Heroine, crack-cocaine, coke, and anything Hunter S. Thompson happened to try-- should all of it be legal?
Discuss
Printable View
Heroine, crack-cocaine, coke, and anything Hunter S. Thompson happened to try-- should all of it be legal?
Discuss
Yes, yes they should.
Yep.
Yes, and no drugs should be prescription only. If people want to self medicate with Gemzar, they should be able to get it over the counter because it's their body and they can do what they want with it.
Also, drug companies should be able to sell any drug they invent to the general public and not be liable for any side effects.
I see what you are trying to say but we're talking about drugs that are currently illegal. Do you believe in alcohol prohibition as well? Any drug that is legalized will be taxed and regulated just like alcohol. I don't see too much of a bootleg booze market so don't try to argue that drug cartels would continue to operate as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
the problem with people doing whatever they want when it comes to drugs
is that they strain the health system.
and the justice system too, because cops have to respond to tons of calls about drug related crimes and violence
And they don't already? What are all these prisoners in jail for then? Just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean people aren't using them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
those are just the people willing to break the lawQuote:
Originally Posted by braeden0613
If everyone was allowed to do it, more 'normal' people who do not break the law would say "Hey it's legal now, let's try it" and you have more violence at parties, drug related crimes, more people on drugs while driving on a road, etc...
believe it or not, the fact that drugs are illegal keeps most people away.
I just don't believe that would be true. There isn't a way to prove it either way right now since we haven't legalized anything recently. However, Portugal decriminalized (i know its not legalization) all drugs in 2001 and there has been no negative effect on drug usage rates. You can read more about that here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 Most people understand that crack, heroin, meth aren't good for you already. I find it hard to take seriously people that support alcohol and tobacco legalization, but not other type of drugs. Alcohol and tobacco kill millions and millions of people a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
Clearly you don't see what I was trying to say. So if crack, heroine, meth, etc. are all made legal who do you think should be liable for all of the side effects of those drugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by braeden0613
The same people that are made liable for the side effects of alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
There's no way people are going to go running to crack and meth just because it would be legalized. By that argument everyone should be smoking sherm right now.
The side effects of the drugs are way worse when illegal. One side-effect was my friend's wife getting shot and killed in South LA in front of her kid because they happened to be walking down the sidewalk when a drug war broke out. Real contribution to society giving crime syndicates such an extremely profitable business opportunity that turns some neighborhoods from bad into outright deadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Another side effect is the ridiculous money we throw into the prison system. Another is waging war on our own people. Yet another is pushing our police departments to the brink to fight a war of morals. Maybe the worst side-effect is that it drastically reduces our own personal liberties. If I'm an adult, I do what I want with my body and fuck anyone who tells me I cannot. Fuck the drug war.
portugal is tiny.
sorry, can't compare.
Who's liable for the side effects of alcohol?Quote:
Originally Posted by braeden0613
The crimes relating drugs are just the consequences of forbiding drugs. It's just like the case of Al Capone, who made a big fortune in early 20th century by smuggling and selling liquor illegally. It was a good purpose to let americans waste less money on liquor, but the federal decree couldn't restrict gangs. Oppositely the fed just blocked the ways of legal liquor trade, which gave the illegal ones more demand in market. The problem is the government cannot squelsh the demand of folks, stifling the source of water will only make them more thristy. If the government legislates drugs trade, the gangs will lose a major financial source, which will also help mitigate the gang problems. It's not only an issue of protecting the freedom of citizens, but an action that will benefit the whole nation a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
The user, fuckwit.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Most drug related crimes are related to the illegal selling, moving, or buying of drugs. Now take the illegality out of the equation....Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
Legal, but heavily regulated. For example, many antibiotics become ineffective if everyone is using them. Sellers should be on the hook when a drug that is advertised to be wonderful turns out to be dangerous. Dangerous addictive drugs should be regulated at least as much as tobacco and alcohol.
Only marijuana.
Have you geniuses actually been around people for a long period of time who are on heroine, crack, or meth?
Have you geniuses seen the way the government forces taxpayers to take care of everyone?
These losers would be so strung out they could not keep a job and they would still murder your grandmother for $10.
All Drugs legal? Really?
Seems to work out everywhere they've tried it so far. Usage rates have gone down (along with crime) in the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
Chances are those people don't have a job today because the cost of drugs are so high they have to spend their lives stealing things to pay for their next fix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
- - -Quote:
These losers would be so strung out they could not keep a job and they would still murder your grandmother for $10.
Because of my deep lack of care for man, I am willing to support the experiment.
I agree. No, we cannot legalize most drugs that are already illegal. Now if someone wants to throw away their life, I don't mind. Let's say someone wants to use a drug that will stop them from being a productive member of society. I say fine, as long as they have the money to take care of them already for the rest of their lives. As long as we don't spend more tax dollars to support those who incapacitate themselves, i don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
People who visit McDonald's strain the health system.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
Many of the drug-related crime and much of the drug-related violence wouldn't occur except for the fact government has created a mechanism that inflated the rewards of the drug trade to heights that make the considerable risks acceptable to many and the expense of the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
Plus, the non-violent drug-related crimes would not longer be crimes, freeing the police up to fight actual crimes like Driving Under the Influence of drugs or alcohol.
Really? The userQuote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Yes!
Yes.
I'm going to say yes... although I'm not quite sure I'm 100% satisfied with how I've talked myself into that.
I think the danger element of doing an illegal substance adds significantly to usage rates... and once somebody tries something, there's always a chance they'll continue to try it until they're completely addicted. Getting rid of that danger element that teens love, while also clearing the justice system of hundreds of thousands of prisoners, while also opening up new revenue streams is a win/win/win in my book.
John Stossel was on Hannity a few weeks ago and said that he was for the complete legalization of drugs... Hannity said something to the effect of "You wouldn't mind if there were people high walking amongst you?". Stossel replied that he's certain that they already are walking amongst him. That's the view I have I suppose.
people who are gonna do drugs are gonna do drugs.
of course it's never gonna happen anytime soon because of social conservatives and the current group in Washington. In a generation or so, when people my age are the ones in congress, it's a possibility.
Ok, I just wanted to establish your position clearly. All drugs legal and drug manufacturers have no responsibility for the drugs they make and sell. I'm sure pharmaceutical companies would support that position.Quote:
Originally Posted by braeden0613
Or does that only apply to currently illegal drugs? Where people can go into a store and buy heroine or meth but vicodin would still be a controlled substance? Would Merck be able to put Viox back on the market in your everything is legal world? Would Pfiser be able to develop and sell BetterThanCrack™ without any risk of being sued?
I'm shocked -- a liberal just happens to a crackhead and heroin addict, and wants his stash to be legal!Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
Who needs stereotypes when the reality is so much more entertaining?
Well, those countries don't have the same, um, demographics.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
:bang If drugs were actually legalized in this country, they would be regulated just as much or probably more than tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be warnings in fluorescent colors all over the packaging letting everyone know that the drugs are harmful. Meanwhile, prescription drugs continue as usual, not sold at Wal-mart to little children like your scenario suggests.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
And many board Republicans/conservatives agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeland Security
HS = fail
Certain drugs are addictive. Once addicted, you waste all your money buying more and more. ONce you have no more money, you steal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue
So your statement is not entirely accurate
Like alcohol?Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
No, not really.
So you don't think there are alcoholics who spend every dime they have on booze?Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
So what would the drug-banners like to happen? We obviously aren't doing a good job controlling the drug trade currently. What is the solution?
Why not also unban other drugs as long as marijuana is acceptable? The drugs themselves are not evils, the abuse of this drugs are. Taking a small amount of drug occasionally is far from enough to build an addiction, but it may save a life from suicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
The tax payer dollars are being wasted on wars in billions, but not on taking care of everyone. Citizens are born with the God-given rights to live in this world, also with the rights to choose for themselves whether to take the drugs or not.
The murders on an old woman are even more bare than air crashes, comparably the gangs kill tens of innocent people every day, excluding the lives of gang members lost in gang wars.
Not only the drugs should be legalized, but anything that used to be considered bad, like prostitution. You can ban the merchants but the folks always have some other steams legal or illegal to get access to what they demand.
why don't we all just destroy all types of drugs for recreational use off the face of the univese? that would be even better!!
Give them away at free clinics. It would be cheaper than continuing to lose the "war on drugs" to the tune of a huge budget itme every year for something that's clearly not working.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
Straw man. We're talking two kinds of liability. There's the liability for acts committed under the influence (personal), and there's liability for product. Do you really think if Jim Beam or Hiram Walker accidentally made batches of booze with Methyl instead of Ethyl alcohol and folks went blind or died, people wouldn't (justifiably) be suing the shit out of them.?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Big Pharma isn't off the hook, but nice try. Product liability lives!!
Would you agree that if meth were made legal then companies (maybe Big Pharma) would manufacture meth and sell it (i.e. it's a product). In your twisted logic they would be liable for an unintended side effect for a life saving medicine but would have no such liability for the known side effects of meth...Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
http://www.digital-immersion.net/met...arsmethuse.jpg
Stop the "war" on drugs and have sensible solutions. Legalize pot. For truely destructive drugs like meth, crack, heroine have harsh penalties for dealers and effective treatment programs (determined by medical science not politics) for those that are unfortunate enough to get hooked on them. In other words, punish those who profit off victimizing others with these hardcore drugs and treat the users like victims instead of crimminals. This is much closer to the swiss approach than your "legalize it all" approach which is just ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by braeden0613
Stop with the alchohol comparisons already. That's valid when your talking about marijuana not when your talking about stuff like meth, crack, heroine. It only shows you have no clue how powerfully addictive and destructive these types of drugs are.
Or what the hell let's become a nation of meth addicts. Better yet lets chew some khat and become pirates.
Yeah yeah we know meth is bad, you don't have to bring out the scary pictures. And you really believe Big Pharma would start making meth? That's some great PR.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
We already have three strike and no-tolerance laws toward drug dealing. They aren't working. When the profit motive is so ridiculously high, even enacting the death penalty for dealers wouldn't completely stop it. I think treatment programs would be a great idea, however. At the places that dispense drugs, let them promote some type of non-profit that deals with drug addiction (like casinos and gambling addiction). And I still believe the alcohol comparison is very relevant as it still kills much more people a year than hardcore drugs.
Not really, but that wasn't the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by braeden0613
Oh well, I'm bored with this now so I'll concede defeat to you. Your plan is right on. Maybe I can win the next "Shit that's never going to happen" debate.
:toast
Probably a good point, although I bet pot will be legalized or decriminalized in the next 10-15 years. Other drugs, well you never know.
All drugs, should be legal to all people--on average.
I think 10-15 years is too optimistic. Probably a full generation away, so 25-30 years. Alot of old people have to die off before it can happen and they're living longer these days.
Plus the legalize pot movement isn't very well organized...go figure lol.
You are crazy if you think that it would cost more to rehabilitate drug users than to continue the war on drugs. These costs are minuscule in comparison to the costs of our already legal drugs.
The government spends $17 billion dollars of taxpayer dollars to inefficiently combat drug cartels that will never let up. Prisons are filled with notorious gangs completely centered around the drug trade. We spend $17 billion a year and yet people still do drugs. People still die in the streets. Poor neighborhoods get poorer.
We have 300,000-355,000 of our own private citizens in prison for doing what they want with their own body, and an additional 100,000-200,000 violent inmates, many with multiple murder convictions from gang warfare and killings of people with debt, leading to an alarming 30% of all convicts to be directly related to drugs.
These inmates cost the government $1.1 billion dollars a year to keep incarcerated.
This doesn't even count the countless billions that we have done in tasks such as:
- military training for foreign countries
- giving military equipment to foreign countries
- cost of welfare paid to families who's provider is incarcerated in drug charges
We currently spend some $9 billion a year treating lung cancer, of which an incredible 90% are from the result of legal tobacco usage. There is no illegal drug that can even begin to approach the costs of treating lung cancer from smokers. If we can pay the burden to give random people lung transplants and surgery, we can rehab some meth users.
This doesn't even begin to touch alcohol. 13,000 people die each year in drunk driving accidents. Twice as many violent crimes occur when a criminal is under the influence of alcohol than every illegal drug combined. 75,000 people die a year from the medical effects of alcohol. $22 billion a year goes into treating medical problems related to alcohol abuse.
What about the human costs?
The Aryan Brotherhood is a sick enough example. Their members make up 1% of the prison population and cause 18% of all prison related murders. Inmates are already imprisoned on multiple-homicide charges and have nothing to lose by killing other inmates, guards, or worse. There have been several cases where a person unable to pay debt to their dealers have had the murders of their entire families ordered from within the prison complex itself. Even in a prison, under the eye of security, inmates smuggle in drugs and smuggle out money.
These prison gangs like MS13 recruit children and teenagers into their sick wars for territory and selling locations. This underground economy is driven by the government artificially suppressing supply of the drugs, causing the huge demand to spike drug prices into a range that is too good to pass up, no matter the cost to anyone. Gangs move in and lower the value of properties, destroy lives, and elude the pointless billions of dollars that we spend to hunt them down.
This debate is a joke. There is no way anyone can say that these "hard drugs" could cost more than alcohol and tobacco in either human cost or actual dollar cost. This doesn't even begin to talk about the implications of restricting what people can put into their own bodies.
So if you wish for currently illegal drugs to remain that way, then you must of course want tobacco and alcohol to be illegal too; seeing as those two industries combine for a health care cost that is astronomical in comparison to any estimated cost that legalizing presently illegal drugs. And I know that no one here will give up their beer and cigs, even if it their tax dollars are treating their neighbors cirrhosis of the liver or lobectomy or transplant.
-----
I see your
http://www.digital-immersion.net/met...arsmethuse.jpg
and raise you a
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...erous_lung.jpg
or
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...arcinoma_1.jpg
or
http://www.daily-tribune.com/article...sh3-14_lrg.jpg
Alcohol and tobacco are easily just as bad as any other addictive drug imo. They both fuck up your body and get you hooked not to mention like meth make you look disgusting - beer bellies, yellow teeth, followed by chemotherapy to stay alive from the cancer you put in, etc.
Who said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
Im just surprised Yoni falls on the "personal liberty" side of the argument.
Drugs should be legal. They should be taxed. People in prison for non-violent drug crimes should be released.
We have far more problems than morality issues.
Why don't the liberals embrace that? They want to take guns out of people hands, why not drugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
Well, we have medical marijuana here in Oregon. Thought about getting a prescription myself. Thing is, my job would frown on that, and it's a federal job!Quote:
Originally Posted by braeden0613
The premise of those opposed to legalization is that legalization would lead to a significant increase in the number of addicted users who would impose a greater societal cost. Ergo, we need society to restrict consumption through making it illegal and creating significant penalties for the use and production of certain drugs.
I disagree. I don't believe that you can take the experience with 'softer' drugs such as tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine and use that to extrapolate the impact of legalization. Most people understand that meth, coke, smack, etc....are all harder drugs than alcohol and weed. Most people know well enough to leave those alone. We see many use marijuana (though illegal) and yet the harder stuff attracts fewer users.
Most people don't want to end up living the life of an addict. Most people want to have a decent quality of life and don't want to end up in rehab. Sure, some start out that way and end up as addicts, but the majority are able to ignore whatever temptation they may face due to the non-legal repercussions of becoming an addict (loss of love, job, control, etc).
Also, yes, legalization of some sort will reduce the cachet that comes with some drugs being illegal and certainly would reduce the incentive that attracts criminality. But I don't see a boom in heroin and cocaine users if legalization occurred. It's common knowledge what the use of harder drugs can do to your life, outside of the present legal penalties.
At the end of the day, either we believe that we are a free people who are capable, in general, of taking care of ourselves, or that we are a servile people who need the government to babysit us. The same logic that applies to drug prohibition easily follows for lifestyle matters such as diet and exercise, especially when an increasing portion of the electorate expects the nanny state to take care of us from cradle to grave.
And while tobacco use is not yet illegal (perhaps when a couple generations pass it will be), think about how much effort is being expended to decrease its use. What has been the motivating factor? Public health care costs. Before long, will not the same effort be seen against alcohol use? Or will the masses finally find a line they will not allow the state to cross?
People are free to hook their car's battery up to their genitals, yet how many do so? Of course, someone could, so we probably should restrict the use of batteries, no?