in the U.S., i think androcur should be legal. i don't know, i just like the sound of how it works more than spiro, but it does it all does the same job i guess.

I am mostly undecided about whether or not drugs should be legal. If they were, they would have to be strictly regulated.
But whether or not they're legalized, the school system should focus less on 'say no' and focus more on the effects of substances on your body so people can make a more educated decision.

I don't think drugs should be legal. If alcohol wasn't so readily available I wouldn't be an alcoholic.

Legalise everything, quality control and monitored use for addicts. A lot of people die simply because there is no quality control. Obviously people still die taking too much of the real stuff but quite often it's down to something toxic being passed off as what it's not. It would reduce crime and cut down on disease and OD's. People have been consuming mind altering substances since we grew fingers, it's not for everyone but some folks enjoy it. What's the difference between dying climbing everest, riding a motorcycle, base jumping or taking too much of an illicit substance.... Life's full of risks and I hate having anyone tell me which ones I can or cannot partake in. Some of the nicest most trust worthy people I've met have been drug takers of various types. Some of the most blinkered, short sighted and judgemental have been those condemning anyone who does. Quite often they'll do it holding tightly onto a beer and a cigarette....

Quote from: fionabell on December 21, 2011, 01:25:16 AM
I don't think drugs should be legal. If alcohol wasn't so readily available I wouldn't be an alcoholic.

Nah. You'd still be an alcoholic, you just wouldn't know it. There are lots of things out there that some people can handle and some others can't. Deciding nobody can have something because some people can't use it is going down a slippery slope.

The very warning at the onset of this topic brings up one of the single trickiest notions of legalizing substances.  Let's say I depict an illegal act of drug sales and/or consumption and get banned as a result.  Then, the law is overturned and my depiction was of a thing that is now a legal act.  Do I immediately get unbanned?  Does someone apologize to me for banning me for something that an authority has decided is now not wrong?

Likewise, what do you do with people who are in jail right now?  What about the time they've served for doing something that is now regarded as okay?  Do you give back the millions in fines that people have paid for doing nothing wrong?

Further, regarding the TOS, marijuana ownership has been decriminalized in many regions and even where it's not, personal ownership is generally a misdemeanor.  Is there no leniency in regards to the level of illegality of an act?  Could a person be banned for mentioning a speeding ticket, which resulted from the illegal act of driving above the speed limit (which is almost certainly a crime that has taken more lives than smoking pot)?

You have read the TOS Maya, those are what is in force right now.

If the "federal" laws change then our rules would be updated, but for now we live with the Rules as Susan has posted them.

If you got banned for breaking the TOS, you would be banned, the federal laws (or Susan's) changing after the fact would not change the fact that you had disobeyed the current rules.

Well, yes, that's obviously the situation and the rationale used in situations such as this by authorities.  "You knew you were breaking what the rules were at the time."  My questions were not literally questions I had regarding the exact meaning of the TOS.  I know what the rules are and I'm not breaking them.  I was posing those questions to get people thinking about what happens when rules are created and enforced, but are built on such a weak moral structure that they could change at any time.  It makes authority, which serves an important purpose, appear ignorant, arrogant, and weak.  Really, I thought it was an appropriate analogy for a discussion about drug prohibition.

Now, this is going way beyond the scope of what we're talking about here, but should we respect punishments given for laws which themselves violated civil liberties?  Should we condone the prior hanging of a fellow because, in all fairness, he knew it was wrong to do something that was the privilege of white people?