# Legalization of ALL drugs, not just marijuana **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781 "2003-05-03T02:30:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![FudgeNugget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@FudgeNugget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FudgeNugget)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/61 "2003-05-04T03:37:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > \*\* > > Most people who grow pot at home do so in order to supply themselves personally, not for selling. They may have only a few plants which supply all of what they need. Would these people be punished for not buying from “approved” suppliers? \*\* I’m not sure. But its difficult to regulate every individual person in the United States and their houseplants. I suppose it could be legal, but the grower would be subject to any effects from homegrown plants. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’m 100% for complete legalization of marijuana, with only restrictions on age. As I said before, pot never killed anyone, and it’s not a drug which is commonly adulterated in dangerous ways. I don’t even think pot fits under the lable of “drug” due to its very nature. I’m not concerned at all about any potential effects on society or users’ health. \*\* Ok. ---
**Author:** ![FudgeNugget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@FudgeNugget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FudgeNugget)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/62 "2003-05-04T03:43:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spite \* > \*\*I will only support your legalization if it becomes law that those who want it must supply the addicts with the drugs and house and guard them. I have a few addicts in my life that I would rather not have. If you want em, you can have em. \*\* Hmm. I don’t know. Who is to say a person is an addict? I don’t like the term because its a difficult thing to understand for me. Addiction is characterized by frequent use and need. I’m frequently on my computer, and when I’m not on it I usually feel I want to be on my computer; does that make me a computer addict by definition? Will a supporter for legalization of computer usage burst into my house, handcuff me to a chair and guard me? Same logic works for candy and little kids, or the TV, or junk food. ---
**Author:** ![FudgeNugget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@FudgeNugget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FudgeNugget)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/63 "2003-05-04T03:50:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\*I think pot’s a drug as much as alcohol is, and there are many similarities. > Not really true, since smoking pretty much anything can lead to cancers to the lungs, brain and upper body in general. \*\* I’ve never heard of anyone overdosing on pot. Ever. In fact, I’ve never heard of anyone dying of pot as a direct result. The only incidents I’ve ever heard of pot-related deaths is in car accidents, but even then, THC is found with alcohol as well. Also, there’s the argument that three joints is the equivalent of an entire pack of cigarettes (I forget the exact number, not even sure if its a pack, but oh well). People forget that pot users rarely smoke very often; most people I know of only have one a day at most. With cigarettes, tobacco-smokers use up several packs. ---
**Author:** ![FudgeNugget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@FudgeNugget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FudgeNugget)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/64 "2003-05-04T04:08:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mmmiiikkkeee \* > \*\*You seem to be placing the vast, vast majority of your confidence of all these supposed benefits to socitey on the notion that for some reason everyone is going to become a stable, well-informed/educated, logical, responsible, and mature citizen overnight when **and because** drugs are legalized. This assumption that people (particularly people who can’t deal with the real “non-doped-up” world to some degree) will _do the right thing_ when big brother says “go nuts kids” is very ignorant in my opinion. > > The line I see you repeating time and time again is “people will have free-choice, and if they become addicted or do something stupid it will be their fault” (with a hint of “and they will actually _beleive_ that it’s their fault and accept resposibility for it like good eggs”) > > Think about it this way… we already have free choice, and will do what we want regardless of rules as you yourself point out with the example of kids getting into bad stuff\*simply because someone said “no”. And you see addicts, theives, health problems, and so forth already in enough people that’s it’s a problem. So: > > a) why on Earth would people who already abuse drugs or experiment unsafely stop doing so? (considering this irresponsibility is their preferred method, and the law has nothing to do with _how_ they actually take the drugs once they get them in their hands). How would legalization change the character of people who have problems with drugs (alocoholics, chain smokers, plus all the other types of addicts). Daddy didn’t come home and beat his kids and drink away the rent money during prohibition because the price of moonshine was high and he felt like rebelling against the lawmakers, he did it because he was an **irresponsible Shithead** , and thousands of people still come home today and ruin their family’s lives for the same reason; the fact that their poison of choice is legal or not has nothing to do with it. So the idea that legalizing drugs will do anything at all for the morality of the nation is absurd. \*\* Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Where did I say anything about morality? > [@](#): > > \*\* > b) how could opening the doors to a lot of people largely ignorant of the drug world possibly not result in even more problems than we already have? > > The results as I see them would be that: > you’d still have the same number and severity of drug-related troubled people (more or less) since they’re already hooked and for whatever reason haven’t fixed the problem, > > you won’t end up with any fewer people doing drugs just because it’s no longer rebellious (how many people quit drinking after prohibition?), and \*\* You make a point. However, those drug-related troubled people wouldn’t have to resort to illegal activity (often landing them in jail, disrupting the lives of others, diverting the efforts of the police and tax money, and crowding up our prisons) to get their next dose. Plus, if they do it legally, and a problem is identified by whoever monitors drug users (I suppose it should be regulated somewhat), then they can be treated. No, we probably wouldn’t have fewer people doing drugs, we’d have less problems involving drugs. Again, you make a point. > [@](#): > > \*\* > you’ll almost certainly see an increase in new people trying drugs - the brazen minority\* may look for new laws to break resulting in fewer recruits, but the timid majority will now feel safe and indulge in things they were always to worried about doing before… getting messed up as a result (since a few penstrokes on paper by some grey-haired old politician will have zero effect on how people take resonsibility for their personal actions and choices). > > - (this statement BTW is very overblown, and the majority of kids have the common sense and maturity to follow a rule rather than break it - those who break rules anyway are the exceptions and give the others a bad image, especially when it’s the bad ones who are used as indicators of normal behaviour like in this thread). \*\* Many kids don’t do drugs, not only because its illegal, but because they’ve been in health class, they’ve seen the TRUTH commercials, they’ve seen posters in school, articles in the paper or a magazine, billboards, TV programs, movies, etc. ---
**Author:** ![FudgeNugget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@FudgeNugget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FudgeNugget)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/65 "2003-05-04T04:16:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\*Yookeroo, I read the first paragraph of Race and the drug War. A scary view of the future if it is true. When opiates were legal, addiction was off the chart. > > I ask again, what about the liability? Merchants of alcohol are sued on a regular basis for the deeds of their patrons. > > The real question is how do you balance the right to take risks against the freedom to pursue your own pleasures. I would answer it with the old legal adage: “your right to hit me ends at the tip of my nose”. > > The reason we limit the consumption of most drugs is the tremendous cost to the non-user. The costs vary from crime to healthcare to violence. Crime is the end result of a user who loses the ability to earn a living. Healthcare, same reason. Violence is relative to the act of the crime and/or psychotic behavior. > > If you legalize all drugs, you will empty the prisons (looks good on paper) but fill up the hospitals. Forget about having a city park, they would become junkie landfill overnight (look at Sweden). It is cheaper and more humane to confine a user to prison. It would be even better to confine a user to a mandatory rehab center (prison with a smile). \*\* You make a good point about healthcare. However, as the purity and strength of drugs are regulated, as well as their safety if medical studies prevail, then less people would end up in hospitals as a result of the effects of drugs. Let me ask you a question: why do drug users end up in the emergency room? It’s usually because of overdose. Overdose caused by an illicit drug that was either stronger than what the user expected or contained something other than what the user expected. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/66 "2003-05-04T05:11:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spite \* > \*\*If it is so, then that would be true. My quote did not say the accidents where caused by those who tested posotive for THC. Rather that they were caused by drivers using marijuana. \*\* That’s the problem with most anti-drug propoganda. The studies are geared to find a certain result. They use fundamental attributional errors to “prove” their points, and, unfortunately, folks who are knoweldgeable as to how a good study should be done can become pretty hostile to government agencies who tout them. I think Ben Stone on \* Law and Order \* said it best: “If 90% of juvenile delinquents chew gum, are we then to conclude that gum-chewing \* causes\* juvenile delinquency?” It’s also equally unfortunate that a good deal of Americans never question how or why the study was done, but take it as gospel when they hear the words, “Studies have shown . . .” They take the words of the “expert” for truth, and never question his motivation. There are countless conflicting studies on marijuana and its potential harms. Am I about to take the word of the DEA on its harmfulness? No, not really, because they have a vested interest in making people think it’s very harmful. They would not be interested in publicizing a balanced, fair examination of the facts unless it supported their view. The link you provided is further reason, to me, to distrust them when I see how broad the language is, and how vague the conclusions of their “studies.” It’s just not good science. Using the broad language and sweeping conclusions such as propogated in the quoted you provided, I could “prove” anything. Hershey’s “proved” in its study that chocolate was actually \* good \* for your teeth. I could “prove” that deodorant gives women breast cancer, because, after all, the vast majority of women with cancer have used underarm doedorant. I could prove that loose change in the consoles of cars causes auto accidents, because the majority of wrecked cars are found to carry small stashes of loose change somewhere. (Read the book \* Trust Us, We’re Experts! [i/] for a good explanation of the round-about wording and deceptive methodologies of sponsored studies.) None of my statements are true, but it would be ridiculously easy to put together a study to “prove” them. Would it have respect in the scientific community? No, but that doesn’t matter. My conclusions will be widely publicized, and their criticisms won’t. Most Americans will never know. > [@](#): > > \*\*The statute automatically labels a driver legally impaired if she has a minimum amount of various drugs in her bloodstream. Williams was the first person convicted under the 1999 legislation." > > That was a 1990 statistic I quoted. I doubt that if it was already standard practice to label users as automatically impaired, that they would not have to pass legislation for such. \*\* In \* that \* state, yes. Other states have similar laws, but I don’t know when they were enacted. The Williams page notes that: > [@](#): > > But Watkins noted that other states, such as Georgia, have overturned similar laws on constitutional grounds. \*\* Which implies to me that other states had previously enacted similar legislation. If I wagered a guess, I’d say that at some point someone who was driving high must have appealed conviction on the grounds that drunk-driving laws didn’t apply to drug intoxication, and so at some point, states started fixing that loophole. Anyone know? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/67 "2003-05-04T05:31:08Z")
> [@](#): > > A person has to right to do what he wants to do, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; if that person wants to do drugs, and is fully aware of the potential consequences of doing so, then that person has to right to do drugs, and when those potential consequences occur, it is no fault of the manufacturer, it is the fault of that person. That’s your opinion, and I don’t really disagee. My comment was legal in nature, as liability issues like these are still being worked out. People are, you know, currently suing fast-food giants because of their obesity. > [@](#): > > Addiction is characterized by frequent use and need. I’m frequently on my computer, and when I’m not on it I usually feel I want to be on my computer; does that make me a computer addict by definition? Will a supporter for legalization of computer usage burst into my house, handcuff me to a chair and guard me? Same logic works for candy and little kids, or the TV, or junk food. That’s all well and good for psychological addiction, but there’s also physical addiction. Heroin withdrawal can be lethal. Psychological addiction - though I’ll ask a drug counselor - usually involves being unable to function normally without using the thing in question. If you’re having that problem with you’re computer, you’re in real trouble. And yes, even weed is addictive for many people in this manner. > [@](#): > > I’ve never heard of anyone overdosing on pot. Ever. In fact, I’ve never heard of anyone dying of pot as a direct result. I’ve never heard of a weed overdose either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a drug or not dangerous. Smoking too much, while not LETHAL - you can OD on something and not die - fucks you up pretty good. > [@](#): > > The only incidents I’ve ever heard of pot-related deaths is in car accidents, but even then, THC is found with alcohol as well. I’ve read that studies show pot doesn’t mess you up regarding driving as much as alcohol, but it still messes with your motor skills and concentration. Seeing anybody who’s stoned try to do something should demonstrate that. > [@](#): > > Also, there’s the argument that three joints is the equivalent of an entire pack of cigarettes (I forget the exact number, not even sure if its a pack, but oh well). Equivalent in terms of what? I’ve never heard this argument about anything, so I’d like you to explain. > [@](#): > > People forget that pot users rarely smoke very often; most people I know of only have one a day at most. With cigarettes, tobacco-smokers use up several packs. I think you’re overgeneralizing. Potheads _often_, not always, don’t smoke many joints at once, but I’ve known people who do more than that. But as far as ‘very often,’ you’re comparing cigarettes and weed, and they’re quite different. Regular use still has its effects. And plenty of smokers don’t do packs a day, many just smoke a couple of cigarettes. I think a few, as opposed to a pack or several packs, is more common. > [@](#): > > Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Where did I say anything about morality? Not to answer for someone else, but I think the idea is that responsible use won’t necessarily increase due to legalization, and problems like the ones he illustrates won’t just go away. There’s not even a reason to think they’d go down. PCP users will still be predisposed to violence whether it’s legal or not. > [@](#): > > However, as the purity and strength of drugs are regulated, as well as their safety if medical studies prevail, then less people would end up in hospitals as a result of the effects of drugs. But the long-term effects won’t be any less damaging, which could be a health-care strain ultimately. In fact, higher purity might make the long-term problems more severe, more quickly. > [@](#): > > Overdose caused by an illicit drug that was either stronger than what the user expected or contained something other than what the user expected. Maybe that’s the cause of most overdoses (I bet you can’t offer a cite to back that up, though). Maybe. You can also just do too damn much. ---
**Author:** ![yola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/48db29/32.png) [@yola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yola)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/68 "2003-05-04T06:50:38Z")
Living in the USA in the Washington DC owned State of Alaska when indeed, the abundance good weed was legal. How many Americans can say they grew their own bud in the privacy of their own homes and a fucking PTA member could come over and enjoy an afternoon bong? With no fear of nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/69 "2003-05-04T14:44:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*From a post by robertliguori \* > \*\*…I’d like to hear a clear criteria for why some substances are unregulated, some are regulated, and some are illegal. \*\* I don’t think you will ever hear such a thing. Some substances are legal; some are outlawed. There’s no reason, logic, or sence behind which substance is in which column. And, among the outlawed substances, there’s no reason, logic, or sence behind the varying degrees of harshness of penalty for being caught with this or that substance. There’s no rational justification for continuing to outlaw marijuana. It’s plainly less harmful then alcohol. Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are both cocaine; there’s no rational justification for the disparity in penalties for possession or sale of one vs. the other. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/70 "2003-05-04T14:49:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lizard \* > \*\*Drugs _were_ legal once, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There are good reasons why they are illegal now. There is no “magic bullet” solution to the problem of drug abuse. \*\* But most of our drug laws were _not_ enacted for good reasons. They were enacted for very poor reasons. I recommend the book _Drug Crazy: How We Got Into this Mess & How We Can Get Out_ by Mike Gray, 2000, Routledge, New York. ---
**Author:** ![DadWagonDriver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@DadWagonDriver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DadWagonDriver)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/71 "2003-05-04T15:27:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FudgeNugget \* > \*\*Many things are far more fatal than any recreational drug. If you drink enough water really fast, you can kill yourself; do you want to regulate that? \*\* Oh, according to _Men’s Health_ March or April 2003, it would take about three gallons of water drank in less than three hours to kill someone. I’d like to see someone attempt this. You would vomit most of it up after about 3/4 of a gallon, I would assume. ---
**Author:** ![DadWagonDriver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@DadWagonDriver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DadWagonDriver)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/72 "2003-05-04T15:39:41Z")
Here’s why I believe that marijuana, if legalized, needs the same restrictions as alcohol: The Trickle-Down Effect. It is illegal for anyone under 21 years of age in the US to purchase, possess or consume alcohol. Does this mean that 18-20 year olds at college don’t drink? Of course not. Is the amount less than those that would drink if it was legal? Yes. You can say that high school students drink and have access to alcohol, but the amount is significantly lower than if it were to be legal. If the drinking age were reduced to 18, you would probably see more middle school kids drinking, which, IMO, is a very bad thing. Weed would need the same regualtion. There is no reason for a middle schooler to smoke. None. I don’t buy the “It’s my body” crap in this case. These people are not old enough to have a job in most cases, and would have no means of attaining the drug. ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/73 "2003-05-04T15:56:59Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by wmulax93_ > Weed would need the same regualtion. There is no reason for a middle schooler to smoke. None. I don’t buy the “It’s my body” crap in this case. I agree totally. **Fudgenugget** keeps talking about “free will”, but in this country (and in most other developed countries, I believe) we don’t give our kids free will. They cannot legally choose to drive a car, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or vote. There are good reasons for this, the main one being that they’re (hello!) is that they’re **children**! If you’ll think back to your childhood, I think you’d agree that a lot of shit that seemed like a good idea in childhood and adolescence were indeed very bad ideas! ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/74 "2003-05-04T16:00:33Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by me_ > the main one being that they’re (hello!) is that they’re children! Please forgive my horrendous grammar in this statement! I did preview, but just to make sure I got my coding right! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FudgeNugget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@FudgeNugget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FudgeNugget)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/75 "2003-05-04T17:33:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\*That’s your opinion, and I don’t really disagee. My comment was legal in nature, as liability issues like these are still being worked out. People are, you know, currently suing fast-food giants because of their obesity. \*\* I’m aware of that. The point of legalization of all drugs is to offer a better option over illegalization. It’s better for a drug manufacturing company to be sued for an irresponsible user for a stupid reason than a drug dealer finding a guy with a baseball bat leaning against the side of his car when he leaves his house. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That’s all well and good for psychological addiction, but there’s also physical addiction. Heroin withdrawal can be lethal. Psychological addiction - though I’ll ask a drug counselor - usually involves being unable to function normally without using the thing in question. If you’re having that problem with you’re computer, you’re in real trouble. And yes, even weed is addictive for many people in this manner. \*\* I’m well aware of physical addiction. If we have rehab centers now, and they work, who’s to say they won’t work a few years from now? As for weed, I’ve never heard or witnessed it being physicall addictive. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’ve never heard of a weed overdose either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a drug or not dangerous. Smoking too much, while not LETHAL - you can OD on something and not die - fucks you up pretty good. \*\* I never said it wasn’t a drug, or that it wasn’t dangerous. As for getting fucked up good, isn’t that the point? > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’ve read that studies show pot doesn’t mess you up regarding driving as much as alcohol, but it still messes with your motor skills and concentration. Seeing anybody who’s stoned try to do something should demonstrate that. \*\* I’m aware it messes your motor skills and concentration. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Equivalent in terms of what? I’ve never heard this argument about anything, so I’d like you to explain. \*\* Here’s a quote from [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/684328.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/684328.stm) : > [@](#): > > \*\* > Smoking three cannabis cigarettes a day is as dangerous as having a whole packet of standard cigarettes, say researchers. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > I think you’re overgeneralizing. Potheads _often_, not always, don’t smoke many joints at once, but I’ve known people who do more than that. But as far as ‘very often,’ you’re comparing cigarettes and weed, and they’re quite different. Regular use still has its effects. And plenty of smokers don’t do packs a day, many just smoke a couple of cigarettes. I think a few, as opposed to a pack or several packs, is more common. \*\* Yes, tobacco and weed are different, and both have effects. As for tobacco smokers, more often than not they smoke many cigarettes a day, more so than potheads do joints. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Not to answer for someone else, but I think the idea is that responsible use won’t necessarily increase due to legalization, and problems like the ones he illustrates won’t just go away. There’s not even a reason to think they’d go down. PCP users will still be predisposed to violence whether it’s legal or not. \*\* It won’t necessarily increase due to legalization. But I’d say a violent drunk is better than a violent drunk, a violent guy with a gun smuggling in alcohol, a violent guy with a gun channeling that alcohol around through illegal bars, more violent guys with guns controlling those bars, and the police trying to crack them all down (prohibition era). > [@](#): > > \*\* > But the long-term effects won’t be any less damaging, which could be a health-care strain ultimately. In fact, higher purity might make the long-term problems more severe, more quickly. \*\* How so? The idea of higher purity is so users don’t end up injecting bleach or something in themselves. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Maybe that’s the cause of most overdoses (I bet you can’t offer a cite to back that up, though). Maybe. You can also just do too damn much. \*\* [http://www.ysas.org.au/harm\_reduction/overdose\_prevention.html](http://www.ysas.org.au/harm_reduction/overdose_prevention.html) > [@](#): > > \*\* > You don’t have to take a lethal dose of drugs to die of an overdose – it only takes a tablespoon of saliva/vomit to build up and block your airway if you are on your back, temporarily unconscious and unable to swallow! > > This has been the cause of many overdose deaths. > > Causes of overdose > Usually overdose deaths are caused by people mixing sedative drugs such as: > Alcohol > Benzodiazepines (eg valium) > Methadone > Heroin > \*\* Yes, you can also do too damn much, which is why we need to have dosage levels indicated on packaging in order to prevent people from taking too damn much. You may argue that dosage levels are difficult to determine due to different effects on different people; I say that an average standard is better than no standard at all, no regulation of purity and strength, and no regulation of equipment. You may also argue tolerance; I say the same thing about average standards being determined for different levels of tolerance. You may also argue with stupid users trying to double or triple a maximum dose thinking it’ll just get them more messed up; those people will always be around anyway, and already are. ---
**Author:** ![FudgeNugget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@FudgeNugget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FudgeNugget)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/76 "2003-05-04T17:49:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wmulax93 \* > \*\*Here’s why I believe that marijuana, if legalized, needs the same restrictions as alcohol: The Trickle-Down Effect. It is illegal for anyone under 21 years of age in the US to purchase, possess or consume alcohol. Does this mean that 18-20 year olds at college don’t drink? Of course not. Is the amount less than those that would drink if it was legal? Yes. You can say that high school students drink and have access to alcohol, but the amount is significantly lower than if it were to be legal. If the drinking age were reduced to 18, you would probably see more middle school kids drinking, which, IMO, is a very bad thing. > > Weed would need the same regualtion. There is no reason for a middle schooler to smoke. None. I don’t buy the “It’s my body” crap in this case. These people are not old enough to have a job in most cases, and would have no means of attaining the drug. \*\* > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by norinew_**I agree totally. Fudgenugget keeps talking about “free will”, but in this country (and in most other developed countries, I believe) we don’t give our kids free will. They cannot legally choose to drive a car, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or vote. There are good reasons for this, the main one being that they’re (hello!) is that they’re children! If you’ll think back to your childhood, I think you’d agree that a lot of shit that seemed like a good idea in childhood and adolescence were indeed very bad ideas!** You both make good points. Most kids don’t have jobs and aren’t able to support a drug habit, so thats a good argument. I take back my suggestion to make drugs available to everyone. But what about parents who give their kids drugs? What would happen there? ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/77 "2003-05-04T18:18:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\*That’s your opinion, and I don’t really disagee. My comment was legal in nature, as liability issues like these are still being worked out. People are, you know, currently suing fast-food giants because of their obesity. \*\* So? Is your point that we shouldn’t legalize drugs because someone might sue the manufacturer? Should we make hamburgers illegal since McDonalds get sued? > [@](#): > > **That’s all well and good for psychological addiction, but there’s also physical addiction. Heroin withdrawal can be lethal.** And yet, it’s still considered much less dangerous than alcohol withdrawal: [http://www.drugwarfacts.org/heroin.pdf](http://www.drugwarfacts.org/heroin.pdf) > [@](#): > > \*\*Psychological addiction - though I’ll ask a drug counselor - usually involves being unable to function normally without using the thing in question. If you’re having that problem with you’re computer, you’re in real trouble. And yes, even weed is addictive for many people in this manner. > I’ve never heard of a weed overdose either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a drug or not dangerous. Smoking too much, while not LETHAL - you can OD on something and not die - fucks you up pretty good. \*\* Weed is a drug. So is alcohol. And nicotine. And caffeine. Marijuana might be safer than all of these. > [@](#): > > **I’ve read that studies show pot doesn’t mess you up regarding driving as much as alcohol, but it still messes with your motor skills and concentration. Seeing anybody who’s stoned try to do something should demonstrate that.** Yes, driving whil high is probably a bad idea. That’s why it’s illegal. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Not to answer for someone else, but I think the idea is that responsible use won’t necessarily increase due to legalization, and problems like the ones he illustrates won’t just go away. There’s not even a reason to think they’d go down. PCP users will still be predisposed to violence whether it’s legal or not.\*\* PCP & violence: [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/pcpviol.htm](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/pcpviol.htm) [http://reason.com/sullum/010303.shtml](http://reason.com/sullum/010303.shtml) [http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/pcp2.htm](http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/pcp2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/78 "2003-05-04T20:33:58Z")
> [@](#): > > So? Is your point that we shouldn’t legalize drugs because someone might sue the manufacturer? Should we make hamburgers illegal since McDonalds get sued? Not at all. I’ll try this a third time: FudgeNugget says that when an addict misuses or ODs on drugs, it’s his own fault. Another poster mentioned that companies might be reluctant to sell drugs because they could be blamed for overdoses and such. FudgeNugget reiterated the same position, and I was attempting to say that it’s possible the original poster of that argument could be right. I’m NOT giving my personal opinion on this topic; I think people who get fat and suffer from eating burgers are basically the only ones to blame. I’m saying that the issue seems to be up in the air legally. > [@](#): > > And yet, it’s still considered much less dangerous than alcohol withdrawal. Interesting, and I’d never heard that before. Wish they explained why and how. > [@](#): > > Weed is a drug. So is alcohol. And nicotine. And caffeine. Marijuana might be safer than all of these. I agree. > [@](#): > > Yes, driving whil high is probably a bad idea. That’s why it’s illegal. I know that. I was responding to something FudgeNugget said earlier. Interesting about the PCP. I picked a wrong example, then. I was concurring with a point made by miiikkkeee about problems relating to drug abuse not stopping just because the drugs were legal, and I stand by that. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/79 "2003-05-04T21:09:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wmulax93 \* > \*\*Here’s why I believe that marijuana, if legalized, needs the same restrictions as alcohol: The Trickle-Down Effect. It is illegal for anyone under 21 years of age in the US to purchase, possess or consume alcohol. Does this mean that 18-20 year olds at college don’t drink? Of course not. Is the amount less than those that would drink if it was legal? Yes. You can say that high school students drink and have access to alcohol, but the amount is significantly lower than if it were to be legal. If the drinking age were reduced to 18, you would probably see more middle school kids drinking, which, IMO, is a very bad thing. > > Weed would need the same regualtion. There is no reason for a middle schooler to smoke. None. I don’t buy the “It’s my body” crap in this case. These people are not old enough to have a job in most cases, and would have no means of attaining the drug. \*\* I think most who favor legalizing marijuana take this for granted. If legalized, of course it would be regulated. The point is that it’s totally incorrect (idiotic, really) to put marijuana in the same catagory as heroin, cocaine, meth, PCP, etc. Marijuana belongs in the same catagory as alcohol and tobacco. It should be handled as they are handled. This would include no sales to minors. I do favor a complete end to the drug war. I believe that more harm results from the illegality of drugs then from the drugs themselves. I want to legalize marijuana, hash, and the hallucinigins and treat them as we do alcohol and tobacco. I want to decriminalize the hard drugs. Educate people _truthfully_ about the risks. Make treatment available for all who want it. And throw the book at people who drive or operate heavy machinery while impaired, regardless of the substance used. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781/80 "2003-05-04T21:56:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > **Not at all. I’ll try this a third time: FudgeNugget says that when an addict misuses or ODs on drugs, it’s his own fault. Another poster mentioned that companies might be reluctant to sell drugs because they could be blamed for overdoses and such. FudgeNugget reiterated the same position, and I was attempting to say that it’s possible the original poster of that argument could be right.** Oh. I say we let the companies decide on whether they’ll take the risk. And while they may be sued, they won’t necessarly lose the lawsuit. We’re at a time where companies know how to cover their asses when it comes to warning. There are companies out there now making & selling “research chemicals”. I’m sure if all drugs were legal, someone would jump into this lucrative business. > [@](#): > > \*\*Interesting about the PCP. \*\* Yeah. When discussing the War On Drugs, it really pays to just dump any assumptions you have. I know I keep getting surprised when I take a closer look at things. The WoD propaganda has been very effective. > [@](#): > > \*\*I picked a wrong example, then. I was concurring with a point made by miiikkkeee about problems relating to drug abuse not stopping just because the drugs were legal, and I stand by that. \*\* I agree that drug abuse won’t disappear. But legalizing & controlling drug use/sales will alleviate a lot of the problems surrounding the abuse. Pure, inexpensive drugs would make any addiction much more manageable (it is possible to lead a productive life while, say, addicted to heroin). There will be fewer accidental deaths. The violence surrounding black market she drop. Without the demonizing of drugs & drug users, you’d think it would be easier to spot problems & treat problems (treat it like a health problem instead of a criminal problem). And that’s ignoring the moral question of whether the government has any right to be my nanny. And if they do, they are sure doing a lousy job of it when marijuana is strictly forbidden while alcohol & tobacco is freely available. I certainly have no problems with some restricitons on use. No sales to minors. Maybe force people to educate themsleves before they’re issued some sort of drug license. At the very least they should decriminalize the safer drugs. There’s absolutely no reason pot should be outlawed. And you don’t get much abuse of the psychedelic type drugs. Barbituates, opiates & amphetamines are more prone to abuse, so I understand being more careful with those. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalization-of-all-drugs-not-just-marijuana/172781.md?page=5)