Make all drugs legal; stop the myths~

No one is arguing against what you are saying.

What we are saying is that prohibition is not the best way to prevent the problems associated with drugs.

Lets do a mental exercise. Name a problem caused by drugs, then explain how the prohibition of drugs has solved that problem.

You can't, of course. But feel free to try.

 

make natural herbs illegal and people make alternatives both the legal kind and illegal kind


batch salts and fake weed are killing people, they are many time more dangerous then the real stuff will ever be... and you wont turn into a zombie and it someones face off

 

"Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

republicans started this drug war how many years ago, has it stopped people from using drugs?


.

 

In that respect, it's hard to really measure how many people didn't do those drugs because they aren't legal, or because they couldn't get them as easily as they could a legal drug. We'd have to actually legalize them first before we could really measure whether keeping them illegal is the better route. It would be a gamble, and I won't go so far as to say that prohibiting them is the only logical course of action, but if you want to legalize them, don't you need to make the case that legalizing them is the better route? I don't really see that happening, but instead I see pointing out that keeping them illegal hasn't stopped people from using them.

The problem I see with these drugs is that they are both heavily addictive and their effects are moderately to severely debilitating on the mental state of the person taking them(Separate from the addiction). Alcohol is the same way, and I think a case could be made based on the facts that alcohol should be banned too, but we obviously know that doesn't work simply because of the cultural place that alcohol has in our society(Just to be clear, I don't support banning alcohol, just using it as a point). I don't see the same cultural connection to pvp, cocaine, meth, and heroin. Tobacco is heavily addictive, and more so because of the extra chemicals the cigarette companies put in them, but it's not debilitating to the mental state of smokers.

I think there is some validity to the argument that legalizing them and regulating them would cut-down on the foreign importation of those drugs through criminal means, and the chokehold that drug cartels have in America. Making them legal would drop the price considerably meaning those guys would either have to settle with lowering their prices to compete with the legal avenues of obtaining them, or move on to a different still illegal crop. The problem then as I see it though, is that you have those drugs available in a far more easily obtainable and widespread fashion, and these aren't harmless drugs by any means. They are heavily addictive and destroy lives all the time, even if the person using them does try to practice moderation.

I just don't see the benefits working out in everyone's favor in the end, but I won't deny that legalizing them would change the landscape and that there are some unknowns as to how it would play out.

I don't see this a freedom issue, because there is more than just the freedoms of the person wanting to use the drugs to consider. Drug fueled crime infringes upon the freedoms of others not taking those drugs.

What are the positive benefits of legalizing them, and how can you be certain that it would produce better results than keeping them illegal? Just to be clear, I'm talking about hard drugs, not pot. I probably wouldn't object if pot became legal to sell in stores, and I definitely support decriminalization.

 

We have plenty of evidence.

Alcohol abuse went down when Prohibition ended.
Drug abuse has gone down in Portugal since decriminalization.

But, more importantly, we also need to measure the cost of our Drug War versus the cost of dealing with the problems of legalization.

No. In a free society, which we claim to have, all things should be legal until it is proven that outlawing them is the better course of action.

Therein lies a great case for legalization. Legalizing them would allow more widespread and shame/stigma-free treatment. Furthermore, much of their potency comes from their being on the black market - their effects are entirely unregulated (as compared to the effects of alcohol, whereby every alcoholic beverage sold in the U.S. is clearly labeled and heavily regulated as to potency). Death and injury from overdose went WAY down after the end of Prohibition, because people drank commercially produced, regulated, quality assured alcohol, not bathtub gin and white lightning.

Then you haven't studied those drugs, or don't know much about the culture. Obviously, since their use is widespread and unabated despite the War on Drugs, they have a cultural connection. You just don't see it because it's not in YOUR subculture.

You're seeing this from the same perspective as the wealthy, white, lawmakers who banned marijuana because of "Reefer Madness".

Unfortunately, BECAUSE of their illegality, surrounding the "culture" of drug use is a culture of crime, death, innocent victims, militarized police, and the loss of our rights. All of which would go away with legalization.

There is not "some" validity to that point. There is absolute, positive, 100% validity.

Tell me, how many criminal enterprises engage in alcohol importing? How many "turf wars" are started between liquor store owners? How many people are in prison for using alcohol?

Legitimate businesses would enter the market and criminals would exit, period.

And the problems related to that availabillity are far, far, fewer than the problems caused by Prohibition. Do you realize that almost all of our prison population is there because of illegal drugs? Almost all of our law enforcement budgets and actions are related to drugs? Almost all street crime and violence is related to drugs.

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem caused by the War on Drugs. To anyone that does, it is absolutely clear it would be better to legalize.

And "drug-fueled crime" would be virtually nonexistant if drugs were legal. That's what you're missing. Legalization would essentially solve that problem.

Huge reduction in crime including murder, robbery, etc.
Huge increase in police/justice resources available to fight the little remaining violent/dangerous crime
Reduction in availability to children (Liquor/drug stores check ID, street dealers do not)
Regulation of quality and potency to reduce health risks
Reduction in price leading to reduction in crime related to cost of drugs (i.e. junkie theft)
Huge decrease in government costs
Huge increase in tax revenue
Creation of thousands of legitimate, good-paying jobs in farming, manufacturing, distribution, management, marketing, research, retail, etc etc etc
Ends the need for U.S. to support foreign despots who promise to fight cartels but commit human rights violations against their own people


Ok, your turn: Give me a benefit of keeping drugs illegal that would go away if drugs were made legal.

 

Did it really go down, or did the percentage drop because the population increased?

I think the results from Portugal are something to watch, but I don't see Portugal as a good representation of what would happen in our country.

I agree here, it's definitely worth a look.

I agree here as well, though I think that the effects these drugs have on people, both the users and the people around them and in their communities, warrant them being illegal. The drugs effects on people through their effects on a person's mental state and their addictiveness does not go down with legalization. Alcohol did not become less addictive and destructive when Prohibition ended.

I can't argue with this, and it's something I thought about after making my earlier post. The only way this works though, is if those drugs can be grown/manufactured, transported, and sold for less money than it costs someone to buy it on the black market. I have a feeling the price of those drugs have some room to drop if the drug cartels are interested in keeping their sales.

Another thing to consider is how many people are going to start growing poppies, or mushrooms, or coca plants in this country? There is still a stigma involved, and I have a feeling traditional farmers aren't going to be interested in switching to a crop with that negative stigma. On the flipside though, if the money is there, I suppose people would pursue it. Or, are we going to import our drugs from other countries?

They have less of a cultural connection than they do an addictive nature, combined with the negative stigma which makes them attractive to rebellious types. Nobody sits around their house with their family and friends and enjoys a nice shot of heroin like they would a glass of wine.

No, they did that because of hemp, and because they saw it as dirty habit the Mexican immigrants brought with them, but the drug itself is not very harmful unless you use it pretty heavily. It can also be addictive, but not nearly the same as a harder drug addiction. The facts just weren't and aren't there to support marijuana criminalization. Harder drugs are different because harder drugs have a much more powerful effect on people and those around them.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think you simplify this a little too much. People going crazy on these drugs is still going to happen if they were legal, people would still resort to crime to pay for them because they are addicted. Maybe they won't have to steal as much if they are cheaper, but they will still try to get money in whatever way they can to feed their addiction. The police involvement with drugs would not disappear at all, though our prison population would shrink from people there purely for drug convictions. How many people actually go to prison purely for drugs though, without getting caught with other non-possession, trafficking, or sale related charges?

That all depends on what the market price of these drugs ended up being and whether the drug cartels would match them.

Point taken, though again, this all depends on what the market price is.

Market price and the willingness of the drug producers to lower their prices make this a statement you cannot conclusively make.

Street crime and violence are not fueled purely because drugs are illegal. They are also fueled by the drug's effects on people. I completely agree that police budgets and prison populations would drop somewhat, but that's also not a given because we have yet to legalize these drugs and see what the effects would actually be in this country. If more people start using these drugs, even with regulation of potency, more addiction will ensue and more money will have to be spent on rehab programs and police to combat it.

I have a pretty good understanding, but I think you underestimate the addictive qualities of these drugs and what they can drive people to do.

How would drug fueled crime go away?

You cannot make this statement, at least not without explaining why.

Agree with the first part, but the second is still speculation on your part that drug fueled crime would be reduced.

Mostly agreed, but this as well goes back to what the market price would be and whether drug cartels would still compete.

Regul

Agreed here.

Maybe, but people would still need to steal if they can't afford it on their own. Maybe they'd only break into one house or mug one person instead of two or three, but it's still crime.

Most agreed, but you'd have to see the effects on society before you can make this conclusively.

Definitely, though potentially on the backs of thousands to millions of people getting hopelessly lifechangingly addicted to a legal substance.

Agreed.

Agreed, though this can happen regardless of whether we actually legalize those drugs in our country.


Ok, your turn: Give me a benefit of keeping drugs illegal that would go away if drugs were made legal.[/QUOTE]

I really can't, because it's still a guess as to what exactly would happen in this country if they were legalized. I'm not making the absolute statement that keeping them illegal is the best way to go, but I think that the addictive nature of these drugs would make them a problem legal or not. I'm also not pretending that there wouldn't be benefits of legalization, it's just a matter of which there would be more of, positive or negative effects. Unfortunately, it's a really a situation where you can't know until you try it, but that could end up being disastrous.

 

Okay, I appreciate the respectful conversation here but don't have energy to really go point by point.

Prohibition is the model that explains it all. Frankly we have seen that our 'War on Drugs" models the unintended consequences of Prohibition very closely. And we can look at the repeal of Prohibition to see what the effect of ending the drug war would be.

First of all I strongly recommend reading "The Poisoners Handbook" which is not primarily about prohibition but is about medical examiners who dealth with poison cases- but it shows the effects of Prohibition from the viewpoint of medical examiners- increased deaths due to: alcohol poison, poisoning due to poisons alcohol was diluted from, increased violence from the sale if illegal alcohol and increased violence by drunk people(people were more likely to drink hard alcohol than beer or wine and more likely to get violently drunk).

Street crime is fueled almost entirely by the sales of illegal drugs. Look at alcohol right now- how much violence is due to drunks blasting away at each other with guns? Certainly it happens- but compare that to gangs shooting at each other to control drug sale turfs.

We know about the addictive properties of drugs on people. Each drug is different but again- alcohol is the example. Addiction is not good. Making it illegal though doesn't prevent addiction- but it does result in violence and money being fueled to criminals.

Finally we know for certain that if drugs were made illegal, the drug lords would be out of business. It is expensive to run an illegal drug business- and dangerous- the only motivation is BIG BIG profits.

Make any drug illegal and drop the sale price to consumers to below where it is profitable for drug lords and they are out of business.

Want an example? Without even worrying about price? In California if you have a medical excuse you can by weed from a dispensary. Nobody who can do so, buys weed on the street rather than a dispensary. A dispensary is safe, and you reasonably know what you are getting. Do the same thing with any other drug and drug addicts will go there- not a street corner.

I don't want to see more addicts. But I think that our current policy is completely irrational, costs of millions of dollars and ruins the lives of thousands and thousands of people.

 

Government is not society.

 

What is a "fair share" of that amount, and can you explain why addiction is necessarily a problem? If something is cheap and easy to obtain, the addict need not resort to extreme or illegal measures to obtain the drug of his choice.

Aside from the DEA budget, there is the incalculable cost to the economy of the millions who are locked up, who live in gang infested neighborhoods, and those who's lives are forever nipped of potential because of an arrest record.

 

Bingo

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. – Frédéric Bastiat

 

When you say "highly addictive", can you give us a percentage? Also, can you explain why, in an environment in which the substance is legal, the addiction is necessarily a problem? Heroin and cocaine were legal up until 1910. The Harrison Narcotics Act was not passed because of a problem with addiction, though undoubtedly many people were using heroin regularly to treat their aches and pains. Was crime higher back then because there were so many users as well as addicts?

 

Addiction is obviously a problem. If you don't see that, you're not worthy my time. Who says it would be cheap? Or easy to obtain?

Then don't break the law.

 

Very well, if your self-worth is so fragile that you fear spending any time reading alternative viewpoints, you are welcome to put me on ignore.

I am not of the dogmatic "all use is abuse" crowd, and I disagree that addiction is necessarily a problem for anyone but the addict. It's his choice if he sees it as a problem or not and his responsibility for any actions he takes that harm others whether due to his drug use or not (the same standard one applies to every human being.)

History shows that substances such as Heroin and cocaine were both inexpensive, and easy to obtain. They were available over the counter as well as made into various products. Morphine and opium cost less to produce than alcohol. Pharmaceutical companies make various sorts of stimulants similar to meth every day, and doctors are standing by to prescribe them to your kids if they don't behave in school.

It is obvious that human beings will seek methods to self-medicate despite the dictates of the political class. There is nothing moral or lawful in the rules that prohibit what is otherwise peaceful human behavior. While you kowtow to the political class, and perhaps derive your entire morality from the scribblings of politicians, some of us see that vice is not a crime nor is it moral to treat it as such. Individuals are not owned by the state, and the state has no right to tell individuals what to put or not put into their own bodies. The "law", or the body of statutes that defy natural law, are corrupt and immoral.

Before you put me on ignore, think about one question: who owns you?

Now, quick, before you really have to think.

 

Portugal decriminalized drugs and more people did not become addicted.

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results

Street drug–related deaths from overdoses drop and the rate of HIV cases crashes

 

the reuters article is BS.

From the actual Cato institute study of Portugal's policy:

http://www.cato.org/publications/wh...essons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

 

I don't like arguing in circles with people who aren't exactly professionals in the field.

Addiction is obviously a problem for those around the addict. The addict's family, coworkers, employer, etc. You're saying it's his/her responsibility not to take action that would hurt others, from violence to not showing up to work, yet why would you expect someone why physiological, neurologic problems to have the same competency and decision-making skills as someone without such damage? It's like saying alcohol isn't a problem to anyone but the drunk at a funeral of victim of a drunk driving collision. You simply cannot expect proper, responsible decisions from an addict and assume they won't hurt others.

Indeed, they can be made cheap. But that doesn't mean they will be sold for a cheap price.

It's not a state versus individual, freedom versus tyranny example. Any attempt to make it such is rather hollowly depressing. That freedom is also subjective, as you'll one day learn.

Reuters is a relatively neutral piece of journalism, the Cato institute is a socially-liberal think-tank. Why would anyone trust your source, a political piece, over a piece of news journalism?

 

Because first, most users aren't addicts, even when it comes to drugs like heroin. Second, whether or not it's a problem for the family does not make it just to throw a person in a cage or force, through the police powers of the state, him/her into treatment. The drunk who kills another person is responsible for that killing. The drunk who doesn't kill anyone isn't a criminal just because some drunks kill people.

Profit attracts competition until the margins are no longer attractive.

Oh, it very much is a matter of individual freedom versus tyranny. The war on drugs has been hugely destructive of lives, wealth and liberty.

And now for the patronizing ad hominem. Either you hold that people have inherent rights, or they are the property of the state. The principles of freedom are not subjective, they derive from self-ownership. There is a cost to freedom, and that is responsibility and that some problems have to be resolved without the use of government violence, including throwing people into cages. You look to the government to solve problems for you. That isn't learning, that's submission.

There is nothing in the Reuters article that implies that the drug decriminalization program has been anything but a success.

 

So if your own source claims it remained the same or was slightly lowered, then why do you keep making the claim use will go up if decriminalized?

 

So you want to decriminalize drunk driving? Do you think before typing these things? People have the right to spray a machine gun into a crowd, as long as all the shots miss? Ignore the potential and associated harm? The sober driver who swerves away from a drunk and hits a tree? I don't get the logic, if any, that you're using here. It's mere emotional attachment to your opinion of liberty.

We don't live in a free-market utopia.

So have been drugs.

You repeatedly stick to freedom. Incorrectly, one must add. Freedom requires one to be able to make decisions that accurately reflect self interest. Drugs obviously impair that. One is not free under the influence of illegal narcotics.

Except the bloated health budget that's now being cut, forcing many who have picked up the needle to be left short of options.

 

Only a few percent of Americans are coke addicts (for example), and maybe 7% are some sort of narcotics abusers. Perhaps 20% of teens or younger adults have used dangerous narcotics (coke, meth, heroin). So it would be safe to say that 25% of people would get hooked on them after using them, if they are easy to obtain. The harmful and addictive effects are a matter of common medical knowledge.

Perhaps you could support a study where school children are given a freebie (a free dose of one of these monster drugs) in a controlled study and see how their lives turn out down the road compared to a control group. Maybe you could volunteer some of your friends and family---but that would be really stupid, wouldn't it?

Sorry, but they just didn't collect accurate statistics back 100+ years ago, not even for crime. They say there were 500,000 morphine addicts from wounded troops in the Civil War.

Any cleaver person would know that you don't experiment with addictive narcotics. Any cleaver person would not walk around a ghetto full of crack addictis and criminals after dark with their kids in tow.

 

'safe to say'? Based upon what your 'gut feeling'?

I don't think anyone disagrees that there are harmful and addictive issues with these drugs. But what we should have learned from Prohibition is that when a harmful addictive substance that people want to use is made illegal, the demand and incredible profit from a black market results in violence from the market place and death and injuries to those using the no longer controlled products.

We know what the injuries are from the current black market. We know from the Prohibition that removing the profit motive drives the criminals out of that industry(and looking for other black markets to exploit), and we know that it reduces the number of people who are killed or injured by poisonous product.

I guess what I ask you- if Meth were legal tomorrow- would you go out and give it a try? Heroin? Coke?

I wouldn't. The people who want these drugs largely can get them. In my opinion- yes there would be a rise in addicts- but it would be slight. However there would be a huge drop off in the people killed by drug related violence, and ruined by criminal drug records.

 

We are getting into a red herring, but yes, I can make a logical case as to why drunk driving should not be considered a crime.

Does asking a question like that absolve you of feeling challenged? You can go back to you ingrained patterns of thinking, safe in the knowledge that have swatted away any danger to that pattern. I often wonder why it is that people come to a forum like this, post their opinion, and then retreat into their own narrow comfort zone when faced with a different viewpoint.

To answer the question, though I don't usually deign to respond to the implied ad hominem: yes, I think and read a great deal and absorb different viewpoints. I look for the logical and objective reasoning behind everything I write. Sometimes, I actually change my opinion because there are people here to can objectively and rationally lay out a case.

Aiming a weapon at people is creating an imminent threat of harm. That is a crime.

Not considering something to be a criminal offense for which people should be thrown in cages does not equate to ignoring the potential and associated harm. Perhaps to you the government and it's ability to legislate is the be all and end all answer to every problem. After all, such a proposition means you don't have to think or be challenged to come up with any other solution. It's perfect for you.

Actually, my opinion of liberty derives from the fact of self-ownership that each human being has, and from that I can logically and objectively derive the right and wrong in political interactions between human beings.
That you don't get the logic is not my problem. There are plenty of good treatises on basic logic. I suggest that you read some and we can continue this conversation. Otherwise, you'll be all wrapped up in your irrational opinions.

Define "free market utopia." I don't think you even know what that means, despite your use of it as an epithet. Such a thing couldn't exist. Anyway, I'm not the one trying to create a utopia by putting people into cages when they peacefully use their bodies in ways that I don't like.

And? If someone injects themselves with heroin, what crime have they committed? Can you identify a victim who can accuse that person in court of committing a crime for the mere injection of the drug?

So your answer to this alleged self-denial of freedom which has no victim is to make the person into a victim by using violence against him and putting him into a cage.

I do not consider it my right to use violence against a person who has not used force or fraud against another. You consider it your right to do so, for whatever reason you deem necessary. For me, the basic principle is freedom so long as the freedom of others is respected. Your basic principle is might is right.

Oh well, then, it makes a great deal of sense to expand the prison budget and put them all into cages!

 

Why would it be safe to say that? There are published rates of addiction and dependence out there.

Why would I want to encourage the use of these substances? I don't even encourage people to take substances given to them by their doctors unless absolutely necessary, though pain pills and antiobiotics and drugs for kids who don't act like zombified sheep are handed out like candy. You seem to assume that since I value liberty over controlling people, that means I want everyone to do everything they can as free people.

How do you feel about adultery? Would you encourage your wife (or girlfriend, or future lover) to go out and cheat on you? If you aren't against making adultery a crime, then it seems to me that you should actively encourage her extracurricular bedtime activities. At least, that is the "logic" that you present to me.

Morphine is exceedingly inexpensive to make. A person can be addicted to morphine and function just fine in the workplace and at home. There is no good reason to treat people like a criminal just because they are addicted to something, nor to ruin their lives by forcing them into the justice system whether to be put in a cage or to make them "normal" according to government standards. It's not even all that difficult to overcome the addiction.

Ghettos full of crack addicts and criminals exist because there is a black market for the substances. A clever person goes to a pharmacy and buys his substances from reputable sources who make the product in clean environments and care about customer service.

Crack exists because the black market price of cocaine is insanely high. In a re-legalized environment, cocaine is very cheap and can even be sold in watered-down tinctures.

 

According to the statistics in Portugal there seems to be a drop off in addicts. The reason is because those who want to stop using but are addicted aren't afraid to get help. Those who are using don't have to resort to crime to get their drug because heroin costs about $50 a kilogram to produce and they aren't being poisoned by the crap that dealers put in their heroin to expand their profits.

 

You trivialize the addictive effects of opiods (heroin and morphine). Your belief that "it's not even all that difficult to overcome an addiction" is absolute rubbish. Perhaps you should talk to the people that run substance abuse treatment centers. Yes they can dry people out and use other drugs to mute withdrawal symptoms, but tell me, what is their long term success rate? I believe any addict would tell you "once an addict, always an addict."

You claim to be some sort of "libertarian." You come off more as a socialist. You want people to be free to use all these dangerous drugs, but you don't say who pays for the consequences. Legalizing pot is one thing, but destructive narcotics like cocaine, meth and heroin are another. Who is liable for all the unwanted effects?

Do you want doctors to perscribe methanphetamine, and have the patients destroy their health in few years? Can the patients sue the doctors, the people who manufacture the poison, or the FDA [if it apporves it in some ridiculous watered-down formula that any addict would recombine]? Would people now be able to cook their own meth at home and poison themselves, their children and neighbors?

In your fantasy world, legalizing drugs would cause crime related to drugs and gangs to vanish. People would also actually start being less addicted to narcotics with big government there to help dispense them.

Unlike Europe, we have whole cities filled with underclasses of people on government life support. About 46% of Amerians don't pay income taxes. If you want European style government to pay for all the medical care and welfare of these people, you need to raise taxes on working people to about 50%, and the wealthy to about 70%.

So how will legalizing narcotics give the lazy poor the incentive to stay in school, work a job and contribute to society when they can shoot up drugs and get Medicaid and welfare?