Pro or against soft drugs

pro or against soft drugs

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EZx5OgKQNrA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Pro: MDMA, Shrooms, LSD/LSA, Ketamine, 2C's, DMT, 4aco-DMT, weed, DXM, mescaline
Against: Speed, opioids
Neutral: Alcohol, tobacco, cocaine

What's the logic here my man

Simple one for me, pro all the way! I'm sure you all know, but ima say it anyway, weed does not lead to harder drugs or mental health issues, you would of had these problems regardless of your past with the Mary Jane! The only reason weed/hemp was outlawed was because of the impact it was having on these so called big company's who would lose a shit ton of money to the hemp trade, as you all know hemp can be made into so many things they made a conspiracy that it ducks you up! It was illegal to not be growing at least 3 hemp plants at some point in history! It's all one big fucking joke on us people who enjoy the herb!!

fine by me unless you abuse

Top ones except for weed are not addicting which is a huge pro for drugs. Most of them are not dangerous if you know how to take them, with MDMA, ketamine and dxm on the sketchy side since most people are idiots. Speed just makes you unable to sleep so I wouldnt see a reason why people would want it legal. Opioids are in general fucked since all are addicting and make you dependent. I don't care to much for sos to be either pro or against it. Alcohol and tobacco should be on the against list, but since I like them too much it cancelled out to neutral.
Weed is the most difficult one since it both helps you and fucks with you in the long-term

>Against, but it shouldn't be a crime
>Surely there are worse criminals than hippies

stoner here, so
legalize it

Speed is just high-dose adderall (unless you mean meth), which should be more/as legal for its usefulness as a nootropic.

MDMA and LSD, as well as at least a few of those other hallucinogens can definitely build tolerance/fuck you up/possibly be addictive if taken too frequently, but mostly experienced trippers are smart enough not to.

Ketamine is definitely something that you can both build a tolerance to and become addicted to.

Weed is probably less addictive than most of those, it's just more available than anything else (save nic and booze) so easier to form a habit or dependence.

Well put

Pro soft drug legalization, against people who would actually make use of them.

Legalize everything then let nature sort it out.

He only wants the drugs he likes to use legalized.

All drugs should be legal. Full stop. Including poisons.

The only drug that should be legalized is weed, obsiously. Alcohol and tobacco should be banned, too bad it will never happen.

Yeah because it worked so well last time we banned alcohol.

You must be older than 18 to post here.

in before its just a plant

Weed breaks the "drugs are bad" stereotype because of how harmless it is. That's why is does lead to harder drugs. There's no direct connection between weed and harder drugs, it's a psychological matter.

You guys are right about me only wanting to legalise stuff that I like, sorry for that. Only problem I notice with weed around me is that it can seriously affect dopamine concentrations in certain parts of your brain, which can cause you to be less motivated to do things and become less caring for things around you. Oddly enough I always get super reflective from weed and can tackle small problems in my life easier by detecting them better, but in the long run weed always makes me less able to get over the treshhold to actually do things

Doesn't matter to me as long as it doesn't take over your life, abusing
or using it on the job.

I think he's weighing social costs, but to be fair I think nothing should be illegal and it should just be simply regulated.

Promoting opiates like we do alcohol would be a disaster. Instead, it is ideal we simply allow users and addicts to get a cheap, clean source to reduce social costs of their addiction.

People who lose their minds on drugs like methamphetamine should have a legal code reserved for them like a 5150 and allow them to detox and get mentally stabilized.

To add, half the problem with hard drug addiction is that they're expensive, leading to poverty and crime, and their dosage / purity is questionable, leading to overdoses.

you stoners like butterface?

Reading comprehension, should.

Alcohol abuse is literally worse, health-implication-wise, than any other "soft" drug. It's only its historical legality that keeps it from being more strictly regulated.

How many among the top line have you actually done? I've only smoked and dropped LSD, so I'm curious.

>Reading comprehension, should.
Yes, and?

"Should" implies you think a ban would be a positive thing. That you want it to be banned. I can't believe I'm trying to explain the definition of a simple word here.

I am telling you that banning alcohol would result in violent death, a massive black market and make criminals of people for enjoying a fucking beverage. It is immoral and it is stupid.

Then don't abuse alcohol and you won't have health problems, simple as that.

Its not a war against drugs, its a war against personal freedom.

Also shared illegal paraphernalia is a major cause of the spread of STDs like Hep C, Hepatitis, rather than just "unsafe sex".

Reused needles, instead of new ones, leads to collapsed veins.

youtube.com/watch?v=EZx5OgKQNrA

Then why isn't it called that?

Because people like personal freedom but "drugs" implies something icky.

Why is pro-abortion called pro-choice? Why is anti-abortion called pro-life?

Pro your *right* to grow/produce/smoke/use etc...

Against them personally

It's a war on Black Panthers and Hippies:

>"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Why is an adult having sex with someone under the age of 18 considered "statutory RAPE" even if it's concensual?

politics, all the way down.

All of them, here in the Netherlands you can almost get everything legally or at least very easily (= In the smart shop in my city they keep track very well what is on either a grey list or just became legal or isnt illegal yet. Because of a governmental mistake 1A-LSD got legal again and boom, there it is in the shop. Also lots of research chemicals available there. I can really recommend the 4ACO-DMT, which should be like a shrooms alternative, but ended up giving way more visuals than my strongest LSD-trip and without the usual shrooms mindspace. Mescaline is pure gold as well, and if you have more experience, DMT is very much fun as well. Anyways, effects are different for everyone, just see what fits you

Winners don't use drugs.

because someone under the 18 is not able to give legal consent... just like minors can't enter into contracts... because they cant legally consent... come on Sup Forumsro that's Law 101 right there

They cannot give informed consent, but they can give simple consent, or what might be called "willingness". Meaning they are desirous of it but they do not understand the ramifications of it (ramifications that are almost entirely the result of the legal fiction that people under the age of 18 can sign some contracts but not a contract to have sex).

Must be fucking boring to be a winner then

DMT

VERSUS!

4aco-DMT

What is?

Better than be a loser in the jail

Totally different, 4aco-DMT is a compound that gets broken down into psylocibin in your body and thus should work the same as shrooms. Trips last around 4 hours when ingested orally. DMT is DMT, smoke it and be in a complete different dimension for about 10-15 minutes

I doubt you can call yourself a winner if you won't take any risk in life

>Be a junky= be an xtreme guy

Neutral about cocaine
Uuuh

I'm afraid that you'll find out that this is more often the case than not

As said before, I listed it a bit wrong based on personal use instead of what I want legal or illegal. I'm a poor student, so for me it's just overpriced, overrated stuff, but I don't understand why it wouldn't be legal

>Only users lose drugs

That and the alcohol you get is of worse quality and if you are unlucky can make you blind

It's easier for minors to get in touch with illegal drugs because they ask for identity cards in shops and in general shop owners control it very strictly because they dont want to get in trouble

This is the true "gateway" argument. Prohibition inevitably leads to illegality if only because there's no legal supply. People have taken drugs for as long as there have been people, and harm reduction is the most sensible way to go imo.

yeah man

yes dude the abuse of alcohol by some strangers is not a pro for weed!

altough i like weed

the blinding thing only counts for homemade schnaps though

haha

Marijuana overdose.jpg

yall behind the times if you aren't ordering 99% cbd isolate online.

like adding some cherry to your cola.

It applies to any drink that has too much methanol in ratio to ethanol.

its literally impossible to get enough methanol into your mead, beer or wine

and the ethanol - methanol ratio doesnt count

I believe that every drug, from cannabis and LSD to crack and heroin, should be legal.

trust me iam a brewer

*distilled drinks
My bad.

dont just slap on shitty labels like "soft drug" that's retarded. all drugs you're thinking about are just that, drugs. on that note all drugs should still be legalized completely.