Should all drugs be legal?

[PTT]

Hello all :)

I’m pretty new here – been lurking for a few days – so I thought I’d introduce myself with an argument for the legalisation of drugs. I don’t just mean cannabis; I mean ALL drugs, from aspirin to heroin. For the record, I don’t take drugs, I don’t even smoke tobacco, but I do drink alcohol socially.
The proposal I make recognises one fact which appears to be totally missed by most drug policies today – drugs are not the enemy, criminals are. If you remove drugs from the control of the illegal pushers and gangs you can remove their most profitable source of income – a real form of strategic warfare against crime rather than the current tactical approach taken now.

The current situation:
1. The criminal element:
At the moment, drugs are illegal. As with just about any illegal product, you can get hold of it if you are willing to pay enough for it (often turning to crime in order to be able to pay for it). This creates a huge market for criminals to buy and sell drugs, allowing them to bankroll other activities. On a parallel with the situation in the US in the 30’s with prohibition, gangs form that sell their product to clients who are willing to pay high prices for it. Those gangs are then able to use the funding gained to secure their supply lines by paying more people and buying more guns. Just as happened in the 30’s, the police are soon outstripped in terms of funds and arms and are also hamstrung by the legalities of the situation which demand absolute certainty and accountability in order to pursue a conviction (and rightly so).
This leaves us with well armed, highly motivated, well supported and more “strategically flexible” gangs which often totally outclass, if not outnumber, the government forces which face them. These criminals use profits from drugs to pay for political, terrorist or just other forms of criminal activity. A good example of this is how the IRA used drug money from sales in Belfast in order to bankroll Sinn Fein political activities and PIRA terrorist ones.

2. The public element (the market):
People have a choice whether or not to take drugs. At the moment, to do so is illegal, attempting to remove that element of choice.
Drugs are expensive. I am assured that many of them are “fun” (at least in the short term). They are also very addictive - many are as addictive as alcohol. People will want to buy an expensive, addictive, fun item and, since buying it is highly illegal anyway, there is no incentive to not commit a less “serious” crime (i.e. one which carries a lower sentence such as theft, mugging etc) in order to pay for it.. Expensive drugs make people turn to crime in order to pay for them.

The Proposal:
Legalise all drugs. Regulate the sale and production of drugs in the same way that alcohol, tobacco and other addictive substances are regulated. Tax them as much as possible, but not so much that it becomes economically viable for gangs to import/produce them.

The results (?):
The funding for the gangs is removed. The funding for terrorist and subversive organisations is reduced. In short, you remove the very source of funding for the criminals.
Less people turn to crime in order to pay for the now-affordable drugs. Since people now have the choice to take drugs, any act they perform while under the influence of drugs can be treated as if they were under the influence of alcohol – driving, poor work performance etc would all be punishable by the appropriate authority. People would remain responsible for their actions.
It is likely that more low-level crime will ensue, just as there is a large amount of low-level alcohol induced crime. Just as that crime is paid for by tax on alcohol, the tax on drugs would pay for its own results.
Any argument which states that we would end up in a world of addicts misses the point – you always have the choice to not take drugs.

Ta muchly

PTT

[Keith Russell]

Greetings:

One should have the right to harm one's self; if one owns one's life, one should be free to do anything with that life one wishes, provided one does not endager anyone's right to do the same with their own life.

I'd be in favour of legalizing drugs, and I'm not all that interested in taxing them...the last thing we need in the US right now is more taxes, or more laws...

K

[Graeme]

Originally posted by PTT
The current situation:
1. The criminal element:
At the moment, drugs are illegal. As with just about any illegal product, you can get hold of it if you are willing to pay enough for it (often turning to crime in order to be able to pay for it). This creates a huge market for criminals to buy and sell drugs, allowing them to bankroll other activities. On a parallel with the situation in the US in the 30’s with prohibition, gangs form that sell their product to clients who are willing to pay high prices for it. Those gangs are then able to use the funding gained to secure their supply lines by paying more people and buying more guns. Just as happened in the 30’s, the police are soon outstripped in terms of funds and arms and are also hamstrung by the legalities of the situation which demand absolute certainty and accountability in order to pursue a conviction (and rightly so).
This leaves us with well armed, highly motivated, well supported and more “strategically flexible” gangs which often totally outclass, if not outnumber, the government forces which face them. These criminals use profits from drugs to pay for political, terrorist or just other forms of criminal activity. A good example of this is how the IRA used drug money from sales in Belfast in order to bankroll Sinn Fein political activities and PIRA terrorist ones.


Absolutely. Another point that must be raised is that the profitability of a venture rises as the risk of that venture rises.

The more draconian laws one puts in place to punish those who sell drugs, the more profitable selling drugs will become. And thus, selling drugs becomes more and more attractive to more and more 'hardened' criminals. Soon you have less 16-year-olds selling dimebags to their friends and more hardened gangsters selling those same dimebags to anyone who'll take them (but this time packing a gun which they're not afraid to use).



2. The public element (the market):
People have a choice whether or not to take drugs. At the moment, to do so is illegal, attempting to remove that element of choice.
Drugs are expensive. I am assured that many of them are “fun” (at least in the short term). They are also very addictive - many are as addictive as alcohol. People will want to buy an expensive, addictive, fun item and, since buying it is highly illegal anyway, there is no incentive to not commit a less “serious” crime (i.e. one which carries a lower sentence such as theft, mugging etc) in order to pay for it.. Expensive drugs make people turn to crime in order to pay for them.


I disagree. The cost of drugs is a minor factor in the proliferation of crimes committed by drug users. The main factor, IMO, is addiction, especially long-term addictions like heroin. You never really hear about anyone breaking into somebody's house to feed their marijuana or magic mushroom 'habit'.

The difference is addiction - physically addictive drugs like heroin and other opiates create a long-term metabolic habit that is incredibly hard to break and often 'snowballs'. A hardcore polydrug addict (i.e. someone who does both cocaine and heroin in large amounts daily) often needs hundreds of dollars a day to feed their habit. This is not because heroin and cocaine are expensive - a casual user can get a strong dose of heroin for under 10 bucks, and a strong dose of cocaine for under 20. Crack is even cheaper. It's because every day they need this money, and the debilitating effects of addiction mean that they generally can't hold a job. The only thing left is crime.

It's the addiction and the long-term snowball effect of hard drug ABuse that really turns people to crime, and IMO this is because we do not treat drug addiction as what it REALLY is - a health issue.



The Proposal:
Legalise all drugs. Regulate the sale and production of drugs in the same way that alcohol, tobacco and other addictive substances are regulated. Tax them as much as possible, but not so much that it becomes economically viable for gangs to import/produce them.


Exactly. Taxation is often a neccesary byproduct of regulation, since it makes a lot more sense to put a bureaucracy in place that pays for itself then one that just sucks money away from pre-existing taxes. However the government, even with taxation, can still sell the products for WAY less than any organized crime group could ever hope to match.

With regulation comes enforceable age restrictions, quantity restrictions, and a great starting point for the infrastructure neccesary to help those who can't handle the substances.


The results (?):
The funding for the gangs is removed. The funding for terrorist and subversive organisations is reduced. In short, you remove the very source of funding for the criminals.
Less people turn to crime in order to pay for the now-affordable drugs. Since people now have the choice to take drugs, any act they perform while under the influence of drugs can be treated as if they were under the influence of alcohol – driving, poor work performance etc would all be punishable by the appropriate authority. People would remain responsible for their actions.
It is likely that more low-level crime will ensue, just as there is a large amount of low-level alcohol induced crime. Just as that crime is paid for by tax on alcohol, the tax on drugs would pay for its own results.


As a large amount of the low-level crime that results from alcohol abuse is of a violent and 'drunk' nature, I don't think you'd see the same thing from most illegal drugs. The one with the worst reputation that I can think of is PCP, and when I experimented with it as a kid I found that the reputation was ill-deserved.

Most illegal drugs have effects that are much less noticeable than those of alcohol.



Any argument which states that we would end up in a world of addicts misses the point – you always have the choice to not take drugs.


It's even sillier when you consider what a massive failure the drug war has been, in that it's easier for most highschool kids to get a flap of meth than it is for them to get a mickey of vodka.

Legalizing drugs would not make them any EASIER to get... it would just make them SAFER to get.

[Graeme]

Another major reason for the legalization of ALL drugs is the purity/quality issue. Here in Vancouver we've had many incidences of 'too pure' heroin on the streets. People who are addicted to heroin and do it every day are used to injecting themselves with very high doses just to get past their tolerance for the drug. When a batch comes into the city that is much purer and stronger than people are used to, overdoses and deaths are the result.

In the rave culture, another big problem is the sale of MDMA tablets that may or may not actually be pure MDMA, or even partially MDMA. As a kid I remember buying what was apparently 'E' off a dealer who hadn't tried his latest batch yet. It turned out to be half heroin, half meth. Since none of us did more than one pill each this wasn't such a big deal - but to an inexperienced MDMA user this kind of scenario could easily have a tragic end.

With regulation this would never be an issue because every single milligram of every drug sold could be tested to ensure a consistent purity and quality.

I have been told by an addiction specialist that if the purity and quality of heroin were properly regulated, the number of heroin-related deaths would plummet almost to zero.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

I think that if all drugs are legalized many people will want to use them. Alas, too many people are like children if they are not told what to do or not to do they'll get themselves into trouble. In the times of economic/political turmoil temptation to forget oneself in heroin or cocaine may be just too high. Consequences are well known-- severe health problems and wide-spread anarchy (this is why one Chinese emperor just executed all opium addicts in 19th century).

Of course, these are only the Westerners that have such bright ideas. If these ideas are put into practice, the Western society will become weak in the face of more energetic and aggressive societies (and I mostly mean Muslim societies). For example, Europe already has a huge Muslim population with high birth rates and little tolerance for local culture. In case of a wide-spread drug abuse, the Christian European community will be weakened and divided, thus making its lands an easy target for Muslim colonization.

I am pretty sure that green light to all drugs will bring about a swift demise of the West followed by "dark ages" of sorts.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
I think that if all drugs are legalized many people will want to use them. Alas, too many people are like children if they are not told what to do or not to do they'll get themselves into trouble. In the times of economic/political turmoil temptation to forget oneself in heroin or cocaine may be just too high. Consequences are well known-- severe health problems and wide-spread anarchy (this is why one Chinese emperor just executed all opium addicts in 19th century).

Of course, these are only the Westerners that have such bright ideas. If these ideas are put into practice, the Western society will become weak in the face of more energetic and aggressive societies (and I mostly mean Muslim societies). For example, Europe already has a huge Muslim population with high birth rates and little tolerance for local culture. In case of a wide-spread drug abuse, the Christian European community will be weakened and divided, thus making its lands an easy target for Muslim colonization.

I am pretty sure that green light to all drugs will bring about a swift demise of the West followed by "dark ages" of sorts.

So why, then, has this demise not already occurred due to the legalization of Alcohol after prohibition? We're not talking about a 'green light' here, we're talking about taking the production and distribution out of the hands of criminals.

Obviously any major change in policy would have to be accompanied with a campaign of education. I think you're making a pretty big leap to say that people would all of a sudden start 'throwing themselves off the cliff' so to speak.

Did you know that prior to the criminalization of Opium in the early 20th century the great majority of western households had tinctures of Opium in the bathroom medicine cabinet? We may try to hide it, but the fact is that not too long ago opium use was as widespread as alcohol use in western society. This 'downfall' didn't happen then...

[sergeyvladimirovich]

So why, then, has this demise not already occurred due to the legalization of Alcohol after prohibition?


Huh? Comparing Heroin and Alcohol? It's kind of like comparing a nuclear bomb with a pistol....

Now I'm not saying that the demise will happen right away. But as soon as the country has problems many people will get depressed and jump at the drugs like a golden treasure.

I'll give you an example-- Russia. It is now both demoralized and economically depressed. Alcohol and drug use is rampant. Results are -0.5% population growth rate and life expectancy of less than 60 years. And that's with drugs illegal (even though easily available due to corruption of police)!

Now imagine what's gonna happen to the West when a good economic recession hits it and drugs are legal!

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Did you know that prior to the criminalization of Opium in the early 20th century the great majority of western households had tinctures of Opium in the bathroom medicine cabinet?


Society was much more conservative than now and that served as a deterrent for addiction. When morality decays, rules are needed to make up for the loss.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Society was much more conservative than now and that served as a deterrent for addiction. When morality decays, rules are needed to make up for the loss.

Want to back those statements up with some evidence? Sounds like pure conjecture to me. People didn't have opium in their cabinets as decoration, you know.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Huh? Comparing Heroin and Alcohol? It's kind of like comparing a nuclear bomb with a pistol....


Not really, when you consider that Alcohol has an equal potential for addiction, and much greater potential for both health issues and violent behaviour. One can abuse heroin for 20 years and still come out of it reasonably healthy when they eventually kick the habit. Alcohol on the other hand destroys both the liver, brain cells, and other organs. Compare a hardcore alcoholic with a hardcore heroin addict - while both will be in a pretty sad state, at least the heroin addict will have enough brain cells left to string together a coherent sentence.

I'd consider alcohol by FAR the more dangerous of the two, in almost every way.



Now I'm not saying that the demise will happen right away. But as soon as the country has problems many people will get depressed and jump at the drugs like a golden treasure.

I'll give you an example-- Russia. It is now both demoralized and economically depressed. Alcohol and drug use is rampant. Results are -0.5% population growth rate and life expectancy of less than 60 years. And that's with drugs illegal (even though easily available due to corruption of police)!


Exactly my point. Making them legal doesn't make them any easier to get, it just makes it easier for health officials to control those who get into trouble.

[Mageth]

Huh? Comparing Heroin and Alcohol? It's kind of like comparing a nuclear bomb with a pistol....

You're right. Alcohol is far more dangerous.

BTW, I'd add another choice to the poll:

"Some but not all".

Some (esp. marijuana) should be legalized. Some (e.g. PCP (Angel Dust)) shouldn't. That's my opinion, anyway.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Graeme
Want to back those statements up with some evidence? Sounds like pure conjecture to me. People didn't have opium in their cabinets as decoration, you know.

Evidence for this is hard to come by but here are some considerations.

We don't hear as much about opium addiction as we hear about alcohol addiction. Thus, we can with high probability assume that it didn't happen as much.

With the "more moral" part evidence is impossible for how do you measure morality? Just some cicumstantial evidence:
(a). I grew up in a more traditional society and from my experience going against its expectations is not so easy. These expectations typically include not indulging in "vices" that not only include things of sexual nature but also any individualistic impulse that goes against the group's interests (spending all money on drugs clearly does).

(b). From the book "Portrait of Dorian Grey" (sorry if the spelling is wrong), opium was mostly consumed in dens in the port districts-- not in the kitchen. It was thus something extremely shameful.

Finally, opium is still not as potent as Heroin.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Mageth, Graeme,

are you serious, guys?

H *always* leads to addiction, alcohol most often doesn't. I think that alone makes H dangerous.

As far as "kicking the habit" goes...well, good luck. For an ordinary peson it is impossible. With alcohol I know a lot of people who "kicked" it without medical help. Not so with H.

[Mageth]

(spending all money on drugs clearly does)

Spending an excess amount of money on drugs is a separate moral question from legalizing drugs, IMO, though I think it's safe to assume that legalizing drugs would probably make them cheaper and thus have the added benefit of helping to prevent the problem of spending too much money on drugs.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Mageth
(spending all money on drugs clearly does)

Spending an excess amount of money on drugs is a separate moral question from legalizing drugs, IMO, though I think it's safe to assume that legalizing drugs would probably make them cheaper and thus have the added benefit of helping to prevent the problem of spending too much money on drugs.

I said what I said in relation to how conservative societies deal with people with anti-social behavior (see my argument with the other person). Not really as an argument against legalization.

[PTT]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich:
H *always* leads to addiction, alcohol most often doesn't. I think that alone makes H dangerous.

As far as "kicking the habit" goes...well, good luck. For an ordinary peson it is impossible. With alcohol I know a lot of people who "kicked" it without medical help. Not so with H.

Relative addictivenesses (http://www.ccguide.org.uk/addicts.html)
The above link shows that alcohol is more addictive than heroin. Furthermore, if it is addictiveness which is the problem, then nicotine is the worst offender.

PTT

[Mageth]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Mageth, Graeme,

are you serious, guys?

H *always* leads to addiction, alcohol most often doesn't. I think that alone makes H dangerous.

But that alone does not make alcohol less dangerous.

Addiction is one issue; health hazard is another. Alcohol is far more abused than heroin, obviously. Which do you think causes more health problems and deaths in the U.S. each year?

In any case, legally controlled heroin would be much safer to use than the street stuff, obviously, so legalizing it would likely serve to decrease the risk from heroin, just like legalizing booze after the prohibiition served to lower risk from bad moonshine.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by PTT
Relative addictivenesses (http://www.ccguide.org.uk/addicts.html)
The above link shows that alcohol is more addictive than heroin. Furthermore, if it is addictiveness which is the problem, then nicotine is the worst offender.

PTT

With all due respect, Sir, this is a dubious link. I'm not sure what exactly the numbers measure but when I see Nikotine being more addictive than crack or heroine, I'm starting to suspect that the "experts" were high on some of the very substances they were "rating" :D

Come on, everybody knows somebody who gave up smoking and drinking but people on H or Cocaine or amphetamines typically aren't making it. I know of many cases of addiction to hardcore stuff and most of the addicted are already dead. Haven't heard of anybody recovering.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich

H *always* leads to addiction,


Are you sure about that?

Of the 10 or so people I knew as a kid who tried heroin, only one had problems with it. And she was already a diagnosed scizophrenic.


As far as "kicking the habit" goes...well, good luck. For an ordinary peson it is impossible. With alcohol I know a lot of people who "kicked" it without medical help. Not so with H.

That probably has a lot to do with the societal attitudes towards the two drugs. It's a lot easier to be an alcoholic in denial than it is to be a heroin addict in denial. Thus people are urged to seek medical help at a much earlier stage with heroin than they are with alcohol. With alcohol medical help is a last resort - with heroin, to the families of users, it's the first, last, and only option.

While I agree that the gap between a 'moderate' alcohol user and a 'hardcore' one is a lot wider than it is with heroin, real hardcore alcoholics need just as much medical help as hardcore heroin addicts. And the heroin addicts have a much better chance at a 'normal' life afterwards than the alcoholics do.


Regardless, what's your solution? Leave the drugs in the hands of criminals? Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem that the criminals are doing a very good job of regulating things.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
With all due respect, Sir, this is a dubious link. I'm not sure what exactly the numbers measure but when I see Nikotine being more addictive than crack or heroine, I'm starting to suspect that the "experts" were high on some of the very substances they were "rating" :D

So who do you think is better qualified than the National Institute on Drug Abuse? I'd like you to explain exactly how this is so 'dubious', beyond that it contradicts your pre-existing opinions.


Come on, everybody knows somebody who gave up smoking and drinking but people on H or Cocaine or amphetamines typically aren't making it. I know of many cases of addiction to hardcore stuff and most of the addicted are already dead. Haven't heard of anybody recovering.

Anecdotal evidence isn't scientifically valid, you should know that. I've heard of MANY people recovering, and if you go into any addiction centre you'll probably meet quite a few recovered cocaine and heroin addicts - they usually make up a high percentage of the volunteer staff.

I could probably match you anecdote for anecdote but it wouldn't prove anything.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Mageth
But that alone does not make alcohol less dangerous.

Addiction is one issue; health hazard is another. Alcohol is far more abused than heroin, obviously. Which do you think causes more health problems and deaths in the U.S. each year?

In any case, legally controlled heroin would be much safer to use than the street stuff, obviously, so legalizing it would likely serve to decrease the risk from heroin, just like legalizing booze after the prohibiition served to lower risk from bad moonshine.

The reason booze-related problems are more prevalent than heroine-related problems is because alcohol use is so darn widespread! Do you think that this will remain the case when together with beer and wine, Safeway will sell heroine and cocaine?

Another note on H versus alcohole. Heroine destroys you in a short period of time, with alcohol it takes years so you have some time to rethink.

[PTT]

I found the link through google using the keywords "relative addictiveness of drugs and alcohol". The research is attributed.

Here (http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm) is a full transcript of one article referred to in the first link.

Further links are available on request. :)

Either way, one does not become immediately addicted, nor does the legalisation of drugs make them more accessible (a necessity if addiction were to increase). Legalisation only makes drugs safer.

PTT

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
The reason booze-related problems are more prevalent than heroine-related problems is because alcohol use is so darn widespread! Do you think that this will remain the case when together with beer and wine, Safeway will sell heroine and cocaine? [b][quote]

Safeway sells beer and wine? Not in B.C. I wouldn't think that it'd be a good idea to sell heroin at a safeway. Personally I think that the dangerousness of heroin is such that it would only be sold by licenced pharmacists.

[b][quote]
Another note on H versus alcohole. Heroine destroys you in a short period of time, with alcohol it takes years so you have some time to rethink.

Actually, heroin is a pretty safe drug, beyond the damage it does to your lifestyle and the potential for overdose (which stems from it being illegal and unregulated).

It doesn't cause liver damage (like alcohol does).
It doesn't cause brain damage (like alcohol does).
It doesn't cause lung damage (like cigarrettes do).

Granted any hardcore addiction will seriously fuck up your life, but a drug's dangerousness shouldn't be judged on how easily you can overdose, since it's not regulated in the first place.

You can kill yourself in a single night with alcohol, and that IS regulated.

[Mageth]

Come on, everybody knows somebody who gave up smoking...

I know lots of people that gave up smoking. I put flowers on their graves occasionally. My uncle smoked relatively lightly, and died from a heart attack at a relatively young age (compared to his other brothers). My brother-in-law smoked heavily for years, finally gave it up about 5 years ago (when he had grandkids) and died at a relatively young age, also from a heart attack, about a year ago. In both cases, I think the years of smoking was probably a leading contributor to their early deaths.

I knew a family with 5 sisters (much older than me) where all 5 died from lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking...the last one smoking herself into her grave in full knowledge of the cause of her 4 sisters' death.

And alcohol...I've personally known several people that died because of alcohol - either from years of abuse or the far-too-common alcohol-related accident. I also know some who ruined their life with alcohol, a very good friend and former camping buddy in particular.

I've personally never known anyone to die directly from (other) drug abuse. Just lucky, I guess.

Anecdotal, I know, but the point is that I would consider it hypocritical to argue against the legalization of drugs because they're dangeruous and not also argue for the banning of alcohol and tobacco - each of which causes far more injury and death than all the other illegal drugs combined.

Or are you also for banning tobacco and alcohol?

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Graeme
Anecdotal evidence isn't scientifically valid, you should know that.

I could probably match you anecdote for anecdote but it wouldn't prove anything.

Anecdotal evidence is about probabilty. The more I have, the more I'm credible. Even US Department of State uses "anecdotal evidence" to report human right violations in foreign countries. If everybody says it, it's most likely true.

Now to the point. Do you seriously believe that if 20 million people in the US regularly drink and 20 million people regularly use H, the damage will be less with H? My "anecdotal evidence" says categorically "no" and I don't want to try it myself.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
The reason booze-related problems are more prevalent than heroine-related problems is because alcohol use is so darn widespread! Do you think that this will remain the case when together with beer and wine, Safeway will sell heroine and cocaine?

Yes, because I think that alcohol and tobacco abuse will remain far more prevalent than cocaine and heroin abuse (legalizing them will not necessarily make them more socially acceptable), plus I think alcohol and tobacco abuse are directly more harmful to your body.

[PTT]

If everybody says it, it's most likely true.
A thousand years ago everybody said the world was flat. Just because everyone is making the same argument doesn't meant that everybody isn't argueing from ignorance. Education would appear to be the key here.

My "anecdotal evidence" says categorically "no" and I don't want to try it myself.
Well done you! You have taken on my most important point here - personal choice. I choose not to smoke, I choose not to take drugs, I choose to drink alcohol socially. The legallity or otherwise of these substances will not affect my choice to take them and, it appears, it will not affect yours either.
There are major campaigns educating people about the dangers of smoking and drinking but, at the end of the day, it is down to the individual as to whether or not he or she should take heed of the lessons which are being passed on. Why should any other drug be treated any differently?

Ta muchly

PTT

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Anecdotal evidence is about probabilty. The more I have, the more I'm credible. Even US Department of State uses "anecdotal evidence" to report human right violations in foreign countries. If everybody says it, it's most likely true.

Yeah, just like that Jesus thing, right? :rolleyes:


Now to the point. Do you seriously believe that if 20 million people in the US regularly drink and 20 million people regularly use H, the damage will be less with H? My "anecdotal evidence" says categorically "no" and I don't want to try it myself.

I would say no too. You've completely missed the point. By legalizing the drug you take it out of the hands of the criminal element and put it into the hands of the government, who can regulate its purity, the size of a dose, the method of ingestion, and any important health information that needs to be imparted to a user.

We're not talking about UNREGULATED legalization here - completely the opposite. I would think that the best way to stamp out heroin addiction is to require a perscription for it.

If medical proffessionals were the ones distributing drugs as dangerous as heroin, they could distribute with a mind to ending the addiction. They could also refuse the drug to those who were not already addicts. Granted this might introduce a criminal element back into the picture, but I think if you made it as cheap as possible (and in canada, covered under medical) to the 'real addicts' then the dealers wouldn't really have much of a customer base.

Basically you have to balance your regulation against the possibility of criminal enterprise. In a special case like heroin I am willing to admit that more stringent regulation than your average liquor store is neccesary. But I would stop far short of making its use a criminal offence, since that helps nobody.

If you think that 20 million people would suddenly start using heroin you're completely out to lunch. As a kid I was WAY more fearless than most when it came to drugs, and I'd never touch that stuff if it came in cereal boxes.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Mageth
Come on, everybody knows somebody who gave up smoking...
.....
Or are you also for banning tobacco and alcohol?

Certainly not alcohol. Pretty much everybody drinks socially and most don't become alcoholics. It's a part of culture that sometimes is abused.

Smoking, usually, is almost always abused. But it's not a threat to national security so I wouldn't ban it (just tax it and make life for smokers miserable by requiring higher medical insurance for them
:D )

Now your statement "if you ban drugs, also ban alcohol and smokes" has some validity but only when weaker kinds of drugs are concerned. For instance, marijuan indeed is not any worse than alcohole so banning it is stupid. But H and Cocaine...no way, they are much worse.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Yeah, just like that Jesus thing, right?


Saying "John died of overdose" and "I believe in Jesus" are quite different things. The first is about a fact, the second is about a belief.

I still contend that if I know a lot of people from different backgrounds who died of drugs, I have something called "representetive sample" and I am likely to be right when I say Heroine is more of a killer than smokes or booze.

[Mageth]

Now your statement "if you ban drugs, also ban alcohol and smokes" has some validity but only when weaker kinds of drugs are concerned. For instance, marijuan indeed is not any worse than alcohole so banning it is stupid.

Well, at least we agree on that much.

But H and Cocaine...no way, they are much worse.

Agreed that they're much worse than marijuana, which makes legalization a bit more questionable, but if we're just talking about the damage done I'd say tobacco and alcohol abuse are worse (again, addiction alone is not the only factor to consider). I think statistics show that.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Saying "John died of overdose" and "I believe in Jesus" are quite different things. The first is about a fact, the second is about a belief.

But 'John died of overdose' is not what you were saying.


I still contend that if I know a lot of people from different backgrounds who died of drugs, I have something called "representetive sample" and I am likely to be right when I say Heroine is more of a killer than smokes or booze.

BECAUSE it is illegal! If you look at the actual physiological effects of heroin you'll see that the only times people die on it are when they take it improperly or in WAY too high a dose or purity.

We aren't constantly drinking ourselves to death because EVERYONE knows what a reasonable amount of alcohol to take is. Governments are constantly educating us on this, and require that alcohol manufacturers put the percentage of alcohol on each bottle.

Heroin, on the other hand, is distributed by sleazy drug dealers who don't give a fuck how strong it is. All they care about is what they paid for it and what they can sell it for.

Do you know what a proper dose of heroin is? I personally have no idea.

Heroin, with its purity and dosage regulated, is a very safe drug to do.

[Mageth]

I still contend that if I know a lot of people from different backgrounds who died of drugs, I have something called "representetive sample" and I am likely to be right when I say Heroine is more of a killer than smokes or booze.

And the anecdotal evidence I provided cancel your anecdotal evidence.

Anyone want to provide their own anecdotal evidence to break the tie?

Or not; here's some statistics:

U.S. Recreational Drug Deaths (http://bbsnews.net/drug-deaths.html)

"Tobacco use results in more than 400,000 deaths each year, or one in every five deaths..." Targeting Tobacco Use. The Nation's Leading Cause of Death. CDC At a Glance 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/aag/aag_osh.htm

That makes your claim about heroin vs. "smokes" rather silly, IMO.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Mageth
Now your statement "if you ban drugs, also ban alcohol and smokes" has some validity but only when weaker kinds of drugs are concerned. For instance, marijuan indeed is not any worse than alcohole so banning it is stupid.

Well, at least we agree on that much.

But H and Cocaine...no way, they are much worse.

Agreed that they're much worse than marijuana, which makes legalization a bit more questionable, but if we're just talking about the damage done I'd say tobacco and alcohol abuse are worse (again, addiction alone is not the only factor to consider). I think statistics show that.

OK, I think we are out of concrete evidence here and should come to some conclusion. The statistics that we need to answer what is worse should answer the following questions for substance S (where S is tobacco, alcahol, heroine etc):

For N people who regularly (say, more than once a week) use substance S, what is:
a. Life expectancy
b. Medical costs
c. Rate of mental problems
d. Rate of homelessness

...and so on.

Cheers!

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
I think that if all drugs are legalized many people will want to use them.

You prudes keep saying that but in all the drug debates I've been in over the years I've found very few people who say legalization would make them use drugs.

Besides, look to the Netherlands. Low-level pot sales are de-facto legal. Effect on usage--none. For a while they got too lax and permitted some advertizing and usage went up. They stopped that and usage went back to what it was.

Alas, too many people are like children if they are not told what to do or not to do they'll get themselves into trouble.

Nobody's saying there shouldn't be reasonable anti-drug information out there.

In the times of economic/political turmoil temptation to forget oneself in heroin or cocaine may be just too high. Consequences are well known-- severe health problems and wide-spread anarchy (this is why one Chinese emperor just executed all opium addicts in 19th century).

Actually, neither of these are problems with heroin addiction. One can be a normal, functional member of society while hooked on heroin. The great harm comes not from the heroin but from what it takes to get heroin and the life that results. If it were legal and available at a reasonable price these problems wouldn't exist. Morphine is very similar to heroin. There are people "hooked" on it leading normal lives. The difference being they get it legally from the pharmacy.

Besides, any harm-based arguments are insane while the most addictive, most harmful (In harm per user, not just total harm. It kills a substantial fraction of it's users.) recreational drug is not only legal but widely advertized. The second most harmful recreational drug is likewise legal and widely advertized and it has the added distinction of by far being the drug that poses the greatest threat to those around who are not using it.

I am pretty sure that green light to all drugs will bring about a swift demise of the West followed by "dark ages" of sorts.

They didn't cause such harm a hundered years ago when they were legal. Coca-cola used to really be the real thing, after all!

[Mageth]

We aren't constantly drinking ourselves to death because EVERYONE knows what a reasonable amount of alcohol to take is.

Not to mention the fact that you tend to pass out before you can drink enough in one sitting to kill you, though it does happen.

In any case, it's the ones that don't pass out and get behind the wheel of a car that are the biggest problem.

[Graeme]

The main point in my opinion is that at the moment, criminals control the manufacture, supply and distribution of drugs. Add to this the fact that schoolkids (and isn't this supposed to be 'for the CHILLRREEENNN') can get drugs a lot easier than alcohol, and we have a very big problem.

Do we leave drugs in the hands of criminals, or not?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Huh? Comparing Heroin and Alcohol? It's kind of like comparing a nuclear bomb with a pistol....

Not quite that extreme, alcohol isn't that much more dangerous than heroin.

I'll give you an example-- Russia. It is now both demoralized and economically depressed. Alcohol and drug use is rampant. Results are -0.5% population growth rate and life expectancy of less than 60 years. And that's with drugs illegal (even though easily available due to corruption of police)!

And that harm is all due to drugs, or is it due to the fact that their system is a total disaster?

[Mageth]

OK, I think we are out of concrete evidence here...

I think the links I posted provide some fresh concrete evidence.

IMO, it's hypocritical to argue against the legalization of heroin because of its dangers yet to claim that alcohol and tobacco should remain legal.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
OK, I think we are out of concrete evidence here and should come to some conclusion. The statistics that we need to answer what is worse should answer the following questions for substance S (where S is tobacco, alcahol, heroine etc):

For N people who regularly (say, more than once a week) use substance S, what is:
a. Life expectancy
b. Medical costs
c. Rate of mental problems
d. Rate of homelessness

...and so on.

Cheers!

Then answer how many of these problems would be SOLVED by legalization.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Mageth, Graeme,

are you serious, guys?

H *always* leads to addiction, alcohol most often doesn't. I think that alone makes H dangerous.

As far as "kicking the habit" goes...well, good luck. For an ordinary peson it is impossible. With alcohol I know a lot of people who "kicked" it without medical help. Not so with H.

Actually, the percent of heroin users who are addicts is less than the percent of alcohol users.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
With all due respect, Sir, this is a dubious link. I'm not sure what exactly the numbers measure but when I see Nikotine being more addictive than crack or heroine, I'm starting to suspect that the "experts" were high on some of the very substances they were "rating" :D

Come on, everybody knows somebody who gave up smoking and drinking but people on H or Cocaine or amphetamines typically aren't making it. I know of many cases of addiction to hardcore stuff and most of the addicted are already dead. Haven't heard of anybody recovering.

I do have some gripes with that chart--some of the stuff on the low end simply isn't addictive at all.

However, nicotine is more addictive than heroin. I've never heard any serious evidence to the contrary and years ago in one of these debates a guy spoke up. At times past he had been hooked on various things like heroin. He had kicked them all *EXCEPT NICOTINE*.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
The reason booze-related problems are more prevalent than heroine-related problems is because alcohol use is so darn widespread! Do you think that this will remain the case when together with beer and wine, Safeway will sell heroine and cocaine?

Another note on H versus alcohole. Heroine destroys you in a short period of time, with alcohol it takes years so you have some time to rethink.

No. We are talking per user, not totals for society. Also, it's only the illegality that destroys you. Legal, pure heroin isn't a killer. It's effect on the body is very similar to morphine--and there are people living normal lives despite taking whopping doses of morphine every day.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Graeme
Actually, heroin is a pretty safe drug, beyond the damage it does to your lifestyle and the potential for overdose (which stems from it being illegal and unregulated).

It doesn't cause liver damage (like alcohol does).
It doesn't cause brain damage (like alcohol does).
It doesn't cause lung damage (like cigarrettes do).

Granted any hardcore addiction will seriously fuck up your life, but a drug's dangerousness shouldn't be judged on how easily you can overdose, since it's not regulated in the first place.

You can kill yourself in a single night with alcohol, and that IS regulated.

In fact, the opiates have a better safety profile than either aspirin or acetominophen--and the latter are over the counter without age restrictions.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Now to the point. Do you seriously believe that if 20 million people in the US regularly drink and 20 million people regularly use H, the damage will be less with H? My "anecdotal evidence" says categorically "no" and I don't want to try it myself.

20 million using legal, pure H--the alcohol will be *FAR* more dangerous.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Actually, the percent of heroin users who are addicts is less than the percent of alcohol users.

Almost everybody drinks socially. An absolute minority uses hard drugs. Let me not believe you.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Graeme
We're not talking about UNREGULATED legalization here - completely the opposite. I would think that the best way to stamp out heroin addiction is to require a perscription for it.

If medical proffessionals were the ones distributing drugs as dangerous as heroin, they could distribute with a mind to ending the addiction. They could also refuse the drug to those who were not already addicts.

England used to use such a system. It worked quite well--the addiction rate was *VERY* small. There was no black market in it as there was no money to be made. If a pusher managed to hook someone they would just go get the legal stuff cheaper. Thus the pusher had no incentive. The addicts were almost 100% those who became addicted while abroad.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Saying "John died of overdose" and "I believe in Jesus" are quite different things. The first is about a fact, the second is about a belief.

I still contend that if I know a lot of people from different backgrounds who died of drugs, I have something called "representetive sample" and I am likely to be right when I say Heroine is more of a killer than smokes or booze.

Note: Death by accidental overdose of drugs is almost 100% a function of their illegality. If people knew the purity of the stuff they were using they wouldn't OD. OD's are a result of getting something of higher purity than you expect.

[PTT]

In a vain attempt to get the thread back on track... ;)

Originally posted by Graeme
The main point in my opinion is that at the moment, criminals control the manufacture, supply and distribution of drugs. Add to this the fact that schoolkids (and isn't this supposed to be 'for the CHILLRREEENNN') can get drugs a lot easier than alcohol, and we have a very big problem.

Do we leave drugs in the hands of criminals, or not?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Mageth

U.S. Recreational Drug Deaths (http://bbsnews.net/drug-deaths.html)

"Tobacco use results in more than 400,000 deaths each year, or one in every five deaths..." Targeting Tobacco Use. The Nation's Leading Cause of Death. CDC At a Glance 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/aag/aag_osh.htm

That makes your claim about heroin vs. "smokes" rather silly, IMO.

That chart has a serious problem with it. It's using the government data on illegal drug deaths and that data is very wrong. It way *OVERSTATES* the harm. This is the result of flawed reporting procedures.

Suppose someone takes some drugs then OD's on alcohol. It's reported as a drug death. Suppose someone dies because their drugs aren't what they were supposed to be. It's a drug death--when really it's a contamination death.

Also, that data attributes suicide by drugs as drug deaths.

[Gothic_J]

Originally posted by PTT
Hello all :)

I’m pretty new here – been lurking for a few days – so I thought I’d introduce myself with an argument for the legalisation of drugs. I don’t just mean cannabis; I mean ALL drugs, from aspirin to heroin. For the record, I don’t take drugs, I don’t even smoke tobacco, but I do drink alcohol socially.
The proposal I make recognises one fact which appears to be totally missed by most drug policies today – drugs are not the enemy, criminals are. If you remove drugs from the control of the illegal pushers and gangs you can remove their most profitable source of income – a real form of strategic warfare against crime rather than the current tactical approach taken now.

PTT

I agree. the government is not your mommy, and need not be responsible for stupid things you do to your body.

if you are of voting age, and are able to direct the nation as you see fit, you have the right of doing to your body what you will.

that said, you will quickly lose your job if you show up high every time. it will balance out.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Gothic_J
I agree. the government is not your mommy, and need not be responsible for stupid things you do to your body.

If you are of voting age, and are able to direct the nation as you see fit, you have the right of doing to your body what you will.

Would you mind proving that you have a right to do whatever you want to your body? This is just an assumption on your part.

[Donnmathan]

I voted "No", but simply because I am not prone to such blanket statements. Like prostitution, I can see a lot more good than harm coming of legalization and regulation - as long as it's both, not just the former.

NC - this is the USA; you will never find anything in the Constitution that attempts to tell you what you can or cannot do to yourself, so long as YOU are the ONLY person involved. I have a better question - would you mind proving I don't have the right to do whatever I want to my body?

[Gothic_J]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Would you mind proving that you have a right to do whatever you want to your body? This is just an assumption on your part.

I think the intent is clear in the consitution that you do. you have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness - as long as it does not harm others (Im rather rabid on dui offenders) then if doing drugs makes you happy, you should have the liberty to do so and risk your own life.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
That chart has a serious problem with it. It's using the government data on illegal drug deaths and that data is very wrong. It way *OVERSTATES* the harm. This is the result of flawed reporting procedures.

Suppose someone takes some drugs then OD's on alcohol. It's reported as a drug death. Suppose someone dies because their drugs aren't what they were supposed to be. It's a drug death--when really it's a contamination death.

Also, that data attributes suicide by drugs as drug deaths.

I'm sure it does, and thanks for pointing that out. But it was the best I could find quickly, and even with the flawed procedures that inflate illegal drug deaths, it blows sergeyvladimirovich's heroin vs. "smokes" (as well as vs. alcohol) argument out of the water.

[asef]

Originally posted by Gothic_J
I think the intent is clear in the consitution that you do. you have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness - as long as it does not harm others (Im rather rabid on dui offenders) then if doing drugs makes you happy, you should have the liberty to do so and risk your own life.

Does harm to other people include psychological trauma of seeing a loved one suffer? (I'm not american so do not know precident there. Also, just because some document says something doesn't make it right. )

This aside I would like to assert that as far as i know on pure addiction levels
nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. About eighty to ninety percent of users get addicted. Heroin ranges from fifty to seventy. Alcohol and cocaine are about forty to sixty. Amphetamines have escaped research a bit and the rate is somewhere between ten and seventy percent dependng on whose research you listen to. (the ranges in percentages are due to the ranges in research results so i was told)

This is taken from my lecture notes and as such is not completely trustworthy. It refers to users who are addicted after four weeks use, I think. Psychological and physical addiction differences are not properly made in these statistics. Unfortunately the lecturer did not give references but I may well try to find some well based figures.

Addiction and impact on quality of life the habit makes are very separate things. Caffeine is somehwere up there in the high percentages of addiction rates too but the addiction does not impact much on day to day life like some other addictions do. Methadone addiction impacts on day to day activities less than heroin addiction and one can go from one to the other therefore a methadone addiction is used to treat a heroin addiction.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
I voted "No", but simply because I am not prone to such blanket statements. Like prostitution, I can see a lot more good than harm coming of legalization and regulation - as long as it's both, not just the former.

NC - this is the USA; you will never find anything in the Constitution that attempts to tell you what you can or cannot do to yourself, so long as YOU are the ONLY person involved. I have a better question - would you mind proving I don't have the right to do whatever I want to my body?

As far as I can tell, no one is born with any Jeffersonian unalienable rights. If you think that they exist, then it's your job to argue that they do.

[meritocrat]

If you have no inherent rights, why can't I hunt you down and kill you?

Why can't someone stop you from having a job or owning your computer? Or having a family or owning a car?

If there are no rights, then what 'right' to you have to do or receive anything?

Besides, Jefferson was a hypocrite. No believer in freedom should own slaves.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Gothic_J
I think the intent is clear in the consitution that you do. you have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness - as long as it does not harm others (Im rather rabid on dui offenders) then if doing drugs makes you happy, you should have the liberty to do so and risk your own life.

I see no reason to believe that any human being has any Jeffersonian unalienable rights. Jefferson didn't give us a reason to believe that we have any unalienable rights, anymore than he gave us a reason to believe that a deist creator exists. Do you believe that a deist creator exists? If no, then why do you believe that any unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist? There appears to be no more reason to believe that unalienable rights exist anymore than there is a reason to believe that a deist creator exists.

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
As far as I can tell, no one is born with any Jeffersonian unalienable rights. If you think that they exist, then it's your job to argue that they do.

I'm not talking about the (utterly laughable) Jeffersonian 'unalienable rights', I'm refering to the ones made into the basis for our law - those listed in the Constitution. Those rights are certainly NOT unalienable, but ARE granted to us, and defended by, the US goverment. While 'the right to do what I want to my body' isn't listed specificly, the right to privacy and freedom of expression are - the issue in question falls, I believe, some where in between the two.

[Donnmathan]

Meritocrat, those rights you are referring to exist only so long as there is a governement to protect them. Remove the government, and they disappear; hence, they are not inherent.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Meritocrat, those rights you are referring to exist only so long as there is a governement to protect them. Remove the government, and they disappear; hence, they are not inherent.

The government, however, isn't going anywhere. So your point is academic at best.

[Donnmathan]

Graeme - I fully realize the government is going nowhere; the obect of my post was to answer this statement:posted by meritocrat:If you have no inherent rights, why can't I hunt you down and kill you?

Why can't someone stop you from having a job or owning your computer? Or having a family or owning a car?

If there are no rights, then what 'right' to you have to do or receive anything?


The point I was getting at was that we have rights because a government says we do, not because of any mystical 'unalienable rights'. Jefferson's sentiment, while noble, was also dead wrong.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Graeme - I fully realize the government is going nowhere; the obect of my post was to answer this statement:

The point I was getting at was that we have rights because a government says we do, not because of any mystical 'unalienable rights'. Jefferson's sentiment, while noble, was also dead wrong.

However isn't the question here whether or not the government SHOULD afford us the right to use drugs?

[Donnmathan]

Graeme - Yes it is, and I agreed; someone else was attacking that point on the basis that we have no right to do whatever we wish to our bodies, and I was refuting that claim. The Consititution that outlines the rights afforded us by our government gives that government no authority to tell us what we can do with our own bodies. I think that most drugs should be legal, but regulated in the same way alcohol is, and for most of the same reasons - would you like to drive on the same road as someone who is high on heroin?

Man, I can't believe I'm actually being attacked from both sides, even the one I agreed with!:confused:

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Graeme - Yes it is, and I agreed; someone else was attacking that point on the basis that we have no right to do whatever we wish to our bodies, and I was refuting that claim. The Consititution that outlines the rights afforded us by our government gives that government no authority to tell us what we can do with our own bodies. I think that most drugs should be legal, but regulated in the same way alcohol is, and for most of the same reasons - would you like to drive on the same road as someone who is high on heroin?

Man, I can't believe I'm actually being attacked from both sides, even the one I agreed with!:confused:

Ha... guess I misunderstood your POV on the issue. I agree with your above points 100%.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Graeme - Yes it is, and I agreed; someone else was attacking that point on the basis that we have no right to do whatever we wish to our bodies, and I was refuting that claim. The Consititution that outlines the rights afforded us by our government gives that government no authority to tell us what we can do with our own bodies. I think that most drugs should be legal, but regulated in the same way alcohol is, and for most of the same reasons - would you like to drive on the same road as someone who is high on heroin?

Man, I can't believe I'm actually being attacked from both sides, even the one I agreed with!:confused:

Here is the problem. One cannot completely disregard the intellectual climate of Western civilization at the time that the Constitution was written. The idea of unalienable rights such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, were not ideas of Jefferson, but rather of John Locke in England. The basic idea was that man was born with certain unalienable rights and that the church, kings, and nobles were violating those rights, and so therefore, revolution was justified.

Even today, as we speak, if the people were to find America to be in violation of any of these so called unalienable rights, according to liberal philosophy, the people of the US would be justified to revolt against their government. One simply cannot discount the DOI, as you do, without discounting the whole of liberal political philosophy.

According to liberal political philosophy, man is born with unalienable rights such as Life, Liberty, Property (or pursuit of happiness). The state, therefore, has no right to restrict the freedom of the individual, whatsoever, without rational justification. Not even religion can restrict the freedom of the individual without rational justification. The problem is they can't rationally justify man being born with these unalienable rights, so why should the state, or any religion, have to rationally justify itself for restricting these unalienable rights when it hasn't been proven that they even exist?

[NonContradiction]

Double post

[Donnmathan]

Problem is, we don't have to. We are dealing with a point of law here, not philosophy, be it moral, idealogical, or otherwise. The original post asks a specific legal question, posed by someone in the UK, and answered by a number of folks in the US, Canada, and UK. Now, in all three areas, the rights of the individual are guaranteed at some level by law; none gives the government the right (someone from the UK and/or Canada, please confirm or deny, but this is to the best of my knowledge) to make illegal that which only harms the user, unless death is certain. Such practices and substances could be heavily regulated in public, but not in private. It is by this idea that we justify the claim that certain substances should be legal in those areas (I think Ireland and Australia, among others, would qualify too).

We are not making claims on based on unalienable rights, merely those afforded by current law; the philosophy those laws were based on matters not one bit. Were we to try to apply the same argument in Iran, of course, it wouldn't fly; completely different set of laws, so no basis for argument. The main principle in question is legal self-determination, not any moralistic viewpoint.

By-the-by - I apologize to the original poster; I looked at the tag for the wrong post and thought you were in the US before, else I never would have dragged the Constitution into this in an earlier post. Oh, and if anyone can clarify for me the legalities surrounding the principals I mentioned in this post as they apply to Canada or the UK, please PM or email me so as not to get this thread too off-track. Don't want to irk the moderator as well! :D

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
We are not making claims on based on unalienable rights, merely those afforded by current law; the philosophy those laws were based on matters not one bit.

Well, you can say that it doesn't matter, but the truth is that it does. In modern Western civilization, individual liberty and personal freedom are supreme. Even the state must pay homage to individual liberty, and that is why the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution. The founding fathers believed that they already had the rights mentioned in the Constitution, with or without the state recognizing those rights. They just wanted those individual liberties, which they considered to unalienable, to be guaranteed in the Constitution. They were NOT petioning the government to bestow those liberties upon them. They were petioning the government to guarantee those unalienable rights that they believed every human being was born with.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof...."

Congress isn't bestowing anything upon the people, but rather they are telling Congress what to do or not do.

[NonContradiction]

double post

[Donnmathan]

So? The point we are arguing is one of law - if the foundations of laws of our respective countries don't deny a freedom, it is open for argument. Nor were the founding fathers of the US petitioning anything - they were CREATING an instument of government. Taking only from the Constitution of the USA, as I am not familiar with legalities elsewhere, I can quote the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Taken with the right to privacy noted in the 4th, this basically opens the door for us to claim that our body, and what is done to it, is our own business. This is done without recourse to any 'unalienable right', merely that the laws against certain drugs do not stem from any solid basis in law other than the protection of the lives of those around us. If they are regulated to the point where, like alcohol, it is illegal to use them in such a fashion that they endanger others, then there is no violation of any legal principal. This may not prevent people from shooting up and then going out for a joy-ride, but nothing seems to be stopping that anyway - might as well get the tax dollars for it, and get some quality control so people don't OD so easily.

Oh, and NC - the 'unalienable rights' quote comes from the Declairation of Independence, not the Constitution. The DoI is not any sort of law, nor can it be used to back a case in a court of law against the Constitution. The only rights handed down to us by the founding fathers are those listed, and spelled out, in the Bill of Rights. Those are legal rights, and have nothing to do with belief - they exist because the law says they do, and have no validity where that law has no authority. I'm fairly certain, however, that you'll find similar provisions to the 4th and 9th amendments in Canadian and UK law...

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Oh, and NC - the 'unalienable rights' quote comes from the Declairation of Independence, not the Constitution.

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Originally posted by Donnmathan
The DoI is not any sort of law, nor can it be used to back a case in a court of law against the Constitution.

I have heard this argument before from liberals. It's amazing how hypocritical liberals can be. The DoI is a legal document which justified a revolution. If they had no right to revolt, then that means that they created an illegal state.

As I have pointed out before, the DoI is a legal document which grants the American people a right to revolt against their government if their state ever denies their so called "inalienable rights." You are incorrect for saying that the DoI is not any sort of law.

[Epizoicism]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

As I have pointed out before, the DoI is a legal document which grants the American people a right to revolt against their government if their state ever denies their so called "inalienable rights." You are incorrect for saying that the DoI is not any sort of law.
Let's see some precedent, then.

[Gothic_J]

uhm, does the american revolution count? :rolleyes:

[Epizoicism]

Originally posted by Gothic_J
uhm, does the american revolution count? :rolleyes:
No, it doesn't. Learn yourself some law. Give me some actual precedent where the DoI is used. You know, in a court, not in a bloody revolution. I'm not saying you're wrong (although I'm pretty sure you are), I'm asking for some proof.

[pariah]

my friend says it should be illegal b/c it would be used irresponsibly and potheads would be driving and causing crime. i say, it doesnt happen in the netherlands. he says, their society is much different than ours. also he says alcohol isnt always dangerous, marijuana always is (to others).

thoughts?

hmm...

[Graeme]

Originally posted by pariahSS
my friend says it should be illegal b/c it would be used irresponsibly and potheads would be driving and causing crime. i say, it doesnt happen in the netherlands. he says, their society is much different than ours. also he says alcohol isnt always dangerous, marijuana always is (to others).

thoughts?

hmm...

Your friend is pretty ignorant in a bunch of different ways. A quick read over of this thread should give you more than enough ammo to refute him.

[Buddrow_Wilson]

Also thinking of the rediculous ease in which Meth is produced...how often do we hear of explosions, chemical burns, lung damage, etc. that results from the illicit manufacturing of this. Often times, its children and semi-innocent adult family members that are hurt by these facilities. The ingredients needed are readily accessible almost anywhere, and can actually vary when necessary. It can not be stopped. And in truth, the "kitchens" are becoming smaller, more effecient, and clandestine.

So we have an alarming epidemic of methamphetamine use, which I think most of us agree is much more troublesome than, say, cocaine use would be. If cocaine was legal, however, much of these users would probably use it instead of Meth. The illegality of drugs, in my mind, opens the doorway to more dangerous, more accessible drugs. If you look at communities that have little access to drugs or alcohol (remote Eskimo villages, for example) you will find a sharp increase in the numbers of people abusing inhalants (spray paint, gasoline, etc) which I hope you will agree is even more alarming than using Methamphetamine!

If not outright legalising all drugs, I believe there should be an appropriate and satisfying outlet for each class of drugs. Perhaps the government shouldn't supply Meth to anyone who wants it, but cocaine of a certain dosage is relatively harmless (peruvian indians). The collection and distribution (or growing) of psychedelic mushrooms should be a non-issue. Ditto for marijuana.

Hell, I don't know the answers, but I know the "war on drugs" is a hopeless failure. The money wasted could be wisely spent elswhere, and you have to agree that the tax collecting implications of legalising some drugs is fairly attractive. Let alone the attractiveness of destroying a huge portion of organized crime without a shot fired.

[Epizoicism]

Originally posted by pariahSS
my friend says it should be illegal b/c it would be used irresponsibly and potheads would be driving and causing crime. i say, it doesnt happen in the netherlands. he says, their society is much different than ours. also he says alcohol isnt always dangerous, marijuana always is (to others).

thoughts?

hmm...
Your friend is making a slippery slope argument, essentially. That doing one thing that is not bad in itself will inevitably lead to other things that are. He's on the right track, in that sense. Think of a hypothetical situation. If all substances were made legal, there would be very few protections against the production and distribution of very dangerous chemicals, which would have security implications. Choices need to be made as to what is allowed and what is not, and the risks gauged fairly under the premise that a person's abuse of his own body does not present a security risk, or a problem easily, or expediently solved, and so only when drug-taking becomes a serious threat to others, a threat which cannot be prevented by anything other than a total ban of the substance in question, should it be banned. Also dutch people are leftists, don't listen to them.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Epizoicism
Your friend is making a slippery slope argument, essentially. That doing one thing that is not bad in itself will inevitably lead to other things that are. He's on the right track, in that sense. Think of a hypothetical situation. If all substances were made legal, there would be very few protections against the production and distribution of very dangerous chemicals, which would have security implications. Choices need to be made as to what is allowed and what is not, and the risks gauged fairly under the premise that a person's abuse of his own body does not present a security risk, or a problem easily, or expediently solved, and so only when drug-taking becomes a serious threat to others, a threat which cannot be prevented by anything other than a total ban of the substance in question, should it be banned. Also dutch people are leftists, don't listen to them.

So regulation cannot be an option? It's either an out-and-out ban or complete market freedom?

I refuse to believe there isn't a middle ground.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Epizoicism
Your friend is making a slippery slope argument, essentially. That doing one thing that is not bad in itself will inevitably lead to other things that are. He's on the right track, in that sense. Think of a hypothetical situation. If all substances were made legal, there would be very few protections against the production and distribution of very dangerous chemicals, which would have security implications. Choices need to be made as to what is allowed and what is not, and the risks gauged fairly under the premise that a person's abuse of his own body does not present a security risk, or a problem easily, or expediently solved, and so only when drug-taking becomes a serious threat to others, a threat which cannot be prevented by anything other than a total ban of the substance in question, should it be banned. Also dutch people are leftists, don't listen to them.

Legal/illegal should be based on the danger to *OTHERS*. I have no problem with the date-rape drugs being illegal.

[Buddrow_Wilson]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Legal/illegal should be based on the danger to *OTHERS*. I have no problem with the date-rape drugs being illegal.

What? Alcohol? It is the most widely used substance for that purpose. Although the difference being that women/girls usually take it willingly, but the outcome is just as devastating.

Any drug that's a depressant can be used as a "date-rape" drug, including OTC medications.

[meritocrat]

All narcotics should be legal.

If a person wishes to abuse his/her body by taking drugs then so be it. They should only be stopped when their actions either harm or infringe the rights of others.

Few would state that a person high on drugs should drive a car for example. In that sense they should be prosecuted, just as a drink driver would in the same position.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
What? Alcohol? It is the most widely used substance for that purpose. Although the difference being that women/girls usually take it willingly, but the outcome is just as devastating.

Any drug that's a depressant can be used as a "date-rape" drug, including OTC medications.

I'm specifically referring to the amnesiac ones. Alcohol is commonly used for recreation. The drugs I'm referring to are used primarily for rape.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The drugs I'm referring to are used primarily for rape.
I think your argument is logically flawed. While it may be true that Rohypnol and GHB are the agents used in a majority of drug-related rapes [note: I don't know if it's true, but its truth or falsity is trivial at the moment], the categorization of rape as their primary use is undoubtedly false. Rohypnol is a legal prescription sedative and GHB, while illegal, is used by bodybuilders for, among other things, its anabolic effects. In the "rave" scene, GHB is often used as an enhancing agent for Ecstasy.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I think your argument is logically flawed. While it may be true that Rohypnol and GHB are the agents used in a majority of drug-related rapes [note: I don't know if it's true, but its truth or falsity is trivial at the moment], the categorization of rape as their primary use is undoubtedly false. Rohypnol is a legal prescription sedative and GHB, while illegal, is used by bodybuilders for, among other things, its anabolic effects. In the "rave" scene, GHB is often used as an enhancing agent for Ecstasy.

Rohypnol has nothing to recommend it over other sedatives. Due to the misuse it's been banned, Class I, not Class III.

[Jackalope]

I'll believe that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. When I worked at a detox center, we had a number of clients in a federal program for heroin addicts. They all said that they found it easier to kick heroin (or methadone) than it was to stop smoking. And in fact, we'd strip our clients of any drugs before they went in...and let them have coffee and smokes because trying to get them to stop either caused too much trouble. And we got crack addicts, which were by far the worst. We had one crack addict have a heart attack on our doorstep. The guy had a pacemaker, and when we went to move him to start CPR, a bindle of crack fell out of his pocket.

As someone with chronic pain problems these days, I can tell you it's possible to be dependant on opiates and still function in society. In fact, in many cases pain patients have higher functioning and are more alert when they're on opiates because they're no longer in agonizing pain. This is also why there's a distinction made between physical dependence on a drug and addiction. Addiction involves ever increasing the dosage of one's drug and a tendancy to keep the dose high enough that one cannot function. Pain patients, who are dependant, tend to titre their doses to use the smallest amount possible that still gives adequate pain relief.

I take oxycodone, the drug that was demonized by the press last year. The deaths from Oxycontin had to do with dumbasses who crushed time-release tablets and snorted them. So they're getting a huge, huge dose all at once and the drug was taken in a manner that would put a whole lot more in the bloodstream all at once as well. This is user error, and there's simply no way one can make a drug idiot-proof as there are too many idiots out there. Oh, and the drugs were obtained illegally, either stolen from pharmacy stocks or bought on the black market. Which means that even CII drugs end up there on the street if someone really wants 'em. The situation pisses me off, as it makes it much harder for people like me who have legitimate reasons to need opiates to get prescriptions.

(Think I don't need painkillers? See a photo of me here (http://gw.retro.com/employees/lee/Wheelchair/front.jpg), or read about my diseases, rheumatoid arthritis (http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section5/chapter50/50a.htm) and systemic lupus erythamatosus (http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section5/chapter50/50e.htm). Or layman's versions RA (http://www.arthritisinsight.com/medical/disease/ra/) and SLE (http://www.arthritisinsight.com/medical/disease/sle/).)

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by pariahSS
my friend says it should be illegal b/c it would be used irresponsibly and potheads would be driving and causing crime. i say, it doesnt happen in the netherlands. he says, their society is much different than ours. also he says alcohol isnt always dangerous, marijuana always is (to others).

thoughts?

hmm...

People drink drive. The logical option is to prosecute those who commit crime or harm others whilst under the influence of narcotics.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I think your argument is logically flawed. While it may be true that Rohypnol and GHB are the agents used in a majority of drug-related rapes [note: I don't know if it's true, but its truth or falsity is trivial at the moment], the categorization of rape as their primary use is undoubtedly false. Rohypnol is a legal prescription sedative and GHB, while illegal, is used by bodybuilders for, among other things, its anabolic effects. In the "rave" scene, GHB is often used as an enhancing agent for Ecstasy.


Also, GHB, if taken in a proper dose by itself, doesn't have any qualities that would classify it as a 'date rape drug'. It's only when GHB is either overdosed on or mixed with alcohol or that it has very strong sedative effects.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Graeme
Also, GHB, if taken in a proper dose by itself, doesn't have any qualities that would classify it as a 'date rape drug'. It's only when GHB is either overdosed on or mixed with alcohol or that it has very strong sedative effects.
Well, yeah, but GHB is almost absurdly easy to overdose on. Anything more than a capful will incapacitate most casual users.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Philosoft
Well, yeah, but GHB is almost absurdly easy to overdose on. Anything more than a capful will incapacitate most casual users.

A capful is a LOT... compare that with the amount needed when alcohol is involved and that's where it gets scary.

[Graeme]

double post...

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Graeme
A capful is a LOT... compare that with the amount needed when alcohol is involved and that's where it gets scary.
Exactly why it's so easy to OD.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Philosoft
Exactly why it's so easy to OD.

Well if we're talking about its use as a date-rape drug, GHB by itself is pretty tough to just 'slip' to someone (especially enough to overdose). It tastes about like rotten gasoline.


But regardless, yet another reason for regulation and education on the subject.

[xorbie]

*raises hand* *bobs up and down* *says "ooh, ooh, check out my debate"*

So, yeah. Check that out for a more philosophical look at the legality of drugs. There was a little spurt in this thread with regards to Jefferson and the right to do what you want to your body, and this is what my debate primarily deals with.

In addition to this, arguments for the legality of drugs stem from all over. First of all, the war on drugs costs the American taxpayers roughly $20 billion a year. That is a huge, huge sum of money. And for what? So that we can fill up prisons to the extent that they are overflowing? So that we can have MORE crime? For every drug maker or seller you arrest, supply takes a dip. Demand is pretty constant, however. This means it suddenly becomes even more profitable than before to sell and produce drugs, which leads to immediate competition for the rights to do so. And in this case, competition leads to murder and other violent crime. Hooray. :banghead:

It is clear that drug use must be controlled, and I am all for as much anti-drug information (not propaganda) as possible. Just as I am pro any program that informs people about the dangers in obesity, anorexia, alcohol abuse, drunk driving, riding bikes without a helmet, and whatever else. However, people have the right to do what they will with their body, and that is the sad (well I think it is beautiful, but whatever) truth of it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by xorbie
In addition to this, arguments for the legality of drugs stem from all over. First of all, the war on drugs costs the American taxpayers roughly $20 billion a year. That is a huge, huge sum of money. And for what? So that we can fill up prisons to the extent that they are overflowing? So that we can have MORE crime?

Scary, but not correct.

The real number is in excess of $50 billion, and that's before Bush, the number is probably a lot worse now.

[xorbie]

Yeah... it is just scary. By legalizing all drugs, the gov't would immediatly have hat money in the pocket, plus any tax $ from taxing drugs - which would still be cheaper by the artificially inflated drug market.

Moreover, the drug growing business would provide jobs (not one I would like to have, but jobs nonetheless). And thanks to Dubya, we could use some.

[deano]

the global drugs trade is worth in excess of £400 billion.

imagine that,with tax on the top.thats alot of third world development.hell thats £66 for every person alive!.

and i dont see there could ever be another war if everyone took ecstasy at least once and smoked dope weekly:) :D :D :notworthy

[Zehava]

Originally posted by Graeme
I would say no too. You've completely missed the point. By legalizing the drug you take it out of the hands of the criminal element and put it into the hands of the government, who can regulate its purity, the size of a dose, the method of ingestion, and any important health information that needs to be imparted to a user.


How exactly is legalizing drugs like Heroine and Cocaine taking them out of the hands of street dealers? The only way I can see that happening is if the government undercuts the dealers price so much as to make it very economically non-viable for the dealer. In order to do that though you would end up having to subsidize the drug production.

Sure what the government produces may be of a better quality and safer, but there is still a huge stigma associated with illicit drug use. That is not going to go away just because you make it legal. I simply cannot see all those addicts passing up the street dealer on the corner to go down to the local "drugstore" for a fix that is certified by the government. Sorry but that sounds like pie-eyed dreaming to me.


If you think that 20 million people would suddenly start using heroin you're completely out to lunch. As a kid I was WAY more fearless than most when it came to drugs, and I'd never touch that stuff if it came in cereal boxes.

20 Million? Maybe not, but I think it is equally naive to belive that there would not be a significant increase in drug consumption should they be legalized. You are giving most humans too much credit.

[demoninho]

Originally posted by Zehava
How exactly is legalizing drugs like Heroine and Cocaine taking them out of the hands of street dealers? The only way I can see that happening is if the government undercuts the dealers price so much as to make it very economically non-viable for the dealer. In order to do that though you would end up having to subsidize the drug production.


In Rio de Janeiro a gram of cocain on the street costs less than us$3 and Brazil is not even a producer of the drug just a pass through to from Bolivia ,Peru and Colombia. Compare this to us$35/g on the streets of Europe.

Prescription heroin costs less than us$80 a month!

The production cost of a ~75mg (one pill) of ecstacy is us$ 0.01-0.02 in the US/UK you would pay up to $30

My point is drugs are really cheap to manufacture and there is an inmense profit for all the people in between.

[Graeme]

Originally posted by demoninho
In Rio de Janeiro a gram of cocain on the street costs less than us$3 and Brazil is not even a producer of the drug just a pass through to from Bolivia ,Peru and Colombia. Compare this to us$35/g on the streets of Europe.

Prescription heroin costs less than us$80 a month!

The production cost of a ~75mg (one pill) of ecstacy is us$ 0.01-0.02 in the US/UK you would pay up to $30

My point is drugs are really cheap to manufacture and there is an inmense profit for all the people in between.

Yes. The main reason street drugs cost what they do is because there's an AMAZING number of people involved in the supply chain from manufacture to end-user. And each one needs a cut to make the legal risk worth their time - often a large cut.

You'd be amazed at how cheap it is to manufacture most drugs.

[Zehava]

Originally posted by demoninho
In Rio de Janeiro a gram of cocain on the street costs less than us$3 and Brazil is not even a producer of the drug just a pass through to from Bolivia ,Peru and Colombia. Compare this to us$35/g on the streets of Europe.

Prescription heroin costs less than us$80 a month!

The production cost of a ~75mg (one pill) of ecstacy is us$ 0.01-0.02 in the US/UK you would pay up to $30

My point is drugs are really cheap to manufacture and there is an inmense profit for all the people in between.

So the point to this is illicit drugs are extremely cheap to make and you are not going to be able to put the street dealer out of business then by underpricing him. The state HAS to undercut the street dealer by a significant margin in order to pull his customers away. However, if producing illicit drugs is as cheap as you state there is no way that can be done. The state and the street dealer will be forced into a downwward spiraling pricewar until dimebag is not a euphamism for $10 of Coke.

Tell then exactly how legalizing illicit drugs and selling them in state sponsored shops will stop street dealers? Quality? Safety? Yeah I'm sure those are big selling points for addicts.

Convenience is much more important to addicts, so unless you put a state sponsored store on every dealer's street corner you are not gaining anything.

I have yet to see it brought up, but who is going to be footing the medical bills for the new generation of addicts we will be creating? To think that addiction rates will NOT go up by making illict drugs legal and extremely easy to get is naive.

So now we have more people using drugs, people who may not have began using had they not been so easy to aquire. Sure drugs may be easy to get today, but it is nothing like being able to walk down to the corner and get them from a state sponsored store would be. This increased and "OK" source of drugs will only enable fence sitters, those who may have been thinking about trying drugs but were discouraged due to their illegal nature, in getting drugs.

The more people you have using drugs, the more addicts you have. The more addicts you have the more support systems you needs for them. How are we going to pay for those additional support systems? Tax the drug sales? Oops can't do that because it will raise the price and we have to have the price very low in order to undercut the street dealer. So we end up paying for it with higher taxes and/or insurance premiums.

[demoninho]

So the point to this is illicit drugs are extremely cheap to make and you are not going to be able to put the street dealer out of business then by underpricing him. The state HAS to undercut the street dealer by a significant margin in order to pull his customers away. However, if producing illicit drugs is as cheap as you state there is no way that can be done. The state and the street dealer will be forced into a downwward spiraling pricewar until dimebag is not a euphamism for $10 of Coke.

No dealer would stay in business with virtually no profit margin.

This increased and "OK" source of drugs will only enable fence sitters, those who may have been thinking about trying drugs but were discouraged due to their illegal nature, in getting drugs.

There are over 10 coffeeshops within a 10min walk from my home and never felt an urge to go out and by some marihuana. In fact I believe that cannabis use in Holland is lower than in countries with a strong suppressive drugs policy like the USA. (If you don't take my word for it'll try to find a link for you)

[xorbie]

Um... hello? The reason drug costs on the street are so high is that it is pretty much a monopoly. Competition out there does not refer to dropping your price, but to killing the competitor. So long as anyone but certified stores selling the drugs was illegal (which can easily be done, just like with alcohol), street dealers will go out of business unbelievebly fast. And who the hell do you think pays for the medical bills of addicts these days? Other people.

[PTT]

Zehava

Try reading the very first post - this'll answer most of the questions you have brought up.

As for an example of this policy working, I offer you prohibition.

Quality is indeed a concern for addicts - high quality drugs mean you are getting a purer substance and therefore less of the unpleasant side-effects the impurities bring in. Just because they are addicts doesn't make them stupid.

Ta muchly

PTT

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Zehava
Tell then exactly how legalizing illicit drugs and selling them in state sponsored shops will stop street dealers? Quality? Safety? Yeah I'm sure those are big selling points for addicts.


I'm sure they are. Also, not having to deal with shady characters that are just trying to rip you off, not having to risk being arrested in the process of (or as a result of) the transaction, and generally not having to deal with 'the criminal element'.

And we're not just talking about addicts either - we're talking about regular, casual users too - for which these selling points become even more attractive.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by deano
the global drugs trade is worth in excess of £400 billion.

imagine that,with tax on the top.thats alot of third world development.hell thats £66 for every person alive!.

and i dont see there could ever be another war if everyone took ecstasy at least once and smoked dope weekly:) :D :D :notworthy

This is the black-market price. Legal, it would be a lot less..

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Zehava
How exactly is legalizing drugs like Heroine and Cocaine taking them out of the hands of street dealers? The only way I can see that happening is if the government undercuts the dealers price so much as to make it very economically non-viable for the dealer. In order to do that though you would end up having to subsidize the drug production.

If the government doesn't undercut them somebody else will. Phillip Morris, perhaps.

Currently there is a horrendous black-market premium on it. The legal stuff costs maybe 2% of the street price--and a lot of that is probably hassle factor, I would expect the legal price for the class II's to fall, also.

Sure what the government produces may be of a better quality and safer, but there is still a huge stigma associated with illicit drug use. That is not going to go away just because you make it legal. I simply cannot see all those addicts passing up the street dealer on the corner to go down to the local "drugstore" for a fix that is certified by the government. Sorry but that sounds like pie-eyed dreaming to me.

When the corner drugstore sells it for maybe 2% of what the street dealer used to charge he'll go there to get his fix.

20 Million? Maybe not, but I think it is equally naive to belive that there would not be a significant increase in drug consumption should they be legalized. You are giving most humans too much credit.

How many people don't do drugs because of the illegality? I can't recall anyone in any of these debates over the years saying that they would try drugs if they were legal. The law simply isn't a big deterrent.

[xorbie]

Bump.

Or have we reached consensus? I hate leaving things like this unresolved.

[senor boogie woogie]

Hola!

I do believe strongly in the legalization of marijuana, marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol is. If tiquila (sic?), whiskey and vodka is legal, why not cannabis? As long as someone is not driving, or using machinery and smoking, there should be no problem with it.

Other drugs, I don't know. This is a "slippery slope". For several years, I was addicted to crack cocaine. The high of crack is the most wonderful feeling in the world, for about two minutes. A "rock" was 15-20 dollars a hit. Obviously, I was broke very quickly and in desperate need. I was also mentally ill from this experience (hopeless state of mind and body).

If crack was legal, the price would drop from 20 bucks a hit, to say 20 CENTS a hit. What's going to happen? The addicts will still smoke the shit, but much more of it, and even at 20 cents a pop, these people will still get broke, and they will still steal, and even kill to support their habits. The greater quantity of dope on the street will kill a lot more users. I have never done heroin (I have known heroin addicts, using and recovered), but the scenerio would be the same. Meth too.

For the fun of it, I looked up on Google to see if there were any organizations that wanted to legalize cocaine like pot. The results were zero. But there are many websitesd that advocate legalizing pot. So, this tells me that society can except marijuana, but not the "harder stuff".

[xorbie]

What society can or cannot accept is meaningless to me. I think the mutlitude of posts on this thread should go to show that there are several valid, good reasons to legalize all drugs, even the harder ones.

[JERDOG]

If crack was legal, the price would drop from 20 bucks a hit, to say 20 CENTS a hit. What's going to happen? The addicts will still smoke the shit, but much more of it, and even at 20 cents a pop, these people will still get broke, and they will still steal, and even kill to support their habits. The greater quantity of dope on the street will kill a lot more users. I have never done heroin (I have known heroin addicts, using and recovered), but the scenerio would be the same. Meth too.

Yea verses keeping drugs against the law where the thugs can keep making his 20 bucks a rock. Then that way he has more money to buy guns to kill his competition that's on his "turf". Legalize drugs and watch crime drop to an all time low.

I don't understand how logical sane people cannot see the equivocation of a failed alcohol prohibition with street crime to this failed prohibition with street crime.

[Graeme]

The point of problems caused by the very addictive and harmful drugs out there like meth, heroin and crack cocaine is a very good one - I've been thinking about it a lot recently because it's seemed to be a problem with my assertion that all drugs should be legal no matter what.

However, my conclusion has been that the legality of drugs has nothing to do with their societal status and the known dangers. If anything, increased HONEST education about crack cocaine and heroin should be (and where it's given is) much more effective as a deterrent.

If something is really dangerous, it is the distributing party's responsibility to CONVEY the extent of those dangers. We enforce this by methods such as the surgeon general's warning on cigarrettes, or public campaigns against underage drinking. And it's even easier with hard drugs like heroin and crack, because everyone ALREADY knows about these.

The legality IMO is irrelevant in whether or not someone tries a 'hard' drug. If you're knowledgeable enough to be afraid of it, then you most likely won't do it (or if you do, will use extreme caution). That's got nothing to do with whether or not you'll get caught, and everything to do with what you think it will actually do to you.

All prohibition does is fund criminals.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Graeme
The point of problems caused by the very addictive and harmful drugs out there like meth, heroin and crack cocaine is a very good one - I've been thinking about it a lot recently because it's seemed to be a problem with my assertion that all drugs should be legal no matter what.

So? The most addictive, most dangerous drug out there is legal. Age 18, but widely used by those younger. Any argument about addictiveness or danger falls flat on it's face because of this.

[dk]

We need to put narcotics into a historical perspective. The British popularized the poppy in China rationalized by free trade. The opium dens, corruption and denigration of people that followed lead to the Opium Wars, and I would argue the Communist Revolution Mao led. The opium wars sent drug addicts to the California, and today narcotics consume the lives of 100s of thousands of US citizens. Perhaps even more destabilizing to civilization has been the flow of black-market profits to drug cartels, maniacal dictators and revolutionaries (including terrorists). If history is to be our guide then the legalization of drugs lacks merit.

[dk]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Originally posted by Graeme
The point of problems caused by the very addictive and harmful drugs out there like meth, heroin and crack cocaine is a very good one - I've been thinking about it a lot recently because it's seemed to be a problem with my assertion that all drugs should be legal no matter what.

So? The most addictive, most dangerous drug out there is legal. Age 18, but widely used by those younger. Any argument about addictiveness or danger falls flat on it's face because of this. An odd statement considering recent research indicates a few drinks a day has significant health benefits. The same can't be said of other drugs.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by dk
An odd statement considering recent research indicates a few drinks a day has significant health benefits. The same can't be said of other drugs.

I wasn't talking about alcohol.

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by dk
An odd statement considering recent research indicates a few drinks a day has significant health benefits. The same can't be said of other drugs.

Yea, but moderate methamphetamine use can be beneficial.

Moderate hydrocodone use can be necessary.

To speak of the health effects of drugs is important but it can be misleading. The psychological and social realities involved in the drug use have a very heavy influence on whether their use becomes destructive, remains occasional or tapers off.

Keeping drugs in the black market realm ensures you get the worst of both elements. The dirtiest drugs of most unreliable purity in a culture of excess and brutality.

(So we solve the problem with prison, an even more brutalizing and hardening world.)

[XtrueOloveX]

Legalizing drugs is a great idea. Those who choose to do it repeatedly and OD can do so at their own risk. If you die because of an OD, there is no suing the dealer in a wrongful death lawsuit (because it has been done)...there is just taking accountability for your actions.

If the government regulates its sale a lot of drug dealers will be put out of business and the crime rate associated with this will go down as well, i think.

[dk]

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
Yea, but moderate methamphetamine use can be beneficial.

Moderate hydrocodone use can be necessary.

To speak of the hea