Why not just legalize all drugs?

[bamf]

I'll see what I can do.

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.dutch.html
http://skeptically.org/recdrugs/id16.html

This is a difficult thing to find studies on, given the political nature of the debate and the fact that you have to pay to see a lot of the best studies. However, typically studies of the most liberal drug states show that they have approximately the same usage as those that criminalize it. They just don't have all the negative effects of a black market to go with it, such as the homicide rates and criminal justice costs.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana, LSD, shrooms, E, and things like that. Where I draw the line is meth, cocaine, crack, and heroin. I'm going to see if I can find some legality statues on these drugs.

 

[enfp can be shy]

By legalizing drugs, I'm not saying, feed drugs to your babies. There should be like an age limit just like drinking or whatever.

Such a let down for liberty and responsibility. So why do you think one of those requires external regulation, and the other one doesn't? Do you believe that there is an age, in which physiologically people become responsible and reasonable? How was that ever proven scientifically; or do we just carry it over for granted, from previous tradition?

 

[Satya]

I'm all for legalizing marijuana, LSD, shrooms, E, and things like that. Where I draw the line is meth, cocaine, crack, and heroin. I'm going to see if I can find some legality statues on these drugs.

I honestly do not know of any.

 

[athenian200]

Well hunting is a big deal in the United States. People will want their hunting rifles and hunting pistols, for all the crazy...er...adventurous, who hunt bear with pistols. Hunters will never want to give up their guns. Semi-automatics, and the such? I'm with you on that. There simply is no need for them in my opinion. People will argue that by making guns illegal only the bad guys will have them. I'm not saying I agree with them, but making guns illegal in the United States would be a huge hurdle to cross.

Yeah... I really don't get Americans. They have such rural values.

Yes, I know that sounds ironic seeing as I'm supposed to be an American, but there you go.

Anyway, I think we should go ahead and try to outlaw the semi-automatic ones, and keep the old-fashioned hunting rifles legal... that way, they can't complain as much. Won't be as effective, but it will help somewhat.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana, shrooms, and the sort. We would save a great deal in enforcement by legalizing marijuana that could be used to fund clinics


I cede. You are probably right. Legalizing would probably hurt cartels.


Again, I'm all for legalizing bud. The quality of the product would go up, and fewer people would want to buy weed from south of the boarder. The best weed is hydroponically grown, and that is usually already grown in the US. We would save enforcement money and we would be able to spend money fighting pot to help those addicted by the big four.

Interesting.

Pot makes a great deal of money, and so does enforcing it's illegality. It also isn't nearly as harmful as the big four (some people would argue with me and say it isn't at all harmful) If it is true that pot makes up the majority of drug money, and we spend so much to enforce its legal status, why would we legalize the big four if they are so small scale?

Perhaps we should keep the big four illegal, then. I really don't like drugs anyway. If we could just take their marajuana income, it might weaken them enough that we can locate and crackdown on them.

Also, I would support setting up the situation such that the dealers are punished, and not the people who buy and use it. Combine that with offering a reward for people who turn the big four drug dealers in... do you see what I'm getting at?

I think that it makes more sense to look at drug users as victims of the drug dealers (at least in terms of the big four), than offenders who break the law. I think that perspective would be much more productive and helpful.

Also, heroin, crack, and meth addicts are extremely profitable to dealers because of their addictive qualities. It is an unbelievably expensive habit. I've known people who would spend $400 a week on cocaine. People get their money in all sorts of ways, but few abusers are dealers. The dealers don't use because it's so addictive that they'd use a good deal of their product without making bank.

Right, so these people will usually burn through all their money and end up getting help or dying fairly quickly. It's lucretive, but it kills the user and ruins their life too quickly to be consistently profitable. People will still sell it, but it would be much harder for organized crime to spring up around it. And disorganized crime is much easier to combat.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana, LSD, shrooms, E, and the such. I am against the legalization of heroin, meth, crack, and cocaine.

Okay, that works for me. I think I agree with you.

 

[bamf]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Interesting TIME article on drugs legality in Portugal. Hard drug use has dropped, HIV spread has dropped, and treatment has nearly doubled. Looks good. It also makes a good point that Portugal is a small country and drug epidemics occur in a cyclical fashion. (I'm thinking crack in the US, heroin in the UK) It's probably too early to tell exactly how well the laws (or lack of) have changed drug abuse in Portugal, but the progress looks good.

I say we legalize pot and the such, decriminalize the big four, and see what happens.

 

[slant]

Such a let down for liberty and responsibility. So why do you think one of those requires external regulation, and the other one doesn't? Do you believe that there is an age, in which physiologically people become responsible and reasonable? How was that ever proven scientifically; or do we just carry it over for granted, from previous tradition?

Yes, the age is 25 on average when the human brain is fully developed.


There is an age.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

Such a let down for liberty and responsibility. So why do you think one of those requires external regulation, and the other one doesn't? Do you believe that there is an age, in which physiologically people become responsible and reasonable? How was that ever proven scientifically; or do we just carry it over for granted, from previous tradition?

In a manner of speaking. Studies show that children's brains haven't developed enough for them to properly understand the consequences of their actions. Just because people older than that often choose not to exercise that ability doesn't mean it ain't there.

 

[88chaz88]

1. By banning guns, won't you create another black market for them? People want guns, just like people want drugs, and they will get them regardless of legality.

I agree, now you must excuse me, I have to go have tea with the Queen as it's the only place that you can have peace and quiet due to all these guns going off everywhere.

 

[the]

You cant legalize drugs because the justice system would go crazy with all that free time and before you know it they will catch up and then run out of court cases and will have to take time off.


Also think of the prison system. All those prison guards with no one to watch. Soon they will get fired and their families will starve.

Coke used to be legal. You should look into why it's now illegal.
Because I forget.

Because: In 1903, the American Journal of Pharmacy stressed that most cocaine abusers were “bohemians, gamblers, high- and low-class prostitutes, night porters, bell boys, burglars, racketeers, pimps, and casual laborers.”

And those are the type of people you dont want around.

Also: In 1914, Dr. Christopher Koch ofPennslyvania's State Pharmacy Board made the racial innuendo explicit, testifying that, “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain.”

 

[IndigoSensor]

I'm all for legalizing marijuana, LSD, shrooms, E, and the such. I am against the legalization of heroin, meth, crack, and cocaine.

This be my opinion as well. The only stipulation is the legalized ones will need to be regulated and subjected to similar (if not stricter) laws that alcohol is.

 

[bamf]

I agree, now you must excuse me, I have to go have tea with the Queen as it's the only place that you can have peace and quiet due to all these guns going off everywhere.

Gun history in a social sense is far different in the US than it is in the UK. Sporting in the UK for has traditionally been an elite thing, and private arms ownership has been traditionally low. It doesn't seem that the population of the UK has a desire for guns the way the US population does. Even if they are made illegal, people will find ways to get them. There is a demand even in the general public.

 

[slant]

You cant legalize drugs because the justice system would go crazy with all that free time and before you know it they will catch up and then run out of court cases and will have to take time off.


Also think of the prison system. All those prison guards with no one to watch. Soon they will get fired and their families will starve.





Because: In 1903, the American Journal of Pharmacy stressed that most cocaine abusers were

 

[enfp can be shy]

Yes, the age is 25 on average when the human brain is fully developed.
There is an age.

In a manner of speaking. Studies show that children's brains haven't developed enough for them to properly understand the consequences of their actions. Just because people older than that often choose not to exercise that ability doesn't mean it ain't there.

You both use terms such as "on average" (what about dispersion?), "fully developed" (isn't measurable), "properly" (what is proper, and how much is it?), "understand consequences" (what is understanding?) which cannot be defined well, or at least none of the existing approaches define them well, so far. People have no idea why someone causes harm to himself or others, so they hide behind the magical word "responsibility", as if it explains anything.

And vice-versa, the more people learn about the actual reasons behind such actions, the less inclined they are to leave it out to the magical power of "responsibility".

 

[88chaz88]

Gun history in a social sense is far different in the US than it is in the UK. Sporting in the UK for has traditionally been an elite thing, and private arms ownership has been traditionally low. It doesn't seem that the population of the UK has a desire for guns the way the US population does. Even if they are made illegal, people will find ways to get them. There is a demand even in the general public.

Hunting rifles are still legal here.

The only issue is with criminals desiring guns, and believe me, they do here.

People do find ways to have illicit guns here, but that's not the point as less people get shot.

Perhaps you should see to Canada as an example of how to do things concerning gun legislation. They have more guns per capita than you and less gun crime. It doesn't take a genius to see which country is more fucked.

 

[slant]

You both use terms such as "on average" (what about dispersion?), "fully developed" (isn't measurable), "properly" (what is proper, and how much is it?), "understand consequences" (what is understanding?) which cannot be defined well, or at least none of the existing approaches define them well, so far. People have no idea why someone causes harm to himself or others, so they hide behind the magical word "responsibility", as if it explains anything.

And vice-versa, the more people learn about the actual reasons behind such actions, the less inclined they are to leave it out to the magical power of "responsibility".

Full brain development is measurable. There is a difference in size and composition of an infant's brain and an adult's brain. Even comparing a teenager's brain and a human adult's brain you can find differences in development.

From studies that have been conducted, yes, on average is 25. Sometimes it is a few years earlier and sometimes a few years later; but we can generally assume that the brain develops at that age, fully, completely.

 

[Norton]

If we excoriate the cigarette companies because they sell an addictive, cancer-causing product that harms not only individuals but their families and all of society, why would we expand the use of substances that are even more addictive and harmful? Okay, we can't make cigarettes and alcohol illegal--this won't happen. But heroin, meth, cocaine, PCP, etc. are poisons that people, once addicted, cannot live without. Legalizing these drugs would only transfer the monopoly from criminals to companies, who would become the new drug pushers. So, suddenly we should trust the multi-nationals to act on behalf of society's welfare? Dream on.

Criminals don't exist because of drugs. They are what they are. Take away the drugs and these people will do something else illegal. You'll still have to deal with them. Psychopathy has a relatively steady incidence and prevalence in any population. Keeping drugs illegal is a way to keep criminals corralled in a well defined area of activity, even if it will always be a perpetual war. This is the opinion of a friend of mine who was in the "pharmaceutical trade" in his earlier years.

If you've ever had to struggle with someone on PCP, you'll know that even a 110 lb person might require several hospital guards to be subdued, controlled, and strapped down. They are violent beyond belief. Very frightening. So you want more people on PCP walking around. Or, heroin, cocaine, or meth addicts as drivers? No thanks.

Those who argue for legalizing drugs are often extremely naive about the reality, rot, and degradation of drug addiction.

 

[testing]

If we excoriate the cigarette companies because they sell an addictive, cancer-causing product that harms not only individuals but their families and all of society, why would we expand the use of substances that are even more addictive and harmful? ...
Those who argue for legalizing drugs are often extremely naive about the reality, rot, and degradation of drug addiction.

Good points... these things do profoundly affect people other than the addicts, it is not just a personal problem. I don't even know how addictive some of these things are. Like LSD, for example, how bad is that?

I wonder: how many people have seen real, live, honest to God, hard core drug addiction and still argue to legalize most or all drugs?

Open question: If you had a spouse, parent, or loved one who died or whose life was ruined or profoundly harmed because of your or their drug addiction, do you still think most drugs should be legal?

Where do you draw the line? I've personally had my life profoundly affected by smoking and alcohol --- which are legal -- but while I dislike these things strongly, I am not sure making them illegal is the solution at all.

However, the status quo is not working very well, either. Are addicts just going to happen, no matter what we do, and are we kidding ourselves that legalizing or illegalizing will even make a difference?

(Yeah, I need to read the studies, I know, I know...)

 

[slant]

Good points... these things do profoundly affect people other than the addicts, it is not just a personal problem. I don't even know how addictive some of these things are. Like LSD, for example, how bad is that?

I wonder: how many people have seen real, live, honest to God, hard core drug addiction and still argue to legalize most or all drugs?

Open question: If you had a spouse, parent, or loved one who died or whose life was ruined or profoundly harmed because of your or their drug addiction, do you still think most drugs should be legal?

Where do you draw the line? I've personally had my life profoundly affected by smoking and alcohol --- which are legal -- but while I dislike these things strongly, I am not sure making them illegal is the solution at all.

However, the status quo is not working very well, either. Are addicts just going to happen, no matter what we do, and are we kidding ourselves that legalizing or illegalizing will even make a difference?

(Yeah, I need to read the studies, I know, I know...)

Oh, the hilarity of these assertions.

Both of my parents are drug and alcohol addicts.

I work in recovery, I am the founder of an organization that is a support group for kids whose parents are in recovery. I have seen firsthand my aunt try to set my sister on fire because she was so drunk.

My mother has been molested by her own blood as a child because of hardcore drugs.

I don't even know my real grandpa because my mom wont let me meet him because he a complete and total psycho.

My uncle is also an ex drug and alcohol addict.

My cousin is still out and using drugs; she got raped because she went to a party, got drunk, and was date raped.

The grandpa that I don't know is homeless because of his drug addictions, and he was into the really hardcore stuff-- still is. He's a sick and lonely man that no one wants to take care of.


Do I think drugs should be legalized, all of them?

Yes.

 

[Satya]

Since it seems relevant to the discussion...

 

[MindYourHead]

I honestly don't understand why some think if drugs are made legal that automatically means we are going to be over run with addicts.
Those with a propensity to do drugs are either doing them, or have in the past.


I'm currently wearing shoes, but I'm not walking.