Plus we won’t have any more 12 year old boys dying because they are being used as mules to ferry swallowed condoms full of heroin or cocaine across the border.
We don’t know for sure that addiction rates increase with legalization. So far, the peliminary data seems to appear that experimentation rates jump at first, but then use and addiction rates hold steady. So what we would possibly have is a whole lot more money to help the people that are already addicted.
Jdeforest, I see your point with such concerns. One could however turn it around and say that the criminalization of use has the very same effect, but in an even worse way. By making it an offense to use drugs users are forced into a sub society of secrecy, were they go undetected for a long time until they either trip up and get caught for possession or petty crimes or display such acute addiction problem that the surrounding notices. By this time use has often already segued into abuse and addiction and it is often far harder to help anyone out of the swamp from there. Further the criminal nature of use becomes an integral part of the marginalized drug culture. Soon the addicts live in a social sphere of negative reinforcement, where the bond of secrecy holds them captive in an environment that by its criminal and abusive nature is not reachable from the outside world.
By decriminalization the argument would be that the stigma of drug use lessens. The need for absolute secrecy is gone and therefore the addict’s social sphere can be more open. Hence, it goes to argue that the chance of catching someone before they fall off the wagon would increase rather than decrease. One should however note that the dynamics of addiction often follows a long spiral of denial – avowal - rehabilitation - recurrence - denial - avowal - rehabilitation and so on. Therefore decriminalization is no panacea, but at least it doesn’t add yet another hindrance on our way to reach our fellow humans who have stumbled.
Sparc <------ with the mother of all hangovers 
Cigarette’s have always been legal (to my knowledge), yet children hide their experimentation from their parents until it becomes to late and they have a physical addiction.
I think we would still have to maintain that using drugs is still socially unexceptable or at least distasteful to keep a lid on things. For instance with the aggressive anti-smoking campaigns and the general outcry that smoking is distasteful (along with the skyrocketing price) has led to a declining number of teens picking up the habit as opposed to 20 years ago when smoking was more socially acceptable.
Oh Jdforest even as a heavy smoker (regrettably enough), pretty serious occasional drinker and a man who has tried every imaginable (and a few non imaginable) recreational stimulants he could find at some point, I couldn’t agree with you more. I have seen the dark side and walked on the wild side, seen friends and family succumb and even die from addiction and I know how easy it is to stumble and fall.
Like you point out, we need to limit the damage and fight against the reckless effect some drugs have. In the same breath we have to acknowledge the fact that they are and always have been a part of human culture and in some ways seem to serve a purpose. Information, care and vigilance should be our arms in that fight, not punishment, alienation and prohibition.
Sparc
I think this all comes back to my question about the redeeming value of drugs (and alcohol and cigarettes). But apparently that has been dismissed as not a point that needs to be addressed.
I addressed it.
Maybe not to your liking, but I still believe that these are redeeming values. Use is not bad as long as it stays from becoming abuse. Use of drugs can be a source of inspiration, and a pressure valve for the psyche and mind. On the other hand in the wrong quantity or in the wrong form they can destroy you, just like life in general.
Sparc
They are fun. They help some people in social situations. Some of them have medicinal benefits.
I don’t understand why they need to have redeeming value. What is the redeeming value of seeing a movie? Or watching TV for 5 hours a day? Or eating McDonalds? Or playing with a yo-yo? Or playing video games? Yet all these things are perfectly acceptable…
ummm… yeah…,
Looks to me like your question was adressed at least three times:
Count me as another one who feels that I should have the right to alter my own consciousness as I see fit as long as I’m not harming anyone else.
And count me as one who should probably have previewed to see if someone beat me to the response while I was typing.
I think it’s been addressed, but I’ll discuss it in more detail if you wish.
The first point, which has been stated repeatedly, is that “no redeeming value” is not a valid reason to prohibit anything. As I said earlier, professional sports have no redeeming value. Lotto has no redeeming value. Hitting a golf ball has no redeeming value - indeed, it simply ruins a good walk, as Mark Twain said.
The second point, which hasn’t been brought up before, is that drugs indeed have a redeeming value - they make people feel good. Making people feel good is considered quite valuable - in 1996, tourism directly and indirectly accounted for $3.6 trillion in goods and services - some 10.6% of gross global product. http://www.economist.com/surveys/showsurvey.cfm?issue=19980110
Add to that professional sports, movies, theater, Viagra, etc., and a really, really large chunk of the world’s money is spent on enjoyment.
Without doubt, drugs have more of a downside than most other activities that make us feel good. But the value of feeling good is undoubted. “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”
Sua
I will tackle this for you.
I am quite fond of a good red wine. It is one of my life’s great pleasures to sit down one or two evenings a week and drink a couple glasses of (good) red wine with my S.O. It is a pleasure that I relish and it adds value to my life. I would be extremely put out if you or anyone else tried to take that away from me. I enjoy everything about it. I like the taste, the smell, even the pleasant buzz that comes along. The pleasure I derive from this far outweighs any danger or damage it may subject me too.
Alcohol is clearly a drug, and my personal enjoyment of wine is clearly a redeeming quality of it. How could you deny it?
I have used things other than alcohol. I will mention one. In the past, I have occasionally used LSD. It is spectacularly difficult to put the experience into words, especially as few a words as I would care to type here. Most succinctly, the world before me became as an art gallery. The wonder and curiosity I possessed as a child was returned to me completely. The reminder to stop and look, really look, at the world in which I walked everyday was a great value to me. I recollect the experience in a completely positive light. I don’t know another definition of redeeming to use.
Don’t worry Ferrous, I saw many other replies to his inquiry on preview and still found it worth posting.
Sua said
I think we all agree that drugs do make you feel good. This is anargument that really can’t be refuted. But, you so quickly passed over the fact that drugs have more of a downside than most other activities. Like alchohol, drugs ruin lives of both those who take them and also those who don’t take them. Not everyone, but enough to make an argument for not leagalizing drugs. Just because drugs makes people feel good, doesn’t mean you should legalize it.
scotth said
Yes I agree that you personal enjoyment is a redeeming quality of Alcohol, but that doesn’t negate the fact that 16,653 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes in 2000 and that Approximately 512,510 people are injured every year in alcohol-related traffic crashes. I do agree that alcohol has redeaming values, but does this out weigh the fact that over a 1/2 million people were either hurt or killed by just alcohol-related traffic crashes?
http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,3726,00.html
Ferrous
Good argument. I am sure thats what all the drunk drivers were thinking before they ruined someones life. -look at my stats on drunk driving above.
Shoeman83
Shoemaker83 I don’t think that any poster so far has argued that DUI should be legalized. Further, that would fall under abuse of drugs, which every single poster to a man and woman has proposed different views how to best combat.
DUI is already very much illegal and people still do it, so I fail to see how making it more illegal* would help?
Have any more red herrings for us?
Sparc
[sixe=1]*Well you can always lower the alcohol blood level tolerance to 0 pro mille, although most experts agree that under 0.02 it makes no difference.[/size]
The typo in formatting was due to the three or four glasses of rather delightful red wine (a Brunello di Monatlcino 95) that I had for dinner…
Soooooo sorry :rolleyes:
Sparc
Thank you for that stunning irrelevancy masquerading as a rebuttal. :rolleyes:
Please re-read what I said.
“I should have the right to alter my own consciousness as I see fit as long as I’m not harming anyone else.”
To repeat the relevant portion: As long as I’m not harming anyone else.
Obviously, getting in a car and driving while under the influence would be (at least potentially) harming someone else. Sitting at home and smoking a joint would not be.
To further clarify a point that should be blatantly obvious: I support the right of responsible adults to ingest mind-altering substances on private property, should they so choose. I do not support the right to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of said substances.
Ah, but the argument falls when considering that half of all our prision population is people in there for drug use or selling of drugs. I don’t think drug related crimes is going to rise THAT much to increase by over 100% to make up the people that would be released for simply using or selling drugs.
Ferrous
So what your saying is that the only way drugs should be legalized is if it were only used in private homes?
I understand that you have no intention of hurting someone else, but how can you guarantee that in your “mind altering state” you won’t harm someone else or get behind the wheel of a car.
What I meant before is that I would venture a guess that the people driving in the alcohol related accidents also didn’t have the intention of harming anyone else. I was a result of bad judgment due to the “mind altering state” they were in.
Sparc
You’re right no one is arguing the DUI’s should be legalized, I understand that. My point is that DUI’s are results that have happened because of the poor judgment that was made due to the fact that they were in a “mind altering state.”
By legalizing drugs you will most likely have more people on drugs, and therefore more people in a “mind altering state” and therefore more decisions being made in a "mind altering state.
Shoeman83
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shoeman83 *
So what your saying is that the only way drugs should be legalized is if it were only used in private homes?
[quote]
Well, that wasn’t precisely what I was saying, although it might not be a bad idea. It would certainly be better than blanket criminalization. But “private property” also refers to places like bars and restaurants. Basically, treat drugs in the same way that alcohol is treated: control distribution, regulate where it can be sold and used, but don’t simply throw a person in jail for exercising control over his/her own nervous system.
If a person commits a crime, punish them appropriately for the crime. It shouldn’t make a difference if they did it because they were on drugs or if they were just really pissed off because the Yankees lost the game.
It’s not fair to make criminals out of the great majority of recreational drug users who behave responsibly and don’t commit crimes (other than the victimless crime of using drugs).
Eep. Pardon my coding error. Missed a / in there.