Should All Drugs Be Legal

[Tannhauser]

When making a particular substance illegal, the underlying assumption must be that the average human is not equipped to make his/her own decisions about what is best for him/her.

As an example, I recently watched a law enforcement official say something to the effect of: clearly, illegalizing a drug leads to crime, shootings, murders, gangs, organized crime and so on, but the drugs in themselves are harmful and can ruin lives, so there is price to legalizing a drug as well.

But to say that a drug can ruin a life, is to say that we have a definition of what a life must be like. Following that logic, a ruined life can be someone who is capable of doing scientific research opting for working a regular day job and spending their free time watching television. Then one could posit that watching television should be illegal because it "ruins lives". And why stop there – everything that is a predictor of decreased productivity should be illegal.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that chemicals can alter one's behavior in a way that is hard to predict. I might think that taking cocaine is a reasonable decision at this point in time, but then the person i might become after taking the cocaine might disagree with my current self about what his next step should be. In that sense, it would be good if the cocaine was not available to me in the first place.

And with that, I am no closer to reaching any sort of conclusion.

Insert your thoughts below.

 

[Cognisant]

Do you watch tv?

I can't anymore, it feels like someone's screaming in my face "pay attention" over and over.

 

[Tannhauser]

it feels like someone's screaming in my face "pay attention" over and over.

That's pretty much television in a nutshell. But it also holds true with most of the internet.

When it comes to watching TV, I don't even own a TV.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm for drugs being legal, but there would be a need to protect the inside market from foreign ones where the legal implications of drugs are different. I think for several European countries legalization of certain drugs is good, as well as some states in the US. But for some others I don't think it would be a good idea.

Generally I think that, the society that wants drugs to become legal already needs to have a sturdy foundation of its own. Basically it needs to have a sturdy enough social and intellectual fabric to allow the legalization of drugs. If not it opens up a cesspool of unwanted social ills relative to that certain society.

So basically I think there could be economic and societal arguments for drugs. Drugs themselves aren't bad, but rather the people who use them irresponsibly. Then this ties up with guilt by association and so on whereby you get the 'never to drugs' types.

Overall it all comes down to worldview and the argument of human nature, and whether they should be universal or relative.

 

[xbox]

Do you watch tv?

I can't anymore, it feels like someone's screaming in my face "pay attention" over and over.

Yeah ikr. I hate TV.

Also yeah make drugs legal. The selectively legal stuff doesn't make sense to me.

I dream of a day I can say "I'm a social crack snorter".

 

[redbaron]

Yes.

I'm not taking particular drugs even if they're legal. I don't imagine there's many people who just avoid/do drugs simply because it's legal/illegal. Ice addicts gonna do ice, not-ice addicts not gonna do ice.

The choice to do or not do it isn't a matter of legality, it's personal choice. May as well get rid of black markets/gang monopoly on the shit.

We have laws that prevent usage of drugs in certain places and during certain tasks. You can't drive drunk, or work drunk and so on and so forth, so people (generally) don't do it. Plus the purity/quality of drugs is totally fucked because if the shady nature of the people who deal in illegal drug smuggling/production, whereas if it was legal you'd probably have much more chance of:

- better rehabilitation systems
- cleaner and safer production
- less criminal activity/profit

Tax it, use the money made from it to reinvest into other things. Just like cigarettes/alcohol.

 

[Analyzer]

Who is anyone to decide if the consumption of a substance should be restricted? And of course it never works. Black markets are very real, and laws which violate individual autonomy will always be violated.

 

[ummidk]

Yes. Legality has little to do with people's choice to do them or not. With drugs illegal though tons of money is up for grabs therefore promoting illegal and violent activity to seize it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

No.

Prohibition isn't just a judgement about the ability of the individual to decide what's right for themselves. It is the interest of the state to decide what leads to the most productive society as the state also has the interest in maintaining itself and the people within it. Legalizing all drugs and treating substance use strictly as a health issue could even result in a surge of medical costs across the nation and according to the broken window fallacy it doesn't really mean anything for the medical industry as that wealth could have been spent on constructive uses instead of repairing lives.

However personally I do favor decriminalization of most drugs and believe legalization of marijuana, MDMA, and the psychedelics would be a net benefit to society. I also support the idea of "supervision centers" where people can go to engage in recreational use for the decriminalized drugs with unsafe potential, supposedly this kind of service is something Ireland has already implemented.

edit: There is more info on supervised sites, I didn't know it had a name already:
http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/topics/supervised-injecting-facilities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_injection_site

 

[Pyropyro]

Yes on a case to case basis. I'm looking on the issue as a researcher.

Prohibition must be based on quantifiable research. Some drugs are quite useful in low dosage and are actually naturally occurring within the human body.

Prohibition also spurs researchers to find alternatives for controlled substances (because the paperwork sucks ass). For example, there are drugs that has similar painkilling properties when compared to morphine but without the addictive properties.

I also ask that those in favor of decriminalizing a certain drug to vote with their bodies and volunteer for clinical trials for the drug that they like. We can always benefit from new clinical data.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yes on a case to case basis. I'm looking on the issue as a researcher.

Prohibition must be based on quantifiable research. Some drugs are quite useful in low dosage and are actually naturally occurring within the human body.

Prohibition also spurs researchers to find alternatives for controlled substances (because the paperwork sucks ass). For example, there are drugs that has similar painkilling properties when compared to morphine but without the addictive properties.

I also ask that those in favor of decriminalizing a certain drug to vote with their bodies and volunteer for clinical trials for the drug that they like. We can always benefit from new clinical data.

How does one go about discovering and applying for upcoming clinical trials? I might be interested in participating.

Also I don't think prohibition precludes medical research, that might be just the result of the incompetence/collusion of governments.

 

[Pyropyro]

How does one go about discovering and applying for upcoming clinical trials? I might be interested in participating.

I'm unfamiliar with your country's clinical trial procedures but volunteers usually may enlist in contract research organizations, universities with medical research and hospitals that conduct medical research.

You have to have an active research project on the drug that you want to test for you to be a volunteer there though.

Also I don't think prohibition precludes medical research, that might be just the result of the incompetence/collusion of governments.

New medicine and drug related laws, including prohibition of certain drugs, are always accompanied by gov't incompetence and restrictions on research. They're quite the headache since I have to formulate protocols to work around them.

 

[Analyzer]

It is the interest of the state to decide what leads to the most productive society as the state also has the interest in maintaining itself and the people within it

Yeah they have a great record of doing this.

 

[dang]

When making a particular substance illegal, the underlying assumption must be that the average human is not equipped to make his/her own decisions about what is best for him/her.

As an example, I recently watched a law enforcement official say something to the effect of: clearly, illegalizing a drug leads to crime, shootings, murders, gangs, organized crime and so on, but the drugs in themselves are harmful and can ruin lives, so there is price to legalizing a drug as well.

But to say that a drug can ruin a life, is to say that we have a definition of what a life must be like. Following that logic, a ruined life can be someone who is capable of doing scientific research opting for working a regular day job and spending their free time watching television. Then one could posit that watching television should be illegal because it "ruins lives". And why stop there – everything that is a predictor of decreased productivity should be illegal.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that chemicals can alter one's behavior in a way that is hard to predict. I might think that taking cocaine is a reasonable decision at this point in time, but then the person i might become after taking the cocaine might disagree with my current self about what his next step should be. In that sense, it would be good if the cocaine was not available to me in the first place.

And with that, I am no closer to reaching any sort of conclusion.

Insert your thoughts below.

I think drugs, gambling, and prostitution should be legal. I think prohibition causes more problems than regulation of stuff people are going to do no matter what. Legal cocaine will still be very expensive most likely, but at least it will be regulated and taxed, not to mention the black market would become extinct, thus decreasing gangsterism, crime, and violence. The war on drugs is a failed policy.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yes. If everyone too thick to get it yet could be euthanized, that'd be great too.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Who is anyone to decide if the consumption of a substance should be restricted? And of course it never works. Black markets are very real, and laws which violate individual autonomy will always be violated.

Speaking within the context of a country's policies, do you personally think there is any aspect of human behavior and society that should be prohibited?

 

[Analyzer]

Speaking within the context of a country's policies, do you personally think there is any aspect of human behavior and society that should be prohibited?

Violating another persons political boundary or rather their individual sovereignty. So what would be legally prohibited is anything that is not done through voluntary means. Human behavior and norms can also be managed through some sort of cultural understanding. By doing drugs or engaging in anything deemed distasteful, one may face ostracism from their community. This is essentially an individualist position, it's extremely uncommon and you will probably not agree with it I but believe it's the only moral way.

Edit: You said speaking within the context of a countries policies. Well in that case this issue is outside of my control. I can't in the immediate effect how a countries policies will be determined, since by its very nature(given the presence of a national state), it is done through force and coercion. The self-interest of the State and its beneficiaries determines how things will be on a political level. In reality laws that undermine individual choice and free association will always be broken.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Violating another persons political boundary or rather their individual sovereignty. So what would be legally prohibited is anything that is not done through voluntary means. Human behavior and norms can also be managed through some sort of cultural understanding. By doing drugs or engaging in anything deemed distasteful, one may face ostracism from their community. This is essentially an individualist position, it's extremely uncommon and you will probably not agree with it I but believe it's the only moral way.

Edit: You said speaking within the context of a countries policies. Well in that case this issue is outside of my control. I can't in the immediate effect how a countries policies will be determined, since by its very nature(given the presence of a national state), it is done through force and coercion. The self-interest of the State and its beneficiaries determines how things will be on a political level. In reality laws that undermine individual choice and free association will always be broken.

Fair enough. Now say all drugs were legalized and use of a particular substance was correlated with and found to cause an increase in such violations as you describe. This drug-fueled violence has taken hold of a certain city.

What would you suggest be done in this situation, and would incarceration be involved?

 

[Cipher]

But to say that a drug can ruin a life, is to say that we have a definition of what a life must be like.

How about this one:
Ruined life := Life that feels like shit with little to no chance of recovery.

I do think drugs ruin lives in that sense. And I do think most people are too stupid to realize the impacts of their decisions on their future.
I also think that, contrary to what appears to be popular belief, the law does have a huge impact on what drugs people choose to take.

So no, of fucking course not.

 

[bvanevery]

And why stop there – everything that is a predictor of decreased productivity should be illegal.

I lived 11 years of my life in Seattle in a neighborhood filled with junkies. Then alcoholics, when Pioneer Square passed its alcohol impact area ordinances. They all moved up from downtown to Capitol Hill.

Junkies do quite a bit more than exhibit decreased productivity. They steal. They destroy property. I had one smash in the back of my car window when I parked it in a not-well-seen spot, that in hindsight was a stupid place to park. They wanted to get something to sell for a fix. There was nothing to sell in my car at all. They didn't even look, they smashed first and searched later. They don't care. The next fix is the only thing that matters to them.

They leave HIV infected needles out on the street. They will leave them on the walkway of your apartment building, if you exhibit any kindness like letting some homeless guy crash under your steps.

And, they will die. They are called "the walking dead". This kind of failed life, is quite a bit more than decreased productivity.

They will also give birth to babies that will die, or have defects, or diseases, or addictions, or will simply be raised in a horrible manner.

They will also spread their vice to any vulnerable population that comes near them, such as teenage runaways. This in term will become more crime and disease.

So let's not sugar coat what the hard drugs are doing to people out there. Lots of people are not "functional addicts", holding down a job and managing more or less to pay for their own problems and suffering. Junkies are an impact on society.

Portugal has the best approach I've heard of so far, which is decriminalization. It is still illegal, but it is not a criminal offense. You do not go to jail for doing drugs. If you are caught, you must go to a mandatory hearing. They will try to get you to go into drug treatment, which is your option. Last I checked, both crime and drug use were down as a result.

I'm a firm believer in methodone clinics and clean needle programs. Having these people follow their default proclivities, is public suicide.

 

[bvanevery]

Legal cocaine will still be very expensive most likely, but at least it will be regulated and taxed, not to mention the black market would become extinct, thus decreasing gangsterism, crime, and violence. The war on drugs is a failed policy.

My Dad made his money defending the tobacco industry. Consequently, I've been occasionally inclined to pay attention to tobacco politics.

You can't just make something legal and expect to tax the crap out of it. If the tax is too high, a black market will take hold. A typical phenomenon is Native American reservations who can produce cigarettes legally and sell it for whatever they want within their own sovereign territory, tax free. But the cigs are smuggled into NYC where the tax is egregiously high. I don't know what kind of organized crime revolves around moving those cigs, or what kind of violence ensues, haven't done the homework on that.

You also have increased black-white police interactions in places like NYC, trying to crack down on sales of petty items like cigs and ripped CDs. This leads to the death of people like Eric Garner, where an overzealous officer puts a choke hold on a rightly frustrated black man. "This ends here today!" It's horrible how right he was, he was dead not long after.

A drug cannot just be a taxable cash cow for State elites. It has to be a reasonably accessible commodity to the general public.

The level of alcohol taxation is probably fine in the view of most people in the USA. Still there are pockets of historical resistance, such as moonshiners in the Appalachian Mountains, who don't want to pay any damn taxes at all. So there is still black market alcohol, and goon cops chasing after them to right this wrong.

The level of legalization, taxation, black market, and subsequent crime are all on a slider where you get various results depending on how far you push the slider.

I thought it might be a neat project to invent, or repopularize, a still and alcohol making process that any homeless person could reproduce. Then they could make their own alcohol to feed their addiction, and either put all that begging money to a better use like food, or not need to beg as much. This is a Marxist idea about controlling the means of production yourself.

Where my idea fell down, is realizing it would require them to pay attention and have their shit together, enough to keep a still running in hidden safety somewhere. More likely they'd just break something or burn down the building or woods they're in. It might work for some homeless people - and let's be clear, some homeless don't drink or do any kinds of substances - but it's not as nifty a general solution as I imagined. The skill of begging and then buying your malt liquor works fine for lots of them.

 

[ruminator]

When making a particular substance illegal, the underlying assumption must be that the average human is not equipped to make his/her own decisions about what is best for him/her.

As an example, I recently watched a law enforcement official say something to the effect of: clearly, illegalizing a drug leads to crime, shootings, murders, gangs, organized crime and so on, but the drugs in themselves are harmful and can ruin lives, so there is price to legalizing a drug as well.

But to say that a drug can ruin a life, is to say that we have a definition of what a life must be like. Following that logic, a ruined life can be someone who is capable of doing scientific research opting for working a regular day job and spending their free time watching television. Then one could posit that watching television should be illegal because it "ruins lives". And why stop there – everything that is a predictor of decreased productivity should be illegal.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that chemicals can alter one's behavior in a way that is hard to predict. I might think that taking cocaine is a reasonable decision at this point in time, but then the person i might become after taking the cocaine might disagree with my current self about what his next step should be. In that sense, it would be good if the cocaine was not available to me in the first place.

And with that, I am no closer to reaching any sort of conclusion.

Insert your thoughts below.

(I only read this post)

To respond to the "ruin a life" thing, I think drugs would be different than television, etc because when people say they ruin lives, I think they are referring to the actual damage done to the brain. I feel like if the effects of drugs were purely consciousness-altering without lasting neurological damage, people would have different opinions.

I think they should be legal for different reasons.

 

[gilliatt]

Absolutely, yes. Force is never the answer.. Because every introvert knows the obvious answer. It's not rocket science here. Human freedom. I am a pretty positive person most of the time, but when someone tells me I cannot do this or that, bring out the old slapping machine! You got to train them! The free market, it works every time. Supply and demand. Where is the victim?? "To protect men from their own folly is to people the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
"Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." H. L. Mencken
"Human liberty requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong." John Stuart Mill--"On Liberty"

 

[Bugaboo]

All humans are free. But when we born and grow, for example when we became 20 years old, we waste a lot of resources and money. We became obligors of this planet and people. (Ofcourse we didn't want to born but...) One can not hurt himself just because he wants to be free. It is kind of selfish. But i don't know how drugs effect people exactly and that depens on what kind of drug, how they are using it etc. While you are saying ''In that logic, TV must be illegal.'' There is also other side. If you legalize drugs just because people are free, you can not stop a depressive person who wants to suicide or a crazy who wants to torture himself just because they are free. I don't know about drugs but, for example cigarettes. There is no person i know who enjoys smoking and never consider to quit smoking. I am not saying let's make cigarettes illegal or you are wrong drugs should be illegal forever. Just saying. There so much to consider. Not enough information.

 

[GillBatesTheHobo]

To be honest, we do need laws to keep under control, and the problem with substance abuse is that when used others get hurt. Innocent people die at the hands of substance abusers because they have no control over themselves, and if they do have control over themselves, then it is some sort of motivation that has to do with the drug itself. There is no right or wrong when it comes to this I think, because either way lives are being lost. I assume it would be better to keep it illegal to avoid things getting out of hand.

Possibly, keeping those who do abuse drugs contained is much safer for the rest of society than just throwing them out on the streets. Because once someone becomes addicted, it is a long road back to who they were before.

In this case, alchohol shouldn't even be legal, because many people are killed by drunk drivers each year, not to mention CHILDREN. Children die because of irresponsible people who can't contain themselves and practice moderation.

 

[GillBatesTheHobo]

Absolutely, yes. Force is never the answer.. Because every introvert knows the obvious answer. It's not rocket science here. Human freedom. I am a pretty positive person most of the time, but when someone tells me I cannot do this or that, bring out the old slapping machine! You got to train them! The free market, it works every time. Supply and demand. Where is the victim?? "To protect men from their own folly is to people the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
"Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." H. L. Mencken
"Human liberty requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong." John Stuart Mill--"On Liberty"

The problem is when one's freedom conflicts with another person's life.

 

[Analyzer]

The problem is when one's freedom conflicts with another person's life.

Where do you draw the line? Seems like this is slippery slope thinking that depends on the individual. Anything can be said to "conflict with another person's life".

 

[GillBatesTheHobo]

Where do you draw the line? Seems like this is slippery slope thinking that depends on the individual. Anything can be said to "conflict with another person's life".

I draw the line when people die from it.

 

[Analyzer]

I draw the line when people die from it.

Unless they are being forced to consume a drug outside of their own consent, how does the use of drugs by someone cause someone else to die? You can make a generalization on how a group of drug users influence or effect others by their use, but why should every single user be restricted upon their chemical intakes based on the actions of certain amount or even large number of people?

 

[bvanevery]

Unless they are being forced to consume a drug outside of their own consent, how does the use of drugs by someone cause someone else to die?

HIV needle when you stub your toe on it on your walkway in your junkie strewn neighborhood. HIV when the junkie sells his ass for another hit, then has risky sex with someone else, say maybe a bisexual or whatever. What part of high risk behavior didn't you get the memo on?

 

[redbaron]

HIV needle when you stub your toe on it on your walkway in your junkie strewn neighborhood. HIV when the junkie sells his ass for another hit, then has risky sex with someone else, say maybe a bisexual or whatever. What part of high risk behavior didn't you get the memo on?

All things more likely to occur when drugs are illegal and their usage and disposure isn't regulated. Legalising and regulating would actually decrease the incidence of this so I don't know what your point is?

 

[bvanevery]

The point is junkies are people out of control who are not considering the safety of others. Their life is the drug and they're getting ready to die. If you haven't lived somewhere with first hand experience of people like this you don't know what you're talking about.

Look I had a woman who was at a methodone clinic the other day in Asheville talk about how another girl had an overdose while she was standing in line. Or tainted dose or something. She chewed out the guy who she figured probably gave it to her, a guy who wanted to be quiet and just wait in line for his own meth fix. She said if you don't tell me RIGHT NOW what you gave her, she was going to tell EVERYONE RIGHT THERE how he was giving poison product to people. Well he complied... I think the story was she managed to save this woman from dying. I didn't quite get all the details because my mind was on something else at the time, and she was reciting some old news of hers.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

HIV needle when you stub your toe on it on your walkway in your junkie strewn neighborhood. HIV when the junkie sells his ass for another hit, then has risky sex with someone else, say maybe a bisexual or whatever. What part of high risk behavior didn't you get the memo on?

There have been needle exchange programs that reportedly decrease the risk of contracted diseases. Also if you could shoot up at a clinic without stigma there wouldn't be a need to get wasted in the street or in abandoned buildings and leave needles all over the place.

Also if prostitution was legalized the junkie could get licensed, inspected and sell his ass legally.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The point is junkies are people out of control who are not considering the safety of others. Their life is the drug and they're getting ready to die. If you haven't lived somewhere with first hand experience of people like this you don't know what you're talking about.

People can be out of control with anything though. I do agree that physical addiction, altered states of mind, and withdrawal do not mix well with the idea of a rational society that does not harm others, but as RB said some of that at least is due to the illegality, and also the suppression of facts about drugs and lack of available care.

 

[bvanevery]

There have been needle exchange programs that reportedly decrease the risk of contracted diseases.

Don't know if you saw my post edit, but that near death story happened AT SUCH A CLINIC. They're all there legally. Some of them are still a threat to others because they're junkies and they don't care.

 

[redbaron]

The point is junkies are people out of control who are not considering the safety of others. Their life is the drug and they're getting ready to die. If you haven't lived somewhere with first hand experience of people like this you don't know what you're talking about.

Look I had a woman who was at a methodone clinic the other day in Asheville talk about how another girl had an overdose while she was standing in line. Or tainted dose or something. She chewed out the guy who she figured probably gave it to her, a guy who wanted to be quiet and just wait in line for his own meth fix. She said if you don't tell me RIGHT NOW what you gave her, she was going to tell EVERYONE RIGHT THERE how he was giving poison product to people. Well he complied... I think the story was she managed to save this woman from dying. I didn't quite get all the details because my mind was on something else at the time, and she was reciting some old news of hers.

I've lived with a heroin junkie, so what? I saw two people go in and out of prison with little to no chance at rehabilitation because they had fucked up childhoods, suffered abuse and ended up taking heroin to cope. Except heroin is highly addictive and can have people hooked in just one or two hits.

Two suburbs away from me is the suburb that used to be considered the heroin homeland of Australia, where they'd give out free hits knowing a lot of people would come back and pay for more. So what's your point? That I don't understand because I'm somehow sheltered?

Criminalization of drugs just means that people who want or need help are ostracized instead of supported. A lot of people who turn to drugs grow up in households with parents who abuse substances and also abuse them. These people don't get the opportunity to ever be helped because people just sit around talking about what a waste of space they are, as if they ever had much of a chance after growing up in that kind of environment.

The matter isn't that complicated. Legalizing drugs has a lot of benefits and no real drawbacks once you consider that most people who do drugs would do them whether they're illegal or not. It's a cultural issue as much as anything.

You can get high of sniffing paint and paint is perfectly legal, yet so many people don't sniff and get high off this perfectly legal substance. What makes you so paranoid that if you legalize meth or heroin that everyone will suddenly become a meth addict - they won't, because the reasons people do or don't do meth aren't reasons of legality.

Stop fear-mongering and use your brain.

 

[Analyzer]

HIV needle when you stub your toe on it on your walkway in your junkie strewn neighborhood. HIV when the junkie sells his ass for another hit, then has risky sex with someone else, say maybe a bisexual or whatever. What part of high risk behavior didn't you get the memo on?

That's more than just drug use, that person is directly putting peoples lives in danger. The same can be said for any activity.

Criminalization of drugs just means that people who want or need help are ostracized instead of supported. A lot of people who turn to drugs grow up in households with parents who abuse substances and also abuse them. These people don't get the opportunity to ever be helped because people just sit around talking about what a waste of space they are, as if they ever had much of a chance after growing up in that kind of environment.

The matter isn't that complicated. Legalizing drugs has a lot of benefits and no real drawbacks once you consider that most people who do drugs would do them whether they're illegal or not. It's a cultural issue as much as anything.

You can get high of sniffing paint and paint is perfectly legal, yet so many people don't sniff and get high off this perfectly legal substance. What makes you so paranoid that if you legalize meth or heroin that everyone will suddenly become a meth addict - they won't, because the reasons people do or don't do meth aren't reasons of legality.

Stop fear-mongering and use your brain.

 

[bvanevery]

Criminalization of drugs just means that people who want or need help are ostracized instead of supported.

"illegal" does not equal "criminalized". I posted about Portugal earlier. Maybe you missed it.

 

[redbaron]

Yawn. So we're going to argue over the semantics of the correct word usage instead of actually discussing stuff.

Just read the sentence as:

"Drugs being illegal means that people who want or need help are ostracized instead of supported."

And move on.

 

[bvanevery]

Since the example of Portugal "decriminalizing" drugs is concrete, there's a lot more than semantics at stake for public policy. Last I checked their approach is actually working.

 

[redbaron]

Okay sure, just ignore the 90% of my post with the important points and debate semantics. I'm feeling extra generous so I'll quote myself and just remove the sentence that your brain can't seem to move past. Maybe you'll be able to respond with something useful then.

A lot of people who turn to drugs grow up in households with parents who abuse substances and also abuse them. These people don't get the opportunity to ever be helped because people just sit around talking about what a waste of space they are, as if they ever had much of a chance after growing up in that kind of environment.

The matter isn't that complicated. Legalizing drugs has a lot of benefits and no real drawbacks once you consider that most people who do drugs would do them whether they're illegal or not. It's a cultural issue as much as anything.

You can get high of sniffing paint and paint is perfectly legal, yet so many people don't sniff and get high off this perfectly legal substance. What makes you so paranoid that if you legalize meth or heroin that everyone will suddenly become a meth addict - they won't, because the reasons people do or don't do meth aren't reasons of legality.

Stop fear-mongering and use your brain.

Also really just have to re-express my sheer disappointment that the thing you find most important to argue about on this topic is how best to differentiate between the meanings of the words "decriminlization" and "legalizing".

This fucking world.

 

[bvanevery]

Actually with your attitude I'm done here. The PHILOSOPHICAL question has been answered already.

And BTW your faggot-o-meter image is off-putting.

 

[redbaron]

I'm sorry you didn't want to discuss the actual topic and that I didn't engage in argument over pointless semantics.

What's off-putting about Spiderman holding a device that detects bundles of wood? :^)

 

[Sinny91]

I'd happily support the legalisation and regulation of weed, coke, MDMA, and LSD etc.

I wouldn't however been supporting any notions for the legalisation of heroine, or crack.

I don't see what good can come from that, people using those substance are highly unlikely to be desirable citizens, the effects of such drugs are so degrading.

But just because they're illegal, doesn't mean a user should immediately be labelled a criminal, their addiction should been viewed as an affliction (one most likely caused by themselves, but never the less)... and addictions of such proportions usually lead to criminality at some point, so we'd do well to keep that in mind.

Our current legal systems emphasise the criminality aspect, whilst neglecting the medical and rehabilitative aspects, and I think those priorities should be changed.

In my world, those drugs would be illegal, but use of them wouldn't immediately stick you with the label criminal, other criteria would need to be met yet.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I'd happily support the legalisation and regulation of weed, coke, MDMA, and LSD etc.

I wouldn't however been supporting any notions for the legalisation of heroine, or crack.

I don't see what good can come from that, people using those substance are highly unlikely to be desirable citizens, the effects of such drugs are so degrading.

But just because they're illegal, doesn't mean a user should immediately be labelled a criminal, their addiction should been viewed as an affliction (one most likely caused by themselves, but never the less)... and addictions of such proportions usually lead to criminality at some point, so we'd do well to keep that in mind.

Our current legal systems emphasise the criminality aspect, whilst neglecting the medical and rehabilitative aspects, and I think those priorities should be changed.

In my world, those drugs would be illegal, but use of them wouldn't immediately stick you with the label criminal, other criteria would need to be met yet.

You want to legalize cocaine but not crack.

Do you know how crack is made?

I think you're just talking about what drugs you personally consider it a good idea to take.

 

[Sinny91]

Do you know how crack is made?

I think you're just talking about what drugs you personally consider it a good idea to take.

Yes, and yes.

 

[ummidk]

I draw the line when people die from it.

No more driving then.

 

[redbaron]

How do you legalize cocaine but not crack?

I'm sure we could come up with a conspiracy theory for this one.

 

[scorpiomover]

When making a particular substance illegal, the underlying assumption must be that the average human is not equipped to make his/her own decisions about what is best for him/her.

Tomatoes and potatoes contain substances. We don't make tomatoes and potatoes illegal.

As an example, I recently watched a law enforcement official say something to the effect of: clearly, illegalizing a drug leads to crime, shootings, murders, gangs, organized crime and so on, but the drugs in themselves are harmful and can ruin lives, so there is price to legalizing a drug as well.

The establishment have been promoting the idea that drugs should be legal, for over 20 years.

But to say that a drug can ruin a life, is to say that we have a definition of what a life must be like. Following that logic, a ruined life can be someone who is capable of doing scientific research opting for working a regular day job and spending their free time watching television. Then one could posit that watching television should be illegal because it "ruins lives". And why stop there – everything that is a predictor of decreased productivity should be illegal.

Obviously. Following that logic, denying people the right to get a decent night's sleep would also be illegal, because lack of sleep also decreases productivity. Relevant to your point, working someone like a dog, never giving them any free time to relax after work, taking away all human pleasures and making people unhappy would take away all motivation to work, which would drastically reduce productivity.

It's not taking away TV that is a problem, but taking away the opportunity for people to relax after work and enjoy their lives. The question is: would you count spending the next year doing nothing but watching TV, relaxing and enjoyable? Much of TV now hypes up drama and tries to amp up the adrenaline, to keep people watching. But raising adrenaline levels for hours every day is the opposite of "relaxing". Also, can we honestly say that most TV is all that enjoyable anymore? Sure, if you only watch the TV that you honestly enjoy. But most people who watch TV a fair bit, just switch on the TV when they get home and watch it till they go to bed, whether it's enjoyable or not. The rest hardly watch it at all, and enjoy doing other things. TV is now driven by ratings, what is profitable for the suppliers, not what is beneficial or productive for the consumers.

If drugs were to be used recreationally, in a productive manner, then we'd set up coffee shops where you can go to relax with friends, get stoned, and have a laugh. Many professors get stoned with each other on the odd occasion, because it expands the mind and thus helps their creativity. But to get the benefits, it has to be carried out in a controlled manner. Someone has to keep an eye on you, cut you off when you've had enough, take away your car keys and give you a ride home, so you don't drive home stoned and have an accident or get arrested for driving while under the influence of drugs and get your licence revoked. It would be much better if this was carried out in a safe, controlled environment, where prices for drugs and taxis home could be kept at reasonable prices for your level of income, and where the people running the place could keep an eye on you to make sure that you didn't have a bad time, and could encourage and direct you to use drugs in a productive and beneficial way.

 

[Nofriends]

When making a particular substance illegal, the underlying assumption must be that the average human is not equipped to make his/her own decisions about what is best for him/her.

As an example, I recently watched a law enforcement official say something to the effect of: clearly, illegalizing a drug leads to crime, shootings, murders, gangs, organized crime and so on, but the drugs in themselves are harmful and can ruin lives, so there is price to legalizing a drug as well.

But to say that a drug can ruin a life, is to say that we have a definition of what a life must be like. Following that logic, a ruined life can be someone who is capable of doing scientific research opting for working a regular day job and spending their free time watching television. Then one could posit that watching television should be illegal because it "ruins lives". And why stop there – everything that is a predictor of decreased productivity should be illegal.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that chemicals can alter one's behavior in a way that is hard to predict. I might think that taking cocaine is a reasonable decision at this point in time, but then the person i might become after taking the cocaine might disagree with my current self about what his next step should be. In that sense, it would be good if the cocaine was not available to me in the first place.

And with that, I am no closer to reaching any sort of conclusion.

Insert your thoughts below.

I think a lot of illegal substances should have age restrictions and if people exceed an established normative amount between the age of 21-38 you can have genital detachment, death or technological monitoring by the state.