua7933 You are looking at it the wrong way. Drugs are incredibly cheap when they are legal. I'm not advocating for this, but we could pay for all drug users supply with the amount we spend on the drug war itself.

[@mrchowhua7933]

@@ByzantineDarkwraith Late reply, I know what he was saying. I was just giving a what if scenario and I agree with the OP. Emotional idiot like you are making things worst.

[@ByzantineDarkwraith]

@@mrchowhua7933 First, the way you posted made it seem like you were making a counter-argument. Second, I am clearly not the one with strong emotions about this conversation, thank you.

[@FutureLaugh]

55:55 so he didnt have permission to sell a plant. If it was 500 tomato plants, would it be adequate to say he deserved to eat and sleep with violent criminals for 3 years of his life? moral argument here is non existent- like the number of people harmed by marijuana.

[@hobotastic2203]

I lost it when he said “the drug legalizers have won. Doesn’t he relies that drugs are illegal.

[@filthyan1mal588]

So what? They are everywhere and self regulated and controlled with society having to come up with its own quality controls. Just waiting for the realisation to set in. Like fox accepting climate change.

[@based_mediumchungus1788]

we still use drugs, whether its legal or not.

[@dzim8822]

The guy for keeping drugs illegal sounded like he was incompetent compared to the guy who was for legalization. All the arguments he made, made no sense or were irrelevant. He basically said, in an extremely round a bout way, that we should keep drugs illegal because the threat of harsh punishment stigmatizes drug use and makes people less likely to use. This has already been proven to be untrue in the real world with alcohol prohibition and the fact that, in spite of drugs being illegal, millions of people have continued to use drugs and the "war on drugs" has not prevented people from using drugs. And it violates a person's right to choose what he desires to put into his own body.

[@mrchoon2010]

You can't keep up a logical, coherent argument for the prohibition of drugs. Once you run out of one-liners like "It's a gateway drug" you're screwed

[@justinpaul3110]

This was one of the best in a while. Both sides had great points.

[@vanmantalks]

I think both legal or illegal has its problems. But what do you think would have the worse outcomes on society?

[@justinpaul3110]

@@vanmantalks I think we saw the worst outcome. Authoritarian, anti-Democratic, and unconstitutional elements have been implemented in our society to get rid of drugs.

[@ttimetotroll]

Good governance does not mean authoritarian and anti-democratic. A father and mother who doesn't restrict their children's diet, use of porn, and gaming is not being democratic or anti-authoritarian, but they are being negligent. Another analogy, some people want to steal things and not work. Others want to spy on other girls and rape them. Is denying them that choice anti-democratic? If the current government believes that selling drugs to people is a bad idea (legal or otherwise), is it fair to say that their criminalization of drugs is anti-democratic?

[@ChristianWagner888]

I‘m glad the Philippines were mentioned! Actually it’s closer to 20,000 killed in the drug-war since 2016 with almost half killed by death squads, who are allegedly endorsed by the president. A large percentage of those killed are teenagers, and even innocent children have been killed. The war on drugs is evil and is not working, but full legalization of all drugs would also not work. I would be in favor of decriminalization of marijuana, but not in favor of the same availability and advertising as alcohol. Meth (Shabu) is the biggest problem here as it destroys people and families within a few months. Production and distribution should still be illegal, but use and small scale dealing should not be punished with prison. I would prefer a solution similar to Portugal. Drugs can be used as a means of control to enslave people. Easy availability of drugs, for the purpose of undermining a society can be a means of warfare or a form of social manipulation, as seen in the Opium War and also in the history of the CIA. As a Christian I see the danger of drugs not just in the physical effects, but also in the long term spiritual effects and the effect upon the soul. Drugs have traditionally been part of opening people’s minds to the spiritual realm, which can be quite dangerous, as evil spiritual forces can take advantage of people during an altered state of consciousness.

[@davidcisco4036]

Yes... and no background checks, no red flag laws, with open carry and or concealed.

[@mikes9223]

As fentanyl drug poisoning increase year after year a safe supply is desperately needed like Canada/Europe

[@CarrotCakeMake]

Summary of the prohibitionist side: "Sometimes people do bad things when they are on drugs."

[@Kparris7]

And sometimes alcohol but logic doesn't apply here

[@brutallyhonest8677]

What drives potency is lack of access, therefore they use more to cut, with more dangerous substance

[@jayaom4946]

My younger brother died from heroin overdose at age 28. As someone who sees him as a person, a loved one, I emphatically believe that all drugs should be legal. He developed an addiction as a teen, stopped and got back into it after our other brother died in an accident. He was trying in many ways to get his life together but he was hesitant to seek help, largely because of the stigma (this can still be the case with legal drugs but it's much more difficult to get proper help when doing the drug makes you a criminal). His overdose was largely due to getting different ratios of drugs than he was expecting. He was a really great person, an Army veteran and a paramedic. He loved to help people. We grew up in a home with addiction and mental illness. His drug addiction should not have made him a criminal or a bad person.

[@ttimetotroll]

The argument here is not that people being an addict is a criminal or a bad person. The idea is to prevent people from selling, having, or taking drugs. Your brother is not judged on his person but on his decision. It is sad that your brother is struggling and on top of his addiction struggle is his treatment as a criminal. But think on this. If drugs are legal, sure no one would no longer be treated as a criminal, but now more people are addicted to drugs, struggling the same way your brother has. The crux of the matter is this, should drugs be legal and the deterrence and prevention be removed? or should drugs be illegal and have police reinforce the idea that drugs are bad and prevent people from taking it? I rather have the government spend more money on people like your brother who are struggling with drug addiction and mental illness, than to have drugs be legalized. Legalization is a solution that leads to a bigger problem.

[@brutallyhonest8677]

Also keep in mind, who and what defines "use disorder". Criteria is absolutely ridiculous

[@kekzealot3568]

This isn't even a debate. Unless we live in a nanny state, one has every right to do whatever one wants to do with their own body as long as it doesn't impact other people.

[@Mit852]

Unfortunately we do live in a nanny state

[@okthen6416]

Once he agreed with Anslinger I lost it lol

[@fury3029]

6:49 Imagine if these drugs were legal, of course with an age limit like beer, cigarettes, etc. the costs of these could be reduced so much and we could use that money on better mental health institutions or something to make people not want them in the first place

[@eb60lp]

The second guy only spoke on stigmatizing and not what prohibition does. Just educate people on the effects of drugs let them make their own decision. He also immediately started politicizing the argument. His car analogy was incomplete at best. The fact that he doesn't even like cannabis says he's an extremist. Once again using children to justify your position. Does prohibition stop drug users from using drugs and neglecting their kids? No. The parents just do even crazier shit to get drugs and hide their use. 🙄

[@redram5150]

Is it just me, or is Berenson’s opinion built upon an is-ought fallacy? He makes observations followed by his opinion what should happen rather than justify why the state should be given authority in the first place

[@isaakhanimann3559]

So good to finally hear a reasonable debate on this topic

[@Rockyboxing]

The anti-drug weirdo looks cracked out, he says "they make the same excuses over and over" THEY AREN'T EXCUSES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN TEST THEM OUT

[@nathanweisser]

The title of these videos should have the resolution, even if it's slightly simplified, just to avoid confusion. Because the affirmative of "Should All Drugs Be Legal?" is the opposite of the affirmative of "Should all drug laws be abolished?"

[@pepecharles24]

Consuming all drugs, yes. Producing and selling is not so simple.

[@TechCareerNow]

What's the difference? If you have control over what you put in your body, why wouldn't you have control over your own voluntary market interactions?

[@suckmysilencer747]

@@TechCareerNow Government needs to draw the line and ensure the quality of such high risk drugs are at a safe health standard. Or we'll still see the thousands of drug related deaths from shitty drugs. And being under the influence of certain drugs undoubtedly makes people violent. Hence a government role for the NAP to be enforced.

[@CensorWars]

@@suckmysilencer747 like there is now because of the regulation

[@TechCareerNow]

​FDA approved prescription drugs kill more people

[@pepecharles24]

@@TechCareerNow I'm from a "bridge" country, Guatemala. We have now started producing cocaine. At the human level, the death toll from the jungles of Colombia, Perú and Bolivia to the border between Mexico and the USA is on par with the worst wars in history. Drug lords aren't entrepreneurs, they are subject matter experts in murder, corruption, enslavement, child trafficking etc... They kill any one that stands in their way in the most horrific tortures. If people knew how many people died in beheadings before they snorted their drugs, maybe they would think twice. And on the environmental side, complete forests are being destroyed and animals killed to clear land for these drugs, and water ways destroyed to produce them. Libertarians forget that drugs aren't only an American issue. It destroys more families outside of the USA than they do in the USA

[@mikes9223]

The drug war has done more harm than the drugs themselves(excluding fentanyl poisonings)

[@ctrlaltdebug]

You will never convince me to throw someone in a cage for having a piece of a plant.

[@bobbob2890]

The affirmative, allways, and obviously.

[@AtlasFullsun]

Where's Dave Smith? REEEEEEE

[@H0m0f1rST]

The anti legalization guy definitely brought up the right points and had a good perspective, but just was a bit ignorant and drew false conclusions from the evidence he has been given. Great discussion but i highly symphazise with the legalization model because of evidence and suggestions led by lawyers and experts in that topic.

[@ADGreen-es6hm]

Alex , might be working for the Congressional Pharmaceutical Industry.....

[@dxnielastbury8767]

Anyone against legalisation saying that they “don’t want more people taking drugs” are supporting the wrong idea, legalising drugs has shown less drug deaths, less drug usage, and less drug violence

[@manialord1699]

If drugs were legalized I would be tempted to try a lot more, but if they arent, im still gonna try those, but Im going through potentially dangerous drug dealers, having the possibility of having my shit laced, and if I feel like im overdosing I am not going to the hospital. Making people afraid of getting caught wont stop the behavior.

[@dxnielastbury8767]

@@manialord1699 exactly. So many deaths due to drug overdoses/gang violence would be solved if the government regulated the drug market, making sure people are only using what they want and not some shit laced with rat poison or glass and if the gov sells better quality drugs at better price then that eliminates many gangs based on drug violence and drug money

[@spencerarnot]

A “reasonable” approach would be to create laws based on the probability that a given substance results in addiction and subsequent behavioral, health and fiscal impact to society. If 90% of the population who experiments with Fentanyl for example becomes addicted, the probability that “I” the taxpayer will need to pay for the consequences is extremely high. You are now encroaching upon MY economic freedom. Not cool. Meanwhile, if the probability of addiction is relatively low, say 10%, yet the substance still has the potential for great social or fiscal harm (alcohol comes to mind), that substance should still remain legal. Why? Because the loss of freedom for a society has a “cost” too. In this case it’s the loss of personal expression and exploration. Also not cool. So that’s the balancing act. Needs of the individual vs. needs of the society. Personal expression vs. social stability. Freedom vs. Responsibly. A data driven approach to this balancing act seems wisest.

[@KA-vs7nl]

Spencer Arnot no, fuck the state. People like you are inherently defeatist.

[@spencerarnot]

@K M Your statement is inflammatory but not reasonable. You provide no counterpoints and don’t attempt to weigh the pros and cons of your position. You’ve basically given me no reason to even consider it. If your goal is to convince you’ve missed the mark. I’m forced to conclude that you are like a kid in a candy store that just wants what it wants because it wants it.

[@KA-vs7nl]

“Reasonable” and “laws/statutes” don’t go together, sorry to break it to you. Government is inherently violent, no reasonability there. Go suck a fat one blue pilled statist.

[@filthyan1mal588]

Not if the tax charged for the substance is funded directly into healthcare. And drugs are the least of the most obese countries medical costs. Even compared to alcohol and tobacco consequences that are right now encroaching on your "financial freedom" living in a society means everyone paying an equal share for the equal treatment of everybody. You might use government facilities more often than your neighbour, doesn't mean he pays less tax. Also the decriminalisation is a freedom you would be receiving to, regardless of whether you indulge. I don't drink alcohol doesn't mean I don't pay my portion of tax that goes to those side affects.

[@jarettmeyer4929]

Mass incarceration: lots of people do crimes. Doesn’t address the idea that maybe there are some laws that should not be there putting people in jail? Too far fetched idea?

[@aaaaaeiou]

Your rights end where my rights begin. The use of mind and body altering substances indisputably cause health issues almost immediately or over a length of time. These health issues wiil and do directly effect health insurance premiums, premiums that all Americans are forced to pay. Therefore, to legalize all mind and body altering substances will directly effect my ability to afford extraordinarily high costs to insure my well being now or in the future. To mandate socialized healthcare directly robs me of my ability to maintain the profit of my hard work to benefit me, my family, and those of my own choosing. Socialized healthcare forces me to pay for the physical and psychological damage that people CHOOSE for themselves. So, if you truely believe that everyone should have the right to choose to use harmful stubstances, you are obligated to protect my right to not be mandated to pay for the damage they inflict on themselves or that they cause to others, ie; crime directly related to drug use, vehicular death due to operating under the influence, mechanical damage to life and property due to operating under the influence, and poor decisions by professionals that damage life and/or property. So, who's rights are more important? Are they my rights to not have to be legally responsible for the financial damage caused by substance use and/or abuse? Or will you tell me that the user/abuser has the right to force me to accept the financial burden of their rights over mine?

[@spencerarnot]

@Mariann Zaccaro I agree. I see so many folks tackling this topic from some singular vantage point - like my freedom, my pleasure, or my body. It’s always one ideal and one ideal only. What these arguments seemingly fail to comprehend is you can’t have freedom (or rights) without responsibilities. You can’t have pleasure without some price and you can’t have an individual without society. There’s no way to separate the two. It would be like trying to discuss space without time or electricity without magnetism. These concepts don’t exist on their own. Both sides of the duality need to be considered and accommodated. The all or nothing argument is folly in my opinion.

[@Gamer1st1]

Sounds like you have more of an issue with mandated healthcare coverage by the govt. I agree, it’s bad. People are already responsible for damages caused by drunk or drugged driving. They might be able to afford lots of types of coverage if prices dropped due to lack of illegality.

[@jimmyjones8676]

By your logic the state can ban high fat and sugar foods, after all obesity really drives up healthcare costs. Should we ban people from hiking? After all if you get lost in the woods the search for you isn't free. Also State healthcare is cheaper even when you have to pay for the fuck ups, thats why most of the developed world has it.

[@shawnellemartineaux6212]

Stigmatize doesn't mean render illegal. It is a risk, however the costs associated with mitigating which have been emplpyed thus far are higher than the actual risk.

[@ttimetotroll]

When everyone in high school is buying legal drugs because they are curious and want to try it, you may re-think the idea that cost is more than the risk.

[@shawnellemartineaux6212]

@@ttimetotroll drugs are illegal now and not everyone has a desire to try it. That's not because of illegality. I know I never tried any nor have I wanted to try any, and I've been in rooms with other young people smoking weed. What illegality does is increase societal violence and help the black market to grow. Countries are run by black market criminals because of illegality. I live in one. Miss me with your pearl clutching.

[@john-paul7325]

There's only two types of people who are against drugs: the people who have never done drugs and the people who really sucked at doing drugs

[@itstommyv6895]

Go ask an addict if it's just a skill issue he is willing to throw his life away for an 8ball.

[@davidcopperfield2278]

the only law that forbids slow damage or suicide in any form, is the law of the slave owners where the slave is considered first and foremost the owners work force ! if you own cattle, the cows becoming suicidal goes against your interests !

[@metalwright]

"As a society..." Ok, lost me right there.

[@Creaperla]

It must be addressed that often the very institutions (social services etc) that are there to protect vulnerable people, especially alienated mothering women, often spend most of their efforts in supporting, defending and advocating for criminal gang members against their victims

[@madmaxxmad2]

drug war is expensive, and I'm not sure its ever worked

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

China won their drug war.

[@madmaxxmad2]

@@Ghastly_Grinner I do not know a lot about china's drug war. I know they have a lot of human rights protests now, and I remember in 1989 they managed similar protests by running people over with tanks.

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

@@madmaxxmad2 They won their drug war by executing their Drug Dealers and habitual users en masse

[@filthyan1mal588]

I'm pretty sure

[@adonaiorion]

Have not watched the whole thing yet, but the biggest problems with substance abuse aren't on legalities but are the way they are because of legality. Decriminalizing narcotics will help heal the people vs feeding the corrupted black market which enjoys substance addicts because it feeds on the destruction of those who are addicted.

[@MrZacharykgwin]

"The roads are demonstrably less safe in Colorado". I live in Colorado in no way is this statement true.

[@pak3ton]

Maybe the roads are shit there :v

[@Kparris7]

The only logically consistent argument is for the legalization of all drugs. Partial legalization all comes down to opinion of where to draw the line. It's impossible to draw some objective measure. So really the argument he's making is that people should accept his line for no other reason than he thinks it's correct.

[@TheHouseAlwaysWins20]

You can't decriminalize drugs. Without increasing funding to rehabilitation services and expanding access to Medicare

[@TheFluffyDuck]

The trouble is ALL drugs are labeled under the idiom “DRUGS” and it’s far to easy to put something in that catch all label, it’s much harder to get one out. Not all drugs are the same. Yes, you have drugs that you can become addicted to and have a high chance of overdose, and then there are other illegal drugs which are the exact opposite and being researched to break addiction habits. There is junky shit, and then there are plant medicines.

[@mrchoon2010]

I've been saying this for years. "Drugs" is just a useless word. It's funny how our language around the topic always seems to suggest alcohol isn't a drug. We even say "Drugs and alcohol" as if they're separate

[@quiksilver87]

Drugs should be legalized and possibly produced locally at low prices. This will ensure eradication of all the garbage from our gene pools. Bottom line is that I would rather lose 10 depressed, anxious crackheads than to lose 1 citizen that actually contributes to our society.

[@dannyduchamp]

The racial disparity in drug arrests is a very bad argument against drug prohibition. Blacks are also arrested for murder at a higher per capita rate than whites. That doesn't constitute an argument against murder prohibition. It's not even an argument for correcting that disparity.

[@JoJoJoker]

Drug prohibition is the biggest issue facing our nation. Most people, like 999/1000, are totally oblivious to the issue. Marijuana and opium are safer (and more natural) than alcohol and tobacco. Our 107-year prohibition experiment has been a dismal failure.

[@gjsterp]

Drug use should be Decriminalized and professional treatment should be available for addicts. But, some drugs are just too dangerous to make legal. Legalization of a drug promotes the idea that a drug is socially acceptable for use, like sugar. And we know what sugar has done to the health of many individuals, including children.

[@ttimetotroll]

Agreed. And don't forget porn and gaming. The divorce rates in America has been continuously increasing correspondingly with the increasing ease of internet access and porn. Also, a few years ago, gaming addiction is now in the DSM as a disorder. Legalization is there to deter ppl to get it. The fact that it is illegal removes this as a something to think about from most curious young adults. But the moment it is legal, people are going to think about it and ponder it a bit more. And curiosity will settle in and the surge or addicts will certainly increase, especially for drugs like meth and cocaine.

[@nmyasime6176]

@@ttimetotroll I don’t know if this is a big for you guys in America but in England the amount of violence from county lines aswell as the dominance of the Albanians in not only Europe but specifically london allows them a monopoly of drugs in England pushing them out to all areas of the country allowing them to create the rules. The least legalising drugs does is retake the power back to the government and the police (even if they are both fucked at the moment) the removal of the black market and the introduction of the government introducing a safe drug that is able to beat criminals on three factors these being price, quality and safety not only allows us to remove many criminals but also allows us to make billions of pounds per year, aswell as arguably having less deaths. On the topic of porn I completely agree it creates a weakness especially in young men causing depression and should be viewed as a drug for the damage it can cause yet it should be spoke about more as it is rarely spoke about in schools or households rather than limiting access, young people are not educated enough from an early age as our authority’s are behind as most kids will first see porn as early as 10 years old causing it to become very easily engrained if not approached early.

[@onenone3209]

Fact no Adult should be told what they can and can not to with their body. It's not up for debate it is a human right to make good and bad choices.

[@rbaca90]

As a pharmacist I control the legal distribution of abused substances every day. Peoples behavior is quite obvious when they have an addiction (try to fill early every month, with a variety of excuses and emergencies, always angry, always desperate). I have concerns with all drugs being legal. Currently, I’m held liable if somebody overdosed on something that I give them. People will mix their benzos and opiates and cough syrups and not realize that they all compound overdose risk. Even though the information is readily available online. So whose responsible ? The manufacturer? The business that sold it ? It’s a slippery slope if you put the sole responsibility on the individual consuming We also don’t have a reliable addiction treatment program, and legalization would likely widen the income gap.

[@homewall744]

I am harming you for your own good...says the parental state to the childish citizen. Yes, putting a citizen in prison or shooting him dead hurts the state more than the citizen. Perhaps there will be less crime and less drug use even if liberty were restored instead of a state that must take care of you, give you free things, keep you safe from your own ideas and preferences, etc. Depression and anxiety arise more from being told you are a victim and a child by the state than the empowerment of liberty and the acceptance of your preferences.

[@joshmanson2017]

If u have everyone in here a pain pill for a month some would get addicted well do the same with alcohol same results this guy has the worst argument

[@jarettmeyer4929]

At 54:20 Alex is really wrong here and his ignorance on actually using the substance he is talking about really shows through. If you are a long term habitual marijuana smoker the effects that start to take place are more like a coffee than any sort of impairing high. I would argue a habitual smoker is actually more mentally sharp after smoking than prior to. Where, a drinker will still be getting drunk regardless of the stage of their use (unless their liver is toast maybe?). These conversations are terribly rough since neither of the people usually have any experience actually using any of the substances they are discussing.

[@0ne0fmany]

I trust YOU to be able to decide what do you need. I don NOT have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own self. If you wanna kill yourself, I can try talking you out of it, But I find it highly disturbing, that some still believe that you can forcefully prevent me from harming myself. The totaly hypocrisy of hurting someone in order to protect them from harm. And if you decided and harmed yourself, you have my empathy.

[@chu-gacha1172]

*This debate is more Lukewarm then The water but you wake up to on your nightstand*

[@FutureLaugh]

14:28 i would really appreciate a source on this in particular