Hard Drugs should be legal

[Jolt]

People suggest the dumbest of things...

First of all, the argument "People should be allowed as long as they don't interfere with other people's lives". As it is known for the past handful of decades, that doesn't happen. Once a person gets too addicted (As people need gradually more and more amount of the same drug to get the same effect) and runs out of money, it WILL start interfering with other people's lives to satisfy that adiction. That argument is simply well beyond null. And since it eventually happens so, then it is forbidden.

Now, soft drugs that another thing. But even there, there needs to be a mentality of responsibility to be allowed legal. Otherwise, we have kids and teenagers doing soft drugs in every corner of the streets. That's an utter lack of respect.

I'm really a prohibition nazi. I drink when I go to parties/discos/whatever, but if I had to vote on alcohol prohibition, I'd do it any day. Same goes (Especially, since it has already wrecked apart my parents lives) for tobacco. It is simply stupid to take something bad for you. I'm against allowing stupid people to make stupid decisions. Some argue it's part of gaining life experience. I argue that those people lose something during that life experience to get to the point where everyone already knew it would be bad to make that stupid decision.

[KukriKhan]

Of course; that works in Europe, where everything not granted is forbidden. They have a history and culture of law being handed down from on high. No problem. Works for you guys.

In America, everything not specifically forbidden, however silly, personally injurious, or bad for your health... is authorized.

We have specifically forbidden the possession, sale, distribution, or ingestion of a few dozen drugs here. I say: why?

What compelling societal interest is there in prohibiting that? Maybe there is a societal interest that trumps an individual interest. But so far, the arguments put forward are little more than a half-hearted D.A.R.E. briefing in elementary school (no offense intended there; but the anti-hard drug argument has basically been: "It's bad for you.")

[Lord Winter]

I heard an interesting perspective off a podcast. Basiclly the host is argueing that even if scientist were to come up with a drug that had the same effects as Cocain, LSD, herion or what not, but with no harmful longterm effects it would still be banned.

[Lemur]

Damn straight it would be. You know why? 'Cause prohibition works. It just does. Imprisoning millions of citizens for possession? Works. Spending billions of dollars feeding, guarding and keeping them warm? Works. Diverting a huge market away from legality and into the arms of criminal gangs? Works.

It just works. Stop arguing about it.

[Caius]

You really want to know why doesn't drugs are allowed? That's because there would be war between drug sellers. And police instead of investigate who stole your (insert object of valour), they would be investigating who killed X drug dealer.

[ajaxfetish]

In response to several of the arguments that have reared their ugly heads in this thread:

In the US, the purpose of government is not to protect individuals from their own stupidity. It is to ensure the protection of their liberty and property.

The costs to society of tobacco and especially alcohol far outweigh all illegal drugs combined. This includes deaths due to overdose or accident, property damage, intoxication-related crime, drug-induced disease, and so on.

The attempt to prohibit alcohol (motivated by puritan ideals) was a bitter failure. The current attempt to prohibit other drugs (also motivated by puritan ideals) is and will continue to be a bitter failure. The continuation of the war on drugs does little to nothing to reduce drug use, forces its trade to the black market, upholds violent dealers and gangs and repressive regimes, ties up much of the resources of the criminal justice system, and sends thousands of nonviolent individuals with no other criminal activity to prison, ruining their lives and introducing them to violent criminals.

Drug price would not necessarily plummet if legalized, leading to much wider use, as taxes would likely make up much of the price difference. This does not, however, mean people would be more likely to still turn to the black market. After all, how much power does the illegal alcohol trade have today? It was certainly huge back in the day, but is now only a memory. Legal drug prices would likely still be lower, not to mention the goods being regulated and thus much more uniform and comparably much safer.

Legalizing the use of hard drugs =/= legalizing driving, using heavy machinery, assaulting others, or otherwise causing harm to others while intoxicated.

We keep drugs illegal because we still have a puritan and anti-libertarian mentality on the issue, and because we hate to admit that we were wrong. Is it stupid to take such drugs? Yes, but not nearly as stupid as it is to keep them illegal.

Ajax

[woad&fangs]

Out of curiosity, how many people here have read Freakonomics?

[Crazed Rabbit]

EDIT: *raises hand for W&F*

I'm really a prohibition nazi. I drink when I go to parties/discos/whatever, but if I had to vote on alcohol prohibition, I'd do it any day. Same goes (Especially, since it has already wrecked apart my parents lives) for tobacco..

You know what the definition of insane is, right? Trying the same thing and expecting different results.

I'm against allowing stupid people to make stupid decisions.

So when do you want your personal government agent to come by and make sure you're getting enough exercise?

The drug war has been a monumental failure. Drugs are not harder to get. Innocent people are dead or robbed by the government. How can it truly be justified that we continue it?

CR

[Samurai Waki]

There is absolutely no justification at the moment to keep many hard drugs illegal. However, it all comes down to personal responsibility, every dollar spent on drugs could be spent on something more important, but people don't realize this. I'm not trying to be preachy (eh' each to their own). When it comes to some drugs the whole "my body is my temple" advert is bollocks, and I don't trust the guy down the street to be responsible enough to keep his body within his temple while on a Cocaine High.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If it's legal, you give the vibe that it's OK when it isn't.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ever seen any of the anti-smoking ads we've got in the US?

Somehow we've managed to cut down on smoking without (straight up) banning it (though I dislike the heavy handed taxes and rules against it).

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If it's legal, you give the vibe that it's OK when it isn't.

There are tons of things which are legal but looked down upon by society, and many which are illegal that no one cares about.

[pevergreen]

I see (in my naive youth) that the government is like a friend, advising that it's not a good thing to take hard drugs, and saying you will be sorry you did. Not by what the drugs do, but by what they do.

See? The government can be a good.

(I still see government and good as an oxymoron though)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There are tons of things which are legal but looked down upon by society, and many which are illegal that no one cares about.

That is true, but it still legitimizes something that should not be legitimized.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hehe. Well maybe bad and short lived ideas go both ways. If we are talking about what works vs what doesn't we could legalize most drugs and see if that idea isn't as bad as prohibiting alcohol. Two way street - better try it before I have children.

[Xiahou]

Damn straight it would be. You know why? 'Cause prohibition works. It just does. Imprisoning millions of citizens for possession? Works. Spending billions of dollars feeding, guarding and keeping them warm? Works. Diverting a huge market away from legality and into the arms of criminal gangs? Works.

It just works. Stop arguing about it.

The fact that people break a law is no argument for doing away with the law. Our war on rape has also been a total failure- despite years of enforcement and billions spent, people still do it. When will we come to our senses and legalize it? Similarly, the war on theft has also been a miserable failure and should be ended.

I'm all for rethinking how we prosecute illegal narcotics if when can do so more efficiently. But just because the current strategy hasn't been totally successful doesn't mean that the only alternative is legalization.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I see (in my naive youth) that the government is like a friend, advising that it's not a good thing to take hard drugs, and saying you will be sorry you did. Not by what the drugs do, but by what they do.

See? The government can be a good.

(I still see government and good as an oxymoron though)

Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.

Hehe. Well maybe bad and short lived ideas go both ways. If we are talking about what works vs what doesn't we could legalize most drugs and see if that idea isn't as bad as prohibiting alcohol. Two way street - better try it before I have children.

I think we should go for decriminalization for those over 18 as a start. It's easy to see **** getting out of hand with dumbass teenagers. I think your right in that a sudden legalization would lead to a snap back pretty quickly.

That is true, but it still legitimizes something that should not be legitimized.

Choosing to get high is perfectly legitimate.

In America, everything not specifically forbidden, however silly, personally injurious, or bad for your health... is authorized.

I'm really a prohibition nazi. I drink when I go to parties/discos/whatever, but if I had to vote on alcohol prohibition, I'd do it any day.

Alcohol is very important for our nations happiness.

It's the one thing I dont understand. Why would you want to lose control of your body? I am terrified of being forced into taking something (drugs/alcohol) that will cause me to lose 100% control of my body and how I think.

It's really not scary...don't diss it till you've tried it.

[pevergreen]

Jumping off a cliff into sharp rocks isnt scary. Would you do it?

Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.

Yeah, well. *rambles on about reasons how it makes sense in pever's mind*

[Crazed Rabbit]

Our war on rape has also been a total failure- despite years of enforcement and billions spent, people still do it.

Um, no. Rapists have been imprisoned and stopped from harming others. That has cut down on the number of rapes that would otherwise have occurred. The war on drugs has imprisoned a lot of people, hurting society, for non violent offenses.

The war on drugs is a total failure, with the main causality being our liberties.

Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.

LoL!

CR

[Big_John]

Jumping off a cliff into sharp rocks isnt scary.

yes it is.

[AlexanderSextus]

Al capone killed lots of people for money made in the illegal Alcohol trade (i'm drinking a BEER right now, and no i'm not drunk, i only had one, this is #2) and Pablo Escobar killed lots of people for the money made in the illegal cocaine trade.

Alcohol was made Legal, amd Capone went straight to jail. Escobar supplied kilos and kilos of cocaine into the US with the help of Manuel Noreaga, A US ALLY at the time. Cocaine still floods into the US to this day. And i'd bet the CIA profits off of it just so they can bust the dealers they sell it to.
Thats why nothing's been legalized.


Yeah they got those guys but the problem has not been solved yet. i think its about time to change our ideas of what works. Prohibition does not.



Same Problem, Same Solution. Tax and regulate. Illegal markets will diminish, and Kingpins will get arrested.

Pot should be legal, as long as you dont drive or operate heavy machinery high. Especially for people like me who need it medically. Cerebral Palsy, BTW.... Works better for me than the BOTOX injections that really suck.

They have the NHS in England. Dope Junkies get clean needles and product that is not poisoned. Here in the US you have Junkies who get their kids to tie off their arm while they shoot up, not knowing how potent the product is. They end up ODing infront of their kids. This happens here in New Jersey. If they had an NHS-like program, the junkies would get graduated doses that would slowly wean them off of the drug and the potency would be the same every time so they would know exactly how much to use without killing themselves.

It is not the govts job to tell people what to put or not put in their own bodies, but it is the governments job to keep people who are addicted to a drug from dieing a horrible and tragic death that will mentally hurt their families.

[Samurai Waki]

People, Society, Freedoms, Governments are all equally accountable. I tend to go with Einstein's theory on humans/Universe/Stupidity.

Anyways, its all cause and effect dating back the last 100 or so years. Drugs were used in some very easily accessable items way back when, nobody knew that Cocaine was highly addictive and caused radical personality changes. So its sale and production was banned, but they never actually sought to cure the root of the problem so you have coke addicts without coke, so you get an intermediary who can supply it... of course the intermediaries aren't usually the types most want to associate with, so then you try to snuff it out, and all that happens is that you create a huge change of events that really do end, but its something that has to change within a society, and some ideas you just can't kill... unfortunately Puritanism is here to stay in some people (although its going away, like Slavery).

I can still maintain however, that Marijuana gets a bad rap and should be perfectly legal. And lets be honest, the people who aren't giving second thought to the support of other narcotics use, probably have at some point or still do like to smoke up.

[Tribesman]

They have the NHS in England. Dope Junkies get clean needles and product that is not poisoned. Here in the US you have Junkies who get their kids to tie off their arm while they shoot up, not knowing how potent the product is. They end up ODing infront of their kids. This happens here in New Jersey. If they had an NHS-like program, the junkies would get graduated doses that would slowly wean them off of the drug and the potency would be the same every time so they would know exactly how much to use without killing themselves.

Do they ? I thought you had the same methodone "support" programs that most other places have , with the slight difference that over in the States they will actually give a bigger supply to the patients than elsewhere . It has been suggested that the US policy of giving a months supply to junkies rather than a daily or weekly supply has led to the sharp increase in fatalities from people overdosing on this "safe" clean product .
Another problem with your post on weaning them off and the regulated potency of the supplied narcotic is that like the illegal narcotic it is used to replace it is addictive and its potency diminishes with use .

As for the topic itself ? a tricky one isn't it .
Regulate and tax it , control supply and attempt to control demand , good idea but will it work ?
Smack is illegal , some smackheads are complete wasters , utter dicks who really deserve to to take a long walk off a short pier , others can get on with their lives hold down a decent job support their familes and be fully productive members of society .
Alcohol is legal..........and all the same applies .
Now it can be said that legalising drugs and taxing them will remove the criminal element , alcohol and tobacco are legal and taxed after all . Yet both are produced illegally and sold , and both are legally produced andsold but then illegaly smuggled due to diffences in taxes . And you only have to look at some of the real unsavoury characters involved in cigerette smuggling to seethatthe "eliminatingcriminality" aspect of the arguement has some serious leaks in it .

[Viking]

You don't see a distinction between alcohol and heroin?

I see a major distinction. However, both will make the takers loose some/a lot of the control of their body.

You're still in control with alcohol unless the use of it is excessive.

There's no law forbidding excessive use.

I disagree!

The very definition of an addict is that he is not capable of deciding out of his own free will what he puts into his body. He is a slave to his addiction. It is not only the government's mere right, but duty to protect him from further harm. Even when disregarding all effects on third parties, like driving under influence, operating equipment and social effects.

Free will is a relative term. So is addiction. So is harm. The goverment can still help even if these drugs are allowed, either way.

I see (in my naive youth) that the government is like a friend, advising that it's not a good thing to take hard drugs, and saying you will be sorry you did. Not by what the drugs do, but by what they do.

See? The government can be a good.

(I still see government and good as an oxymoron though)

The government may still campaign against drugs even if they're legal.

[Husar]

Well, in a way they should really legalize drugs and exclude people who take them from healthcare. We'd have to sweep them off the streets now and then but maybe the genetic pool would be improved to the point that earth would be ruled by evil conservative ban-nazis like me.

[KrooK]

Strike sorry but...
1) drugs makes addiction
2) they costs much and addicted junkie pay everything he has to buy them
3) addicted finally has no cash, so he uses cash of his family, friends and similar
4) family, friends and similar stop giving cash to addicted, so he is starting stealing
5) when strong addicted, he starts commiting serious crimes and generally is dangerous

All in all - community has problems because
1) man became junkie
2) junkie is not paying cash but we have to pay big cash to heal him or to prevent him from commiting crimes
3) junkie's family became poor and we have to pay them
4) junkie spread aids and similar

With drugs legal, it would be dangerous for whole community, because we would have to pay for that junkies.

[Tribesman]

With drugs illegal it is dangerous and you have to pay for the junkie

[CountArach]

4) junkie spread aids and similar

If it is legal there could be tighter regulation and control on needle exchanges. We have injecting rooms here in Sydney where people can shoot up and have their needles dealt with safely.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We've talked about this many times before.

Where do you sell drugs? Next to beer?

You want heroin and crack on a shelf next to tylenol? OR would you need a prescription; but who would write one?

The reality is, if you can buy meth without a prescription (because nobody would write one) why couldn't you buy effexor or viagra without a prescription? Pharmaceutical companies can't wait for more ham fisted talk about legalization - it will help ruin any regulations on pharmaceuticals.

"Drugs" are drugs because they provide no tangible benefit - so they can't be prescribed, and while they provide no medical benefit, they can't be put in a general store because that would be unconscionable.

[Tribesman]

"Drugs" are drugs because they provide no tangible benefit - so they can't be prescribed,

Most of the "illegal" drugs have a very long and ongoing use in medicine for their benefitial properties and can be prescribed.