Drug Legalization Debate Thread

Legalize everything. However, it should be licensed. You should have to have a clean physical and mental bill of health before embarking on recreational drug adventures. Crazy people don’t get to drop acid.

The protocol would be different depending on your drug of choice. If you choose psychedelics then you need to be checking in with a mental health professional periodically to make sure you aren’t totally whacked out.

For drugs that are strongly habit-forming (opiates, meth, cocaine) you should be on a medically supervised basis that is as restrictive as parole from prison. Meaning, initially you get it just for the asking from an accredited clinic, but you’re monitored closely by a physician and a case worker. These people will be monitoring your health and discourage you from increasing consumption. The minute you demonstrate that you aren’t handling it responsibly (jeopardizing work, neglecting family, putting yourself or others at risk of harm), then you are permanently changed from dispensing mode to lifetime detox/abstinence mode.

Alcohol fits in the above protocol as strongly habit-forming but I’m not sure how we go from selling it in convenience stores to having it dispensed on a conditional basis by psychiatrists.

It certainly seems like it ought to be achievable, but there are still a distressing number of people whose knowledge of drug issues stops with the old Hearst/Anslinger demonization of cannabis. Not to mention an entrenched faction of people who have a vested interest in continuing the war on drugs…the religious right, the law enforcement community (in general that is, there are some LEO’s who have advocated legalization but they are a minority), the drug counselling industry who have made a killing from mandated treatment, the special interest groups like MADD… all these and more would lose a great deal of influence and finances if drugs were legalized, and all will fight like hell to maintain the status quo.

I wish it were otherwise. 10-15 years ago I expected to at least see cannabis decriminalized everywhere in the near future, but I’ve begun to doubt whether even that will happen in my lifetime.
SS

I think you’d see decidedly less support from law enforcement if confiscation laws were revoked, Seldom.

You should have stuck to that. Calling other posters crackpots, insulting others debating skills with all your cites from Wikipedia, LOL and other misinformation indicate your own debating skills.

I’ve been struggling for a long time to come up with an answer that satisfies me. Prohibition has never worked and never will, especially when it’s based on the fear born of ignorance. The drug war has created an enormous disrespect and disdain of law and law enforcement, not to mention unnecessary destruction of families by incarceration of harmless, nonviolent people.

On the one hand, I’d hate to see some drugs legalized, meth and PCP in particular. They’re just plain destructive.

The opiates are strongly addictive, but long term use has roughly the same physical hazards as alcohol. Most “OD’s” are the result of either very pure stuff after some that’s heavily cut, or from the adulterants used. Early deaths are primarily from those factors or from dirty needles, other confounding factors. These factors are almost entirely the result of illegality.

Hallucinogens, while their use can lead to a panic reaction (bad trip), are in the most part pretty benign and can be extraordinarily useful. Psilocybin has been demonstrated to be highly beneficial in easing the pain and fear of cancer patients. An occasionl trip has been shown to improve mood and outlook for long periods of time, maybe permanently. Ibogaine is an incredibly effective treatment for any type of addiction. And the hallucinogens themselves are totally non-addictive.

Same for ecstasy. Not the chemical concoctions often sold on the street, but the real stuff, MDMA. While there are some hazards from excessive use, such as increased body temperature and dehydration, it’s pretty benign and has shown good results in situations like marital and family counseling.

LSD and mescaline probably have similar effects, although I haven’t seem many good studies yet. The governmental shut-down of nearly all research into these drugs has resulted in an unnecessary and destructive lack of knowledge.

The more exotic hallucinogens like ayahuasca and DMT should likewise be legal.

The designer drugs seem to be like Russian roulette. I can see them being banned until there’s good evidence of whether or not there is reason to prohibit them.

So… Make the growing, selling and use of pot legal under the same controls as alcohol and tobacco. Hallucinogens too, though with a good honest program of education on what to expect.

Make use of all opiates/opiods legal. Create channels where addicts can satisfy their cravings with cheap, pure, controlled and known doses. The addiction WILL NOT totally go away, ever, and it’s senseless to think it will. Although illegal (in the U.S.), the potent hallucinogen ibogaine does a good job of getting addicts to stay clean.

Keep the illegal sales illegal. It’s the pushers that have created most of the problems, and the pushers are there because once hooked, they’re the only place to get what’s necessary.

Cocaine, well, that’s on the line. Crack heads beyond a doubt often get to the point where they’re a danger to others. It hits the user fast and hard. That’s why it’s so popular in certain circles. On the other hand, powdered cocaine, while not particularly benign, can be used in a somewhat responsible manner. If somebody gets out of hand and commits violent or property crimes nail them for the crimes.

Crank an PCP are imo a scourge. There’s a high likelihood that the user will fly off the handle and create havoc. Keep 'em illegal, but focus enforcement on the cooks and dealers.

I have a little bit of a problem with that on philosophical grounds, but as a practical matter it probably makes sense.

Most of all, base any and all laws on reason and fact. On how much damage is likely to be done to others. Go for the harm reduction model.

When ya get right down to it, what business do politicans have telling me that my body and mind should be under their control? If the objective is to keep me from harming myself then most sports should be illegal. Football in particular often results in severe brain damage.

In summary, from a philosophical and moral point of view I’m opposed to any governmental entity controlling my mind and body against my will. From a practical point of view, most of the “drug problem” is more a result of prohiibition than of the drugs themselves. Another result of prohibition is an erosion of personal privacy, free speech, and respect for law in general. All kinds of invasions of privacy are now allowed and promoted in an effort to escalate the drug war.

I just realized how long I’ve been blatherin’ on. It’s a complex subject and bears lots of thought and gathering of accurate knowledge. As a society, how much violence, how mcuh loss of lives and livelihoods, how much ostracism, how much denial of the normal rights of citizenship can be justified in the pursuit of something that has little or no personal danger, little or no likelihood of harming others, and little or no potential for accomplishing its stated irrational goals?

End of long-winded rant. For now, anyway.

Absolutely, all drugs should be legal for adults-- just like alcohol and tobacco. Regulated and taxed, but legal.

People who don’t use drugs aren’t abstinent because of the law.
People who use drugs will use them whether they’re legal or not.

Why waste money fighting a lost “war on drugs” when we can increase revenues through taxation? We could possibly eliminate the national debt.

Legalization will put farmers and many other people back to work. It would reduce profits for organized crime. More money would stay in the country. Regulation would make drugs somewhat safer. Cheaper drugs would mean that addicts wouldn’t have to steal to maintain their habits. Police would be freed up to pursue more dangerous criminals, like murderers and rapists. Prison populations would shrink. Gangs would lose a lot of financial power.

I think that with legalization, there would be an initial spike in overdoses among people who already use drugs but can now get them cheaper. That would level off, though. Overall, use may even decrease since some of the “glamor” of drugs now is that they are illicit. Certainly property crime would go way down.

I do believe that most intellectuals agree with drug legalization. However, the typical American can’t stand drug use being allowed, period. It doesn’t matter that people use drugs anyway, as long as we can pretend to ignore the problem since it’s illegal, then that’s fine.

In addition I think it’s fairly hard to make a distinction between drugs.

There are things such as the market playing itself out.

If other similar drugs such as ketamine were legal, the PCP would probably be on its way out, because, well, it kind of sucks as a drug.

Crack, same thing. With cocaine highly available, crack would be on its way out. And if not, then oh well since if you keep crack illegal then people will use it anyway and go back to the drug problem.

The bottom line is that if you try to keep some drugs illegal, then people will still use them. It’s just a matter of whether you wish to push the problems underground further.

You’re wrong about Meth. Meth is a schedule II drug that is prescribed (albeit rarely) for the same situations as amphetamines. The reason that it becomes more dangerous is how it is made. Street meth is not made in an aboveground lab, like medical grade meth is.

Plus, if you keep meth illegal people will use it anyway. You’re just shoving the problem into the underground again.

PCP same thing. If the market plays itself out it is likely that ketamine/DXM will largely replace PCP, however if people still elect to use PCP, then they will get their hands on it anyway.

The reason why illicit drugs are as strong as they are and as popular as they are in this strengthened form is because—with but a few exceptions[sup]*[/sup]—the risk heightens the need to get a concentrated form of the drug. When everyone was using cocaine, it was in a soft drink. Opium is significantly less potent than heroin. MDA and MDMA are responses to drugs being illegal. Beer when it is legal, hard liquor when it isn’t. But it is a problem that once we’ve let the genie out of the bottle, we can’t put it back in (hard liquor being a case in point).

*[sub]LSD being the only exception I can really think of, being so incredibly strong already in terms of dosage. Interestingly, dose strength of LSD has dropped over time.[/sub]

curioushat is correct.

I think that in a legal free market, the nasty drugs will fade out anyway. People will naturally prefer the “good” drugs, which are now affordable and even safer than before.

Very few alcoholics resort to drinking anti-freeze; cheap liquor is readily available.

The reason that the potency of LSD has dropped is because of the enormous bust in the early 2000s.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5776168

“They were making 10,000,000 hits a month and it cost them a penny a hit to make.”

There was never a time where “everyone was using cocaine”. Cocaine use has, if anything, increased over the last 120 years.

Morphine was created to treat cough, then pain. Heroin was created to treat morphine addiction as well as cough.

Diacetyl Morphine (heroin) is hardly even the most powerful opiate/opioid. Not even close.

Carfentanil is roughly 10,000 times stronger than Morphine.
(3R,4S,beta-S)-13-fluoro ohmefentanyl is roughly 18,000 times stronger.
14-MethoxyMetopon when given spinally is roughly 1,000,000 times stronger.

MDA and MDMA were responses to what? No, MDMA is a miracle drug on its own.

Hard liquor was around long before prohibition. “Bathtub gin”, which was sometimes poisonous, was made famous from prohibition.

So about letting the genie out of the bottle, yes, I do believe that it will take time to put crack back into the bottle. However, when cocaine is readily available and legal, will corporations really take the time to produce crack? I think not.

Why in the world would anybody choose crack over coke? Affordability is the only reason I can imagine, because the crack high is incredibly lame compared to the high from decent powder cocaine.

Crack is not more affordable than cocaine. It simply can be bought in smaller quantities.

Think about it. Making crack required additional work, although it isn’t much, it is still additional work and is thus more expensive, every time.

Why would anyone prefer a crack high? Why do people prefer IV/IM as opposed to oral or intranasal? Because different people have different preferences as to drug use.

The crack high is not incredibly lame, it is incredibly short.

I agree with your first statement.

I mostly agree with your second statement, with emphasis on* it isn’t much* additional work, and that yes, in the long run it’s more expensive…like buying individual Coca-Colas instead of 12-packs. I think most crackheads start out thinking they will be satisfied with that brief high, and then it spirals out of control. They’d have been better off to just buy the “12-pack” to begin with.

As a person who has taken a lot of drugs, a lot of different drugs, and done them a lot of different ways, I have to say this about your next assertions: I understand preferences(some junkies will NEVER use a needle), but I don’t think this applies very well to the crack vs coke argument. Crack may be convenient, but I still say the high is lame.

It’s basically the same high, yes: they’re both cocaine. But whether shot or snorted, the initial rush from coke is as good(or better) than that of crack AND the high lasts longer. You might think I’ve just had good coke and bad crack, but no-- I’ve had various strengths of both. And really, I think everybody I’ve ever known who has tried both would choose the coke every time.