In this Pit thread, the idea of legalisation of drugs in the USA comes up again.
While my response is probably based more on emotion than anything else, I would like to see what may be the pros and cons of any such effort, or the pros and cons of our current situation.
Pros:
Cons:
I’m mostly in favor of legalization, at least for softer drugs like pot and speed. You’d have a hard time convincing me that heroin should be legal, though.
In favor.
[quote=continuity eror]
You’d have a hard time convincing me that heroin should be legal, though**
I’d be wary of crystal meth, crack cocaine and PCP. Maybe ketamine too. But why heroin?
I now think most ‘drugs’ should be legalized, but regulated by doctors, and doses standardized. I think there are many people who take unnatural pharmsuticals where a natural product can provide better releif (pot comes to mind) and are safer.
The cynic in me doesn’t actually believe that that’s possible; there is very little educating going on in the first place. (I once witnessed a crowd of about a half-dozen parents who referred to the major “education” program at their kids’ schools as “DARE to lie to your kids about drugs”; one complained that he had to tell his daughter a lot more about drugs than he really wanted to because it was necessary to correct the misinformation.)
I’m in favor of education. I’m not in favor of hysteria or unthinking abstinence (which are what I’ve seen out there passing themselves off as “education”); if I were to promote abstinence as a goal, it would be thinking abstinence. “Because authority figure told me not to” doesn’t hold up longer than the authority figure; “Because I’ve looked at the potential risks and potential benefits and decided that it’s not worth it to me <now|while I’m in school|at all|whatever else>” is much more durable.
This would require treating people as capable of being responsible for their own decisions, of course.
Doesn’t seem to be a factor in the case of alcohol or cigarettes, so I doubt it would be one in the case of drugs.
Actually, let me qualify my answer.
In principle, drugs should be available, but subject to some regulatory controls. It’s not a libertarian approach, which tends to take the form: “I don’t like drugs but let people screw their lives as long as they don’t harm others.”. It’s that many of the “dangers” of drug use are a result of the drug and the environment surrounding their use, rather than something inherent to the drugs themselves.
That said, in practice, outright legalization is a hard sell. There will be an implication of near-total safety if drugs are legalized. In order for sensible conventions for drug use to develop, a generation is required. In today’s atmosphere, where many people still consider alcohol consumption (not abuse) a vice, there just isn’t the right attitudes towards acceptance of, and dealing with altered moods and consciousness.
Maybe, by 2020 or 2025, legalization will be a serious option. Till then, decriminalisation and non-judgemental education is the practical way forward.
Two quick resources:
Economist’s Survey on Illegal Drugs - explores the economic argument.
Voodoo Pharmacology - explores the ‘drugs are bad’ mindset.
Addendum: The book reviewed in the Voodoo link is Saying Yes.
Too broad a question. There are different kinds of drugs and different kinds of legalization. Currently in the US I can think of four categories drugs could fall into: (1) those that are completely illegal; (2) those that are available with a prescription; (3) those that are widely available, but with restrictions on where/when/by whom they can be bought and used (i.e. alcohol, tobacco); and (4) those that are unregulated and widely available (caffeine, aspirin and other OTC medications).
Cases could certainly be made for moving particular drugs from one category to another. For example, from everything I’ve heard, marijuana has no more, and perhaps less, potential to harm its users and those around them than alcohol and tobacco, so it would make sense for it to be in the same category as they. “Harder” drugs, on the other hand, have at least as much potential for harm as improperly used prescription drugs.
Baloney there will be an implication of near-total safety if drugs are legalized. Cigarettes are legal. How many people think cigarette smoking is a near totally safe act? If drugs were legalized, it would be done on the logic that making them illegal has made things worse than having them legal. Legalize drugs, and drug gangs immediately go out of business. What semi-intelligent person would think legalizing heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine would mean they are now thought to be safe?
[QUOTE=II Gyan II]
In favor.
As this board is about fighting ignorance, I have to correct you about ketamine, and to a lesser extent PCP. Ketamine is a dissociative anaesthetic. I know a lot about dissociative anaesthetics. Free hint: Google my user name here and take a look at what my websites are about. 
(Ab)use of dissociative anaesthetics statistically indicates that as far as drugs go, they are rather safe. Deaths from recreational ketamine use are quite rare. NOWHERE near meth, crack cocaine or heroin.
PCP is somewhat more dangerous. PCP is sort of a cross between a psychedelic and a hard drug. However, it really isn’t all that dangerous. The biggest problem was that PCP when it was popular tended to be so amongst a tough crowd with a predisposition towards violence. Thus there were more violent acts committed by users of PCP. However, the numbers were WAY overblown by the media. Lots of violence has been associated with alcohol abuse. However, people have tended to accept alcohol, and just overlook the violence by users of that drug.
Good point, Thudlow. Narrow the discusssion if you wish.
A. Should pot be decriminalised?
B. What harder drugs should be decriminalised if any?
Pro: If pot were legal I’d drop booze like a hot potato.
Con: I remember little of the period when i was a regular user. An artifact of the drug or was my life unmemorable? A little of both, I’d guess.
I would never consider speed a soft drug. That’s one real life destroyer.
But count me as pro legalization.
Today? Not many. But ciggies have been crossed over to the dark side in prevailing black or white vision.
Safe enough to be legally sold.
Technically, the same can be said for heroin, if you ignore the contribution by black-market factors (impurities, unknown dosages, proper education about tolerance, shared needles, amateur injectings, even the need to inject…etc).
In a legalised environment, cocaine should be sold in solution, like alcohol. Heroin would be available by prescription, but opium tea products would be more generally available. Meth should be legalised as well. What I suspect, and hope, will happen is that just like prohibition replaced most consumption of beers with spirits with its repeal gradually restoring beer as dominant (>50%), legalization will setup an equilibrium towards amphetamine or the dextro isomer products.
In any case, barring potent stimulants for which the case for general sales, is iffy. most other drugs can and should be easily brought in within regulated purview.
I wonder if this is because it is illegal. Doses are not standardized, people don’t know how much actual ‘stuff’ they are taking, and most drugs are somehow concentraited to make transport easier, so if you get the pure stuff it is very potent.
(actually I ment this for all drugs together)
Count me as pro legalisation. Although I tried everything I could get my hands on when I was younger I can’t approve of a drug culture where the suppliers have a vested interest in getting my teenage son to start taking something. Government supply with boring queues and paperwork would work fine.
Over 80 years ago, we had an experiment which failed (prohibition of alcohol). It was a massive, costly, and total failure. Many today believe that prohibition actually INCREASED the use/abuse of alcohol.
I would be for the LICENSING of drug users. This would be a procedure, whereby you would sign an agreement, in return for the right to purchase these drugs at a pharmacy.In this cae, a heroin addict could maintain himself for perhaps $5-$10/week!
The agreement would be this:
“I (name here) agree that I am to used controlled substances, including crack, meth, heroin, marijuana, etc. In return for this, I acknowledge that I will accept that I will NOT be revived in the event of an overdose. Nor will I be eligible for public housing, welfare, or medical insurance.”
The license would carry a $200 funeral benefit.
With this, we would accomplish three things:
-allow addicts to persue their lifestyle
-remove organized crime from drug trafficking
-limit the problem (the heavy users would die off fairly quickly)
But this makes too much sense…let’s keep on with the “war on drugs”!
People would turn to organized crime and use illegally rather than get fucked over by a deal like that. Especially for pot.