Why not just legalize all drugs?

[Kavalan]

One can hope. It still irks me that the same drug has itself two sets of standards yet it does the same thing. I was surprised about the schedule II... I could have sworn otherwise... oh well learn something new

 

[enfp can be shy]

I FORBID you all to use ANY drugs!!! End of story!!!

In all seriousness this time, I don't think the issue of antisocial/unreasonable application of drugs will be resolved without more major social reform. Whether you ban them, or legalize them, the reasons people end up as junkies and dealers are more complex than that. The whole debate is rather for distraction, as people spend all this energy believing that if only their position would win, things would get much better.

In other news, nicotine is more deadlier than nuclear explosions. That's because very few people have died recently from nuclear explosions; they keep dying from using nicotine instead. Obviously nuclear weapons should be legal. (gimme my nukes! i want mah nukes! no one's gonna get hurt, promise, just gotta get those nukes man, to show off for the girlzz)

 

[Norton]

Perhaps, but some who argue for legalization are quite familiar with those realities - some in the first person.

Yeah, that's because those with "first person" experience don't want to, or can't, live without their drugs.

 

[88chaz88]

Yeah, that's because those with "first person" experience don't want to, or can't, live without their drugs.

My god what an ignorant statement. So people can't get off drugs can they. And said people can't possibly argue for the legalisation of said drugs.

How is life under that rock?

 

[DefectiveCreative]

From some of the posts in this thread it seems to need reiterating that - based on the evidence gathered so far - drug legalisation does not lead to increased drug use.

 

[Norton]

Perhaps, but some who argue for legalization are quite familiar with those realities - some in the first person.

Chaz, you might have read more carefully, and, then, thought about, the above quotation and my response to it before responding. I shall save you the effort and explain. Aeon states that some people with "first person" (i.e. users and/or those close to users) experience argue for legalization. My post questions the motivations of a "first person" who argues for legalization. As to why that should elicit your post and its negative tone, I don't know. When arguing it is better to attack the issue than the person.

My god what an ignorant statement. So people can't get off drugs can they. And said people can't possibly argue for the legalisation of said drugs.

How is life under that rock?

A statement cannot be ignorant.

I'm knowledgable about pharmaceuticals and drug development, having been in the legal end of the business for many years. I guarantee that few illicit drug users know much about pharmacology, toxicology, medicinal chemistry, physiology, regulatory affairs and other fields that lend credibility to one's opinion on this subject.

And, believe me, you could do worse than to live where I live.

 

[aeon]

Aeon states that some people with "first person" (i.e. users and/or those close to users) experience argue for legalization. My post questions the motivations of a "first person" who argues for legalization.

I'll address your questioning directly as it concerns my person. I was a drug addict for 13 years. I decided to stop using. I have been clean and sober for 123 months now. I have no desire whatsoever to use again. That all said, I support legalization (with associated education and treatment for addicts) because it best aligns with what I value - truth in information, compassion versus punitive actions, reduction of violence and burden on the criminal justice system, free trade, elimination of prohibition of consensual crime, and so on, with perhaps my greatest ideal being that of Liberty - the freedom to choose, with the responsibility that comes with choice.

No, Norton, it's not because I want access to drugs. It is because I perceive the greatest moral good in legalization. I know others see it differently and I could be wrong.

That said, I would value your inquiry and engagement over a rush to judgement when you have no information regarding what motivates my statement.

I'm knowledgable about pharmaceuticals and drug development, having been in the legal end of the business for many years. I guarantee that few illicit drug users know much about pharmacology, toxicology, medicinal chemistry, physiology, regulatory affairs and other fields that lend credibility to one's opinion on this subject.

True, few illicit drug users know about such things. I am one of those few.

I don't value that you chose to assume versus enter into dialogue so as to ascertain what informed my perspective.

In my experience, such an approach tends to perpetuate misunderstanding, and mainly speaks to a willful ignorance.


cheers,
Ian

 

[durentu]

first I think of who are the ones that label drugs as an evil thing. Then I think of the reasons why it is illegal.

It's of course the government and the church who deems drugs illegal. In my view, it's only because these drugs will turn a citizen into a non-taxpayer or someone who will question authority or just not submit to it. If a given system, it's perfectly fine to have some rogue elements, but too much of it will be like herding cats.

So while there are drugs that are illegal, there are equally powerful drugs that are legal.

But why is this so? As alluded to before, it's about controlling humans. The drugs that are illegal are ones to prevent questioning authority and the ones that are legal are the ones that allow authority.

Just like many past tyrannies that aim to help people against their will, drugs of all kinds are used as leverage to control people with the idea of what is 'normal'.

The DSM-IV and soon to be DSM-V are books describing the abnormal behavior. And for the sake of helping other people, there are therapies and drugs available to help people become normal just to get on with their lives: education, jobs, and retirement. This is the formula in which the current system operates. Anything that interferes with this formula is deemed illegal. The movie equilibrium is a good example of how things that help the system are legal, and things that hurt the system are illegal.

But of course, this whole thing is based on assumptions and fears. It's the fear that if people are allowed to ruin their own lives, it would cripple the country. And if this happens, the 'evils' of the world would take over and triumph over good.

This is why drugs have a double standard.

 

[testing]

So, hypothetical situation, then. Let's say all drugs were legalized, like tobacco and alcohol are today.

In this ideal situation, we'd have education and treatment programs and warning labels and all that for these addictive substances (Great ideas which I fully support), instead of paying for an expensive punitive system. So far that makes plenty of sense to me.

Except. We already have those things today for tobacco and alcohol addictions. It doesn't stop people from using those, so why should we expect that education and treatment would slow down addiction rates or help addicts of harsher drugs?

And before anyone says "screw the addicts", or "liberty for all!" I want to clarify that my own life has been seriously harmed by other people's addictions, and as a result, I care more about the many people who are harmed by addicts, especially children, NOT just the users. I support anything that will lower drug use and addictions for this reason.

People have said right here on this forum that companies which peddle addictive substances target the poor and (supposedly) ignorant, who supposedly cannot help themselves, and just become victims.

So if harder drugs were legal, this fact would change... How? Suddenly people would start listening to the "don't use drugs" education programs? Or suddenly they would gain more self-control? Or they would not blame other people for their addictions? Or companies would suddenly not care about making money?

One of the main reason more people get drunk than stoned or take heroin is because it is easier to buy alcohol, because it is legal. It seems counter intuitive that if harder drugs were easier to get, fewer people would choose to use them. So making things like heroin and other hard drugs easier to obtain would really help? Really? Why?

If anyone wants to call me names, or insult my nationality, or tell me how stupid I am, I'm quite sure you will, but if anyone cares to honestly answer these questions I would love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Norton]

I'll address your questioning directly as it concerns my person. I was a drug addict for 13 years. I decided to stop using. I have been clean and sober for 123 months now. I have no desire whatsoever to use again. That all said, I support legalization (with associated education and treatment for addicts) because it best aligns with what I value - truth in information, compassion versus punitive actions, reduction of violence and burden on the criminal justice system, free trade, elimination of prohibition of consensual crime, and so on, with perhaps my greatest ideal being that of Liberty - the freedom to choose, with the responsibility that comes with choice.

No, Norton, it's not because I want access to drugs. It is because I perceive the greatest moral good in legalization. I know others see it differently and I could be wrong.

That said, I would value your inquiry and engagement over a rush to judgement when you have no information regarding what motivates my statement.

I'm sorry if you took this personally, but I made no assumptions about you. I only responded to your text, which gave no hint that you, personally, were an addict. I disagree with you about legalization. While I prefer that addicts be treated more humanely (e.g., detox programs, education, etc.) I believe that legalization of illicit drugs will greatly increase the population of addicts. After all, most people can't even control themselves at the dinner table and obesity is at an all time high. There's plenty of true information available about what causes obesity but this has little impact. People eat because it feels good. Drugs feel better. So, legalize illicit drugs and all of us will have to suffer the damage to society caused by an irruption in the addict population.

The standards for getting an NDA (FDA or EMEA market approval) for a new drug are extremely severe. Three phases of clinical trials are done over a period of years to discover untoward effects (e.g., side effects, adverse events, etc.) and to prove efficacy. The usual illicit drugs have side effects that would never get past regulatory approval, much less prove efficacious in controlled trials. It is illogical to legalize the use of illicit drugs when other, less drugs, often efficacious and therapeutic, are rejected due to dangerous effects.

I could address every one of your points. But, let me say this. There will never be total and absolute "Liberty." It's always a compromise. That's because everyone is part of a society and all societies have rules. Without rules, any liberty there is quickly exits and the little (or big) Hitlers enter. The American Revolution was all about "Liberty," and the first thing that happened after the war was a constitutional convention that defined the "rules" and we've been making rules and regulations ever since to protect and optimize liberty within the context of reality and compromise.

By the way, "free trade" and "free markets" are regulated because, otherwise, they quickly stop being free markets. The strong dominate the weak and competition disappears. The bullies win, and they'll be the ones to benefit most from the legalization of drugs. Isn't that what happened with tobacco companies?

True, few illicit drug users know about such things. I am one of those few.

I don't value that you chose to assume versus enter into dialogue so as to ascertain what informed my perspective.

In my experience, such an approach tends to perpetuate misunderstanding, and mainly speaks to a willful ignorance.

My post was in response to an ad hominem post by Chaz, now strangely changed and/or joined by Shai Gar, which you seem to be taking personally. I assumed nothing about you because I had no information in your post or otherwise upon which to make any assumptions. I disagree with you on this subject and probably others, but, I'm sure you and I can live with that. I've said what I wanted to say, and, now, I'm out of this thread.

 

[aeon]

So, hypothetical situation, then. Let's say all drugs were legalized, like tobacco and alcohol are today.

In this ideal situation, we'd have education and treatment programs and warning labels and all that for these addictive substances (Great ideas which I fully support), instead of paying for an expensive punitive system. So far that makes plenty of sense to me.

Except. We already have those things today for tobacco and alcohol addictions. It doesn't stop people from using those, so why should we expect that education and treatment would slow down addiction rates or help addicts of harsher drugs?

Because in my model of legalization the approach of education we have now would not be adequate. Regular, age-appropriate information about the nature of drugs would begin very early - not delayed, or glossed over with "just say no" sentiments.

Would it end addiction? Definitely not. Would people be able to make better-informed choices? This would be my goal. Right now people make the choice ill-informed from my perspective and experience.

And before anyone says "screw the addicts", or "liberty for all!" I want to clarify that my own life has been seriously harmed by other people's addictions, and as a result, I care more about the many people who are harmed by addicts, especially children, NOT just the users. I support anything that will lower drug use and addictions for this reason.

I am sorry to hear this. I agree, education and treatment would have to encompass not just those who use, but those who have relationship with the user.

People have said right here on this forum that companies which peddle addictive substances target the poor and (supposedly) ignorant, who supposedly cannot help themselves, and just become victims.

So if harder drugs were legal, this fact would change... How? Suddenly people would start listening to the "don't use drugs" education programs? Or suddenly they would gain more self-control? Or they would not blame other people for their addictions? Or companies would suddenly not care about making money?

I do believe people can help themselves - ultimately, that has to happen before they can accept the offer of help from anyone else. Also, I don't think in terms of victim mentality, so I don't know what to say to this. I can't answer it.

One of the main reason more people get drunk than stoned or take heroin is because it is easier to buy alcohol, because it is legal. It seems counter intuitive that if harder drugs were easier to get, fewer people would choose to use them. So making things like heroin and other hard drugs easier to obtain would really help? Really? Why?

I agree, it does seem counter-intuitive. I didn't think it would work until I began witnessing the numbers of addicts, addicts in recovery, and drug-seeking behaviors in nations that have decriminalized and moved toward education and treatment without punitive action.

If anyone wants to call me names, or insult my nationality, or tell me how stupid I am, I'm quite sure you will, but if anyone cares to honestly answer these questions I would love to hear your thoughts.

I'll call you Janet until you tell me otherwise, and I value your engagement in this thread. I don't know your nation of residence and/or allegiance, however.


cheers,
Ian

 

[testing]

I agree, it does seem counter-intuitive. I didn't think it would work until I began witnessing the numbers of addicts, addicts in recovery, and drug-seeking behaviors in nations that have decriminalized and moved toward education and treatment without punitive action.

Thank you, this is the sort of thing I would actually like to hear more about, not the hypothetical government conspiracy nonsense that seems to attach itself to this topic. What did you witness, and where, and what exactly did those nations do that worked, and what nations were they?

I'll call you Janet until you tell me otherwise, and I value your engagement in this thread. I don't know your nation of residence and/or allegiance, however.

cheers,
Ian

Thank you! That's actually a relief. Likewise, I'm sure. I live in the US but appreciate other points of view and nationalities.

 

[aeon]

I'm sorry if you took this personally, but I made no assumptions about you. I only responded to your text, which gave no hint that you, personally, were an addict.

I didn't take it personally, so no worries there. You don't know me, or my story, so why would I?

That said, my sense was you made an assumption about every person with first-person experience when you said:

Yeah, that's because those with "first person" experience don't want to, or can't, live without their drugs.

Is there some other way I was to understand this statement? If so, it is not clear to me.

I disagree with you about legalization. While I prefer that addicts be treated more humanely (e.g., detox programs, education, etc.) I believe that legalization of illicit drugs will greatly increase the population of addicts. After all, most people can't even control themselves at the dinner table and obesity is at an all time high. There's plenty of true information available about what causes obesity but this has little impact. People eat because it feels good. Drugs feel better. So, legalize illicit drugs and all of us will have to suffer the damage to society caused by an irruption in the addict population.

My sense is that people who want to use choose to use, despite legality. The history of the USA since the time of first prohibition through the start of the War on Drugs in the 70s bears this out. Parallels can be made with cultures and nations from around the world. I don't have the sense there is a large, untapped population of would-be junkies who aren't shooting smack today because they can't find a supply, nor would-be tweakers lying in wait for the day they can score methamphetamine at their corner pharamcy.

I don't believe that people cannot control themselves as it concerns their intake of food. They do control it - they simply choose other than their well-being. I accept if you think otherwise and believe that they are powerless over their lives. That said, while information is out there, I don't have the sense it is presented in a clear, easy-to-understand format beginning at an early age, nor is it communicated to patients in a direct fashion by the medical community at large.

We are suffering damage to society now, and after decades of prohibition, the results has been disasterous by nearly any measure.

I accept that legalization may not seem the answer to you. What would your solution be to the pain and suffering people and their families endure now, the damage to the society at large, and the financial and political disruption current policy fosters?

The standards for getting an NDA (FDA or EMEA market approval) for a new drug are extremely severe. Three phases of clinical trials are done over a period of years to discover untoward effects (e.g., side effects, adverse events, etc.) and to prove efficacy. The usual illicit drugs have side effects that would never get past regulatory approval, much less prove efficacious in controlled trials. It is illogical to legalize the use of illicit drugs when other, less drugs, often efficacious and therapeutic, are rejected due to dangerous effects.

Given the fact said review administrations are filled with ex-big-pharma folks who have willingly ignored data at the expense of the public, I hardly find this argument of any weight.

Also, meth is legal now as reviewed by those agencies - brand-name Desoxyn. MDMA was once licit, as was Delysin and so on. Many of the usual illicit drugs got past regulatory approval long ago.

I could address every one of your points. But, let me say this. There will never be total and absolute "Liberty." It's always a compromise. That's because everyone is part of a society and all societies have rules. Without rules, any liberty there is quickly exits and the little (or big) Hitlers enter. The American Revolution was all about "Liberty," and the first thing that happened after the war was a constitutional convention that defined the "rules" and we've been making rules and regulations ever since to protect and optimize liberty within the context of reality and compromise.

Indeed, and I value your speaking to this. Liberty, like any ideal, does not exist in ideal form in the world we live in. At best, ideals serve as beacons that inspire us to pursue a better way of living. The day-to-day will necessarily be an act of compromise.

That said, as it concerns the use of chemistry to alter consciousness, I value a step toward greater Liberty through decriminalization. Both for what such a step would honor as well as recognizing what we are doing now does not work for individuals or society as a whole.

By the way, "free trade" and "free markets" are regulated because, otherwise, they quickly stop being free markets. The strong dominate the weak and competition disappears. The bullies win, and they'll be the ones to benefit most from the legalization of drugs. Isn't that what happened with tobacco companies?

No, not at all. Tobacco has been subsidized by the government for years and years - hardly the kind of "free trade" I was referring to. Like Liberty, I'm not sure the kind of free trade I was speaking of exists in the world.

My post was in response to an ad hominem post by Chaz, now strangely changed and/or joined by Shai Gar, which you seem to be taking personally.

Again, nothing personal taken. You responded to something I said by quoting me directly, and Shai Gar quoted your response.

I assumed nothing about you because I had no information in your post or otherwise upon which to make any assumptions.

Agreed, you assumed nothing about me directly, nor did you make any statement indicating so.

You did, however, make an implicit assumption about me, indirect as it was, when you said:

Yeah, that's because those with "first person" experience don't want to, or can't, live without their drugs.

Simply put, you are incorrect in this statement, and in making it, it belies what I suspect is a well-considered perspective.

I disagree with you on this subject and probably others, but, I'm sure you and I can live with that. I've said what I wanted to say, and, now, I'm out of this thread.

Fare thee well.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Jack]

Actually, there are a lot of similarities to the prohibition with regard to the banning of drugs. I don't think the 'drug war' is exactly going well... why not change tactics? If you forbid something, people will want it.

 

[Gavin]

Milton Friedman on Drug Regulation:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/friedm1.htm

 

[Gavin]

DRug legalization makes sense from an economic perspective but it should be regulated and taxed.

 

[just me]

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.
Interesting.
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.
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.

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

Exactly how much hunting have you done? How many guns do you own. How often do you target shoot? Now they are trying to pass laws against lead and you want dope legalized? Disarm America and keep everyone stoned?

 

[Bliss Recovery]

Drug legalization can impose as a great threat to the health of the people. All the young addicts will be more velnerable to drugs in that scenario as they can take drugs anytime after its legalization. Drug Addiction Treatment Florida has the best addiction treatment programs for teens and adults.