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.
Well, people have been know to sniff glue to get high, so there seems to be a “desire” to do so after all, as a substitute for unavailable drugs, at least.
Yes, but robertliguori was talking specifically about common household substances which “far more fatal than any recreational drug” (his exact words). Certain glues can be intoxicating, but they are not more toxic than cocaine, heroine or meth. Hence, the mention of glue really isn’t relevant to the topic at hand.
**
Yes, he does. I believe he charges about ten dollars a jug, but don’t quote me on that. Word 'round the campfire is that the stuff is brutal. Taste-tests from folk I know have compared it to a refreshing mix of turpentine and rubbing alcohol, with a curious hint of gasoline. Nevertheless, he enjoys brisk sales.
**
Heroin and cocaine aren’t something you can usually whip up in the kitchen. There’s a somewhat complicated manufacturing process that would exclude most users from producing their own.
I do wonder about, excuse the pun, force of habit. I always buy my shoes at Mike’s Shoe Emporium. Likewise, I wonder about the long-term relationships between dealers and their customers. Would someone who has always bought from Joe want to continue to do so because he knows Joe supplies a quality product?
**
I’ve never heard of a death ruled as an accidental ingetstion of too many cheeseburgers. Over the long term, yes, they can be harmful to your health, but drugs can do more damage more quickly.
Where do you draw the line? Does the fact that some people eat excess fast food justify regulating/banning it?
How are we judging people’s desire to take a certain substance, anyway? I mean, it seems to me that more people desire alcohol than heroin, and that’s legal.
Actually, I’d like to hear a clear criteria for why some substances are unregulated, some are regulated, and some are illegal.
I don’t recall hearing of any successful lawsuits against the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages when people overdose on it. I could go spend $30 on some booze, drink it all, and almost certainly die of alcohol poisoning right now if I like. If I did that, I doubt my family would have much luck suing the distiller of Everclear. Consider also that the lethal dose of alcohol is not much bigger than what your average alcoholic might consume on a Friday night - I’ve almost certainly had a BAC of over .3% before, and .5% can kill you. But someone who might normally snort 1/10 of a gram of cocaine to get high could probably do ten times that amount with little risk of permanent harm (unless they had a heart condition).
I don’t see how legalized drug overdoses could be treated differently legally than alcohol overdoses. It is not the responsibility of the manufacturer to make sure you don’t poison yourself with their products, as long as they warn you that they are potentially harmful (and with alcohol they don’t have to do that, even - the bottle might warn you not to use heavy machinery or drink when pregnant, but it doesn’t tell you that if you drink it all at once you might die).
Mostly having to do with racism.
Although its difficult for kids to get beer and cigarettes, they’re still able to get it. All you need is to know a friend who’s over 18 that’s willing to get them for you, or if your parents have a couple of bottles or packs lying around, locked up or not, kids will be able to get to them.
But if that’s less common in the US than I think it is, then it could be safer to have age restrictions.
If the drug-manufacturing companies produce enough, it would be extremely cheap, maybe 5 dollars for a gram of pot? Illegally it would cost 20 dollars now; in the future, people who grow that at home have to spend the time and money to have enough to make any sort of good profit, and by the time those vendors have enough to compete with huge companies that grow acres and acres, they’d be a company themselves. And even though there will always be a black market, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad if all drugs were legalized.
The dosage you’re allowed to purchase, as I said, wouldn’t be controlled, because the packaging would already contain information on the different dosage levels. If a heavy addict who’s already taking near-overdose levels according to that information on the package, and he wants more than his body can handle, then I say he’s an idiot.
The amount of dosages labeled would be the truth, no sugar-coating or safety nonsense to mislead users into thinking they can triple or quadruple the maximum amount (overdose) to get high. No more lying with this recommended dosage crap, I’ve known people who take 8 pills instead of 2, and they’re still alive; we have to list ALL dosage levels.
Says who, not enough people use hard drugs?
Not necessarily research for medicinal use, but medicinal research in order to make the drugs safer to use.
If people decide to take drugs when they’re legalized, and get messed up because of them, then its no fault of the company, its the fault of the user. If a guy wants to kill himself through getting an OD or cancer or whatever side effect, that’s his choice, but preferably let him make that choice without throwing a brick through my window and grabbing all the money in sight to do it.
We’ll have to figure out some way to set an averaged standard, but I’ve said before that this wouldn’t be a very good idea since people would ignore the recommended dosage and double/triple it, under the impression that it’ll give them a better high.
I suppose we could find a way to figure out how much you can take at each level of tolerance.
**
There are also driving-related deaths where THC (active ingredient in marijuana) is found in the victim. If alcohol were illegal, there would still be drunk driving related deaths. This sort of thing will always be around, but rules could be enforced to prevent driving under the influence of other substances; for instance, instead of just a breathalyzer test, we could have other on-the-spot testing for other substances.
In my experience, kids find things they’re not supposed to do, all the more appealing to do; if you tell a kid not to go into a certain room in the house, he’ll get there eventually because of his natural curiousity as to what’s in there. Curiousity, and all that rebellious-teenager stuff would prevail if drugs remained illegal.
Remember, the choice to do drugs is up to the user. If a kid wants to do drugs during school, and knows it’ll mess him up, then its HIS FAULT that he’s going to fail the class. If something like LSD makes you more creative in art class, the kid would still have to consider how long the effects last into other classes. It’s all their choices, and as you said, its not that hard to hide drinking or smoking in schools. If you know the kid is high on crack, and he comes to class bouncing off walls and stuff, the teacher would have a much easier time saying “go down to the detox room, you’re disrupting the class” or whatever, instead of trying to tolerate it as simply a sign of hyperactivity or too much coffee in the morning.
As for cutting class, that would still be penalized. School days would go normally, there would be no cutting allowed to do drugs halfway through the class. I suppose students could do it in the special rooms before/after school, or between classes in the special rooms if there’s enough time. But there should be a way to prevent kids from getting high in the bathroom after asking to go.
I’m well aware of addiction. As I’ve said before, the choice of using drugs is UP TO THE USER. If he gets addicted, if he ruins his life, if he wants to go to school craving his next fix instead of concentrating on his work, then that is HIS CHOICE. And as I said, its preferable for them to do it without illegal activity to get his next fix, and done within everyone’s knowledge so he gets the help he needs in case things start going wrong.
Some people feel marijuana makes you more creative. Hallucinogens like Ecstasy and LSD are generally said to create something like religious experiences, stimulants like speed make you feel on top of the world, etc., so it does have a positive effect on some people. As for the addiction thing, I’ve already stated my point about user’s choice.
If users did drugs within everyone’s knowledge, those problems would be easier to identify and easier to get help for, instead of having, for example, the parents finding out 3 years after their child started.
Hey, there’s a point! Why haven’t Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jumped on this bandwagon? Legalize crack and heroin! We don’t want to deny blacks (or any other non-whites) their good time!
:rolleyes:
I’ve already stated my point about free choice. It would reduce crime because drugs would generally be MUCH, MUCH LESS expensive than if they were illegal; think about it, its a lot more difficult to come up with 100 dollars for a wrap of speed than 10 for a pound (or however much it costs for however much it is). Even if an addict has to resort to robbery to pay, it certainly wouldn’t be as common if drugs were legal.
Less illegal activity would occur if substances were legally sold. True, plenty of kids are law-abiding. I doubt they’d turn to drugs if they’re legalized, because the law isn’t the only factor as to why they’re not doing drugs, they’ve also considered all the bad side effects and long term health issues that come with drugs. Those who do buy drugs will be subject to all its effects, so its their fault if they do it. Keep in mind, free choice.
How would society be paying for addiction treatment? We already have rehabilitation programs, so that takes care of that. I said it would save society money because we’d clear up A LOT of room in prisons for more serious offenders.
There would be disclaimers stating that you can’t blame the manufacterer for bad effects caused by the drugs.
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?
The history of the drug war in the United States is a pretty interesting one. The “good” reasons they are illegal now involve a lot of hyperbole on the part Anslinger and others.
**
While a lot of the earlier drug laws were especially designed to hit minority groups I think there’s a lot more to it then that. Drug laws didn’t stop at those that hit minorities they went on to encompass some of the most popular drugs consumed by white women. Opium in edible or drinkable form for example.
Marc
Then lets make them more available so we don’t have to have people using glue and other household products much stronger than the drugs they’re trying to substitute.
True. I was thinking mostly marijuana/heroin/cocaine. (But I did qualify it by using “mostly” 
.) My real point is that just saying that there were “good reasons” doesn’t make it so.
Prohibition has done far more harm than good.
I don’t think this issue is settled, given the lawsuits against tobacco where the companies are being blamed (among other things) for the long-term results of their product. You can use these drugs within whatever ‘recommended dosage’ and still have the side-effects. And as another poster said earlier, it wouldn’t necessarily solve drug-related crime.
I don’t think this is that scientific. These things affect different people in different ways to begin with. At best, you might come up with general guidelines - and then probably get sued when someone died from following them. Tolerance isn’t a mathematical function, and even if it was, it would still increase - which leads almost inevitably to crime or OD, and would likely cause problems for the sellers.
Like I said, I understand the logic. I asked for some factual support. Do you have any? I know guys under 21 who drink way too much, but I know people of legal age who behave just as stupidly.
Being high doesn’t count as a positive effect of drugs, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Doesn’t mean they actually help anybody, given the (often immense) long-term harm.
How would this prevent that from happening? Sounds like it would just move it to a different room. 
Maybe I misunderstood the school idea, I don’t know. It sounded to me like you were proposing a room on the premises where kids could just go and do drugs.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s going to be with everyone’s knowledge. Porn is legal, but people don’t use it “with everyone’s knowledge.”