Legalize all drugs.

[InsaneApache]

Yes, that's right all of them. This has been an arguement that I have slowly come around to. The war on drugs is unwinnable. Much like the war on terror. Human beings will always, indeed have always, sought solace, inspiration and just plain fun from recreational use of substances. To look at how the prohibition of drugs has failed, one only has to go back to the USA in the 30s and the prohibition on alcohol and how that gave succour to the mob.

Properly regulated, as alcohol is, this would, at a stroke, deprive organised crime of it's oxygen, money. It would free up police time from chasing what is in essence a social problem and allow them to concentrate on preventing and detecting crime.

I know some of you might say that why not abolish all crime on the statute books, thus allowing us to do away with the police altogether.

That would be missing the point.

An article from the BBC.

In the report Mr Brunstrom writes: "if policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral....

"Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7038552.stm

I think this quote is telling.

He said: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."

I would say that this actually promotes my arguement.

[JAG]

Well blow me down, I think it is safe to say we completely agree on this subject IA.

[CountArach]

I'll throw in a third agreeing opinion. Well said! The way I see it is that the money made from Taxes could go into Drug Education.

[HoreTore]

No. Why not? Because heroin is a LOT more dangerous than alcohol/nicotine. Much more addictive, and it can kill you outright. I don't think we should be able to buy a quick death at the supermarket.

[InsaneApache]

No. Why not? Because heroin is a LOT more dangerous than alcohol/nicotine. Much more addictive, and it can kill you outright. I don't think we should be able to buy a quick death at the supermarket.

Who told you this? nicotine is far more addictive than heroin and the withdrawal from alcohol has to be under medical supervision as it is so dangerous it can kill. Compared with alcohol, heroin withdrawal is a walk in the park.

This is what I mean. People just arn't educated enough on the issue of drugs. Reefer Madness anyone?

[naut]

Because heroin is a LOT more dangerous than alcohol/nicotine. Much more addictive, and it can kill you outright. I don't think we should be able to buy a quick death at the supermarket.

- It is more dangerous than alcohol and I'd debateably mention nicotine, which kills the most people of all drugs. But it is a lot less dangerous than Cocaine or Ice if you know the concentration of your supply. Because what makes people overdose is that one batch is more concentrated than usual and then they insert the same amount as usual, which is too much and they die.
- Also it wouldn't be available at the supermarket, that's just silly.
- And as it would be regulated and all, the taboo factor of it would be removed, making it a lot less attractive to the people who think it'd be cool to do so.
- Imagine how much money would be saved not processing those 280,000 people through the legal system.

[Ja'chyra]

Personally I don't agree with most of the things that the government seem to think they need to forbid us from, a good example of this raising the age you can buy cigarettes to 18, I mean who thought this up, you can get married get a house have children but you can't buy fags????? They're also going to raise the age of buying alcohol to 21, utter hypocrasy, we're quite willing to send people out to die in Iraq and Afghanistan but we won't allow them to go for a drink at the weekends????

Let people take responsibility for their own actions, you pay your money you make your choices, it's you that has to live with the consequences.

[Fragony]

Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.

[Ja'chyra]

Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.

You mean we aren't already?

[Geoffrey S]

Personally I think decent education is the key to prevention. Making drugs illegal doesn't prevent people who want them from getting them, much like guns, and government regulation/distribution could drive down prices which would take away income from many criminal organizations. I don't believe it's the governments place to stop people from using harddrugs other than informing the public, and don't believe it's possible in most cases, but I also don't see it as government responsibility to pick up the pieces other than in cases where the public welfare is threatened. Primary goal of such legislation should be to deprive criminals from their major cash source.

My mind says yes, this makes sense. But morally, I just can't shake the feeling that a line needs to be drawn somewhere... I suppose it would come down to a distinction between legal and socially tolerated, the latter I hope won't happen.

Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.

I'd say that it'd rather take away the monopoly of said regimes.

[Fragony]

You mean we aren't already?

Well yeah, but to add another one. You can't win the war on drugs that is true, but that is no reason to permit them I think. There is blood money all over it there, and it destroys lives here. Too complicated.

[macsen rufus]

Because heroin is a LOT more dangerous than alcohol/nicotine. Much more addictive, and it can kill you outright.

Simply not true - before I got a life I trained as a pharmacist, so this is not a soap-box opinion from me (for a change ).

THE classic case of a heroin addict we were given is the GP who became addicted in his 20s, and his habit was not discovered by anyone until he was in his 80s, having spent most of that time functioning perfectly well as a doctor and family man. How is this possible on this horrible, oh so dangerous drug? Well, he had some advantages - a doctor's income, and a reliable supply of pharmaceutical grade heroin, and enough medical knowledge to be able to inject repeatedly in a safe and hygienic manner.

Two things make heroin dangerous as a recreational drug - the people who sell it, and the crap they pad it out with. Many cases of accidental OD with heroin arise where an unexpectedly purer batch hits the streets. Users accustomed with a 5% purity will succumb to a shot of 50% purity. If the supply is 100% pure in the first place, and legal, both of these problems are eradicated. It's analogous to the mobs running 'moonshine' during Prohibition.

Cost-wise, legally produced, pharmaceutical heroin is RIDICULOUSLY cheap - when I was studying pharmacy (admittedly a few years ago now, allow for inflation) the price we were given was approximately 2 pence per standard therapeutic shot (the packaging and distribution cost more!) Yet illegal supplies that were dirty, impure and truly dangerous cost hundreds if not thousands of times as much.

Now I don't deny that heroin can be lethal - so can alcohol in overdose, there are enough cases of binge-drinkers dying of alcohol poisoning to prove it, and in long-term exposure alcohol causes cirrhosis, liver cancer, all sorts of other things. Heroin is certainly addictive, but nicotine is as bad if not worse. PHYSICALLY heroin is pretty harmless.

If you really want to scare yourself about drugs, do some research on paracetamol overdose - that is about the worst way to go EVAR, and you CAN buy that in supermarkets.

Obviously if drugs were legalised (I would exclude cocaine purely on the grounds it turns users into loudmouthed ) then a suitable regulatory framework would be required, as we have with tobacco and alcohol (but not on caffeine funnily enough which can also be quite dangerous mentally and physically). But with the tax revenues and the hugely reduced number of people resorting to other crimes to finance what should be a very cheap habit, I think society would be a lot better off on balance (not to mention that we'd be able to offer a sustainable economic option for Afghans to wean them away from the Taliban )

[caravel]

This issue is a double edged sword. While legalising them makes sense on paper. A few years down the line once the class c drugs such as marijuana have worked there way into society, as alcohol and tobacco are at present, then the effects could be irreversable. Setting up more multi billion pound industries like the tobacco industry is also not a idea. Legalising something sends out the wrong message to young people, it basically says "it's ok to do that", it makes drugs socially acceptable. Since marijuana was downgraded from class b to class c and since PC Plod started turning a blind eye to it, it is now rife in the town where I live, especially among teenagers and school kids.

[Pannonian]

Well yeah, but to add another one. You can't win the war on drugs that is true, but that is no reason to permit them I think. There is blood money all over it there, and it destroys lives here. Too complicated.

The rationale is that drugs are going to damage lives anyway whether or not they're prohibited. If they're controlled and distributed by the state, at least we'd know the drugs were safe and unadulterated, it takes them off the black market and thus gives the state something to tax, and since they're openly available they'll be cheaper, reducing the need for crimes to fund habits and thus reducing the level of crime. Also, it gives us a whiphand over countries which grow the raw materials, allowing us to dispense our favours (by buying their crops) according to whichever foreign policy best suits us. It's much cheaper than war, and since it's up to them to present a good case for us buying their stuff as opposed to us forcing our views on them, it creates less friction.

As I've said before, legalise heroin (and whatever other drugs seem expedient) but have a state monopoly on supply, and buy the raw materials from Afghanistan or other places according to cost and foreign policy. It's completely amoral, but would you rather have a moral policy that doesn't work or an amoral policy that materially benefits everyone?

[Fragony]

Thankfully heroin is a non-issue here, coke is hip, but heroin is considered to be pathetic. But regulating it would probably more costly then what we are doing now.

[naut]

Good post macsen rufus.

[Watchman]

Meh, just take the approach that's working pretty well with smoking: make the stuff legal, but grossly inconvenient and onerous to actually use so the number of people actually bothering with it stays down. Limits the health expenses, and removes the reason for quite a bit of quite nasty crime to exist in the first place as there are no longer megabucks to be made in illegal drug trade. And since even the heavy users can get their "fix" cheaply and legally they don't have to roll up people, burgle apartements and/or sell organs (theirs or someone else's...) to pay for the habit.

I would think the Prohibition approach has been throroughly tried and found quite wanting, anyway.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.

Aren't we already?

[Ronin]

Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.

why is that?

if drugs were legal couldn´t they be produced locally?

no need to import them from those "nasty regimes"...

[drone]

Since marijuana was downgraded from class b to class c and since PC Plod started turning a blind eye to it, it is now rife in the town where I live, especially among teenagers and school kids.

But does it cause any problems? Are the kids engaging in more crimes? Or are they just stoned all the time (a definite minus regarding their future, but better than them robbing the elderly and otherwise being teenage punks)?

I bet the kabob shops love it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have never used illegal drugs, have smoked only 5/6 cigars in my 43 years, and pretty well stopped all but the occasional cocktail or nightcap after leaving grad school. Therefore, personally, drugs play little role in my life.


I came to the regrettable conclusion that drugs should be legalized a few years back.


Mind you, I say regrettable because I have deep fears about the first generation of younglings after the prohibitions are lifted. Too many will experiment and too many will pay a harsh price.

Nevertheless, the War on Terror is far more likely to be "won" than is the "war" on drugs. The War on Terror is a war against an idea -- difficult fight, but possible to win by supplanting the targeted idea with a better and more broadly relevant idea. The War on Drugs, however, is a war against humyn nature itself.

Eventually, however, in a world where such things are legal and the policing focuses strictly on protecting others from harm caused by you -- and not attempting to protect you from yourself -- a new and more practical equilibrium. I fear for us all during that transition however.


As to some side points from above:


"Supporting" nasty regimes. Some already support such regimes anyway. In a world where such things were legal, at least a less loathsome regime could establish competition and allow you to boycott a particular thug more readily.

"Nicotine" and drug potency. Macsen can confirm this from a more authoratative perspective, but you need to remember just how little nicotine is in a typical cigarette. 1 eyedropper of pure nicotine would rapidly kill a 100kg human -- in pure form the stuff is nearly as deadly as Potassium Cyanide. And nicotine, by itself, is one of the LESS carcinogenic components of tobacco/cigarettes.

[InsaneApache]

Very true. A droplet of pure nicotine on your skin would cause death rapidly.

Thanks to macsen rufus for your insight.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Not really much to say here, apart from that I whole-heartedly agree with IA and Macsen Rufus's posts. I must confess that I find it odd that although almost everyone I talk to about this issue is of the same opinion-that widespread legalisation is the way to go-no government is willing to consider even discussing it.

[Xiahou]

My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.

An additional concern is the destructive force legalization would have on families. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we'd see more drug addicted babies and negligent/abusive parents who are addicted to drugs.

How to legalize is also a problem. I don't think flat out legalization is a good option, but heavy regulation and taxation would still leave the door open for illegal black markets. I also don't relish the idea of getting contact buzzes everytime I leave my house and walk down the street.

Part of the reason for a continuing ban, I think, is convenience. I'd liken it to speeding in a car- the act itself isn't necessarily a problem, it's the reckless driving that's often associated with it. But, it's much harder to enforce reckless driving laws than it is a flat out speeding ban. Similarly, if someone wants to sit at home with themselves and smoke weed with consenting friends where it won't affect children or others- I could care less. But the amount of government regulation required to ensure such might well be unworkable.

[Ronin]

My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.

Our societies already do that with lots of things that are legal....smokes, alcohol, greasy food, no exercise...all unhealthy lifestyles that:

A) are legal
B) lead to higher costs in medical treatment for everyone...

so why not legalize all drugs?

[Lemur]

My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.

Non-issue. We're already paying for the prosecution, jailing and incarceration of millions of drug users, which is more expensive than their medical treatment by a country mile. (Remember, it costs roughly $20k per year to hold a human being in general population prison.) Also, according to the best economist's guesses, marijuana is a $35 billion crop in the U.S. that is not taxed.

You can't make a sane economic argument for maintaining the war on drugs. Well, you can, but it's not going to make any sense.

[Fragony]

why is that?

if drugs were legal couldn´t they be produced locally?

no need to import them from those "nasty regimes"...

Can legalise them all but can't make them all, you will have to do business at some point. On building it yourselve, use perfectly fine ground for these few addicts? It will have to be grown, processed, refined, taxed, regulating it is going to be hugely expensive, and for what, a relativily small problem.

[macsen rufus]

My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.

I can see your logic - but to be consistent really shouldn't we extend the same principle to the already legal, health-affecting patterns of consumption? Obviously alcohol and tobacco are the foremost, but you could take issue with junk food, salt, sugar etc etc on that basis.

And there is a more pertinent failure in your case - heroin users, of which I'm sure there must be a couple of million or so in the USA at a wild guess, are heck of a lot healthier if they are not also injecting unknown quantities of chalk, talcum powder, bleach, washing powder, sugar, flour etc as they are at present. Not to mention all the casualties of the organised crime rings that surround the trade and indulge in turf wars.

I would have thought a better counter-argument is that the organised criminals will not go away, they'll just choose another racket. In the UK and Europe it seems the latest thing is people trafficking - I'm sure some of these folks used to be in the drugs trade, maybe some still are. If there's any police manpower to be freed up from chasing innocuous weekend tokers, it could be well used as extra resources against this truly evil trade that is effectively slave trading in all but name.

[Xiahou]

You can't make a sane economic argument for maintaining the war on drugs. Well, you can, but it's not going to make any sense.

What's happened to the lawsuit money that states "needed" to offset the costs of treating smokers? What is the tax collected for cigarettes and alchohol being spent on? How long do you think it takes to burn through $20,000 to treat someone who has contracted cancer or has major body systems fail due to drug use?

[Xiahou]

I can see your logic - but to be consistent really shouldn't we extend the same principle to the already legal, health-affecting patterns of consumption? Obviously alcohol and tobacco are the foremost, but you could take issue with junk food, salt, sugar etc etc on that basis.

Yep. That's why the best solution would be to stop forcing tax payers to subsidize someone's bad decisions. Want to eat a crate of twinkies a day? Knock yourself out, just don't come crying to the government when you become diabetic and have clogged arteries. Want to shoot heroine? Go for it, just don't expect the government to fix you up on our dime when/if it starts to kill you.