Legalization of ALL drugs, not just marijuana

Not me, personally, but some folks might be more inclined to try it if it were offered to them if they have the assurance that it’s not going to land them in jail, and that it’s a “Certified FDA Approved” product that’s not going to kill them. Fear, though at times unfounded, does keep a lot of people away from “hard drugs.” In a consequence-free environment, a lot of folks may think “Why * not * try it?” if the opprotunity arises.

After all, people don’t just wake up one morning and decide to go out and buy some drugs. Drug use is generally introduced through one’s peers. If none of your friends or acquaintances smoke pot, likely you won’t either. You won’t have a “source” for one thing, and a lot of people don’t like to experiment alone.

To reduce those types of problems what about severely restricting advertising for drugs? No huge billboards with cartoonish characters like “Joe Pothead” or the Heroin Frogs to entice people to buy anything they otherwise wouldn’t. Make it discreet, yet still available. Require it to be hidden behind the counter, out of plain view.

I think that might do something to curb impulse buying.

I have a question that may be relevant. I was reading an article today titled Parents protest Swiss Cannabis Decriminilization and in part of the article they state:

I can’t seem to find any info on needle park in zurich or the liberal herion policy they are talking about. I do a search and it brings up a movie called Terror in Needle Park based in NY, NY.

Anyone know anything about this? A real world example of the effects of a liberal heroin policy would be important to this debate.

Okay, after more searching I did find some info but it’s all from heavily biased sources such as the DEA website. Until someone can give detailed info this is what happened.

In the 80’s they made available a park in Zurich to legally use drugs. A group of about 200 people quickly turned into 20,000 and the conditions got very bad very quickly.

The only statistic that I could find was that they treated approx. 45 overdoses a day. They mention crime going up and disease spreading without any figures to go with it.

I don’t think it would make a difference.

Let’s use cigarette advertising as an example. I can’t imagine that anyone has ever started smoking based on seeing an ad. People usually begin smoking because their friends do, and on one fateful day, accept the cigarette which is offered to them. The ads may convince them to switch brands, but won’t induce them to pick up the habit in of themselves.

Likewise with, say, heroin, I can’t imagine that seeing an ad for Smucker’s Smack would make anyone decide to pick up a bag. It would more likely begin with a friend at a party who offers a hit.

Maybe if I was like 80 and any health risks would be of no concern. Right now, no.

Do you think continuing our education of drug war propaganda would work to deter the majority of the population from causing more drug problems? In my school, most of the drugless treat pot as if it were heroin or crack; “you’re gonna die with a bazillion wires hooked up to you”, “you’re gonna overdose”, “you’re slowly killing yourself”, etc…and none of this is based on anything, not even the drug war propaganda. Seems effective.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

The Declaration of Independence


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The United States Constitution


After 227 years, the United States is much closer, but still a long way from it’s Ideal.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE is very clear. We…You and I… ALL MEN (as in ALL HUMANS, and not just Americans) have the unalienable right to do what makes us happy as long as we don’t deprive another person of their rights. This is a Truth, this is Nature’s law, this is God’s law.

This includes the right to use drugs.
AMMENDMENT I speaks directly to establishing Religion through Laws that attempt enforce “morals”. These laws violate the unalienable rights of all people. These laws are destined to fail.

Morals are behaviors that do not violate the rights of others, they only violate a religious (moral) doctrine. Morals vary between religions, they vary within religions. Morals have no place in Government, they are Religion. Even Jesus said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”

If you look at the results of prohibiting vices (enforcing morality), you will find that the cost to society is so much greater than the actual damages done by the vices themselves. Most of the examples that are given as the consequences of vices are actually the consequences of the prohibition of the vice.

Good examples of this are Gambling, Prohibition (of alcohol) and Prostitution ( in Nevada Counties). They were illegal, now they are legal. They were serious problems for society when they were illegal, now they are a major source of Revenue. Yes there are some problems, but they are generally minor and under control and equivalent to other problems facing society. (e.g. Cell phone users and sleepy drivers have comparable accident rates as DUI drivers.)
AMMENDMENT IX speaks directly to the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence.

I submit that the Supreme Court should find any law that violates a person’s Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness to be Unconstitutional, (I need a better word than Unconstitutional.) no matter what the Constitution says. It is the duty of the Government to secure these unalienable rights for the people. The Constitution was incorporated to regulate our Government and secure these rights. It is the duty of The Supreme Court to regulate the laws our Government enforces, even if the Government attempts to Constitutionally circumvent these rights.

A dictatorship of the majority is still a dictatorship. Tyranny is Tyranny even if it is a Democratic Tyranny. Ask any minority member whether this is true. (Think “Jim Crow”.) To fine or incarcerate a drug user simply because he uses a drug violates his unalienable rights. You don’t punish many innocent people because you are afraid that one person will commit an real crime.

In terms of “The Drug Problem”: The actual drug problems will not worsen if drugs are legalized. Actual drug problems are similar to the problems of abuse of alcohol, tobacco, gambling, sex, guns, automobiles, inhalants, power and so on. The key word is abuse.

Contrary to the drug paranoia encouraged by politicians, the actual drug problems are similar to alcohol problems in that they affect only a very small portion of the population. The “average” drug user is no more a danger to society or to you than the “average” alcohol user, or the “average” cell phone user.

Just today I was reading in the newspaper about how the war on drugs is feeding insurgency and anti-American backlash in Bolivia. The same thing is happening in most of South America. (Does it surprise you that in South America, cocaine use is not a problem? Maybe the real problem is prohibition.)

If we repeal the prohibition on drugs, the major difference is that we will no longer be forced to suffer “The Prohibition Problem”. The Prohibition Problem includes: Neighborhoods under attack, turf wars, killings, crossfire, innocent victims, police death and injury, accidental overdoses, the spread of diseases, imprisonment, lost revenue, lost taxes, money for enforcement, money for gangs, money for drug cartels, money for terrorists.

I submit that instead of Prohibiting drugs, we need to Regulate drugs. Sell them only in liquor/drug stores. Require labeling of potency, overdose potential – LD 50 (dose at which 50% of users will die), addiction potential, addiction/overdose hot-line number, side effects, health risks, withdrawal symptoms, withdrawal risks, potential risks to society. In short, whatever information is necessary for a responsible adult to make an informed decision on whether to use a particular drug.

Eliminate the Millions of dollars wasted on the war on drugs. Redirect the Billions of dollars of drug money from the criminals and terrorists to U.S. farmers and corporations and to the U.S. economy. Our economy needs the money.

Tax drugs. Use the tax money for health and addiction treatment centers.

Prohibit public intoxication. Prohibit drug advertising except in the liquor/drug stores. Make it clear that if you choose to use drugs, you are expected to use drugs responsibly, that we will hold you responsible if you do not, but that we will help you if you need help.

If we end prohibition on drugs we will not only eliminate many of the drug problems, but more importantly, we will eliminate all of the drug prohibition problems.
But that’s just my opinion.

If anything, I think anti-drug propaganda has made informed people extremely cynical about the government’s efforts to keep people off of drugs. Anyone who has ever smoked pot (and many who haven’t) is either highly amused or angered by the “It’s More Dangerous Than We Thought” ads and those who likened pot users to terrorists. Though, I’ll admit that I’m glad they’re wasting their money on expensive air-time slots rather than using it to hunt down and prosecute kids who are caught with a joint. (Though, I’m sure that money will never be a problem for them.)

I have no solution. I’m just one of those dour folks who sit back and poke holes in others’. I know that our current system of dealing with drugs in society is a complete failure, but I don’t think that complete legalization and free sale of “hard drugs” will be positive for society.

Honestly, * Fudge, * if you look up those pot-will-kill-you people in their Junior year at college, you’ll find a great many have changed that point of view.

Why not try drug legalization in one small “test state” just to see what happens?

Give it a couple years. If it doesn’t work, that’ll be ammunition for the drug warriors to keep up their drug war. If it does work, other states might think about changing their laws.

Anti-drug propaganda has made informed people extremely cynical about the government’s effort to keep people off drugs. I too am highly amused/angered by the ads, health videos, commercials, etc. And what about the uninformed? Seems like they’re the majority.

I’m a freshman in high school. I await the day you speak of.

Wouldn’t every druggie and person who’d like to use drugs flock to that state?

And if you’re talking about the laws I want to impose, wouldn’t every dealer in the US come to the state, buy some drugs, and sell them across the US?

What state would this be?

Blalron- are you volunteering your state? I know i would not want it to be here. Lord knows Arkansas has enough problems without adding legalized drugs to the heady mix of religion and guns.

perhaps the Libertarians can give it a try after they take over Idaho? :slight_smile:

I’ll volunteer my state!

Sadly, the uninformed are a majority in every issue. People have often loud, firm opinions, but they’re sometimes based on little research into it.

Once you get to college, a whole new world will open. You will be exposed to new ideas. If you go in with an open mind, you’ll find that a lot of your perceptions are completely changed. It’s an entirely new realm of experience. The mere fact that you’ll be exposed to so many different viewpoints can be enriching.

Some people find college extremely frustrating because many professors can be harsh with those who voice opinions but have nothing to back them up. You’ll most likely be subject to stringent criticism at one point, yourself, for a view that you hold. Instead of reacting with hostility as many do, I hope that you’ll take it as an opprotunity for growth, debate, and exploring new ideas. You may not change your mind, but you’ll learn all about the point of view of “the other side,” which can be very useful.

It’s inflexible people who find college the most difficult. Some of your peers will have a lot of trouble with adapting to academic life. For some, the education system has not prepared them to actually * think * on their own, but only to regurgitate memorized data on command.

Back to the propaganda issue, there are many excellent books on the subject. It’s not just in the realm of the drug “war,” after all, but all around us. Some folks are more succeptible than others. (Me? I’m a skeptic. If you tell me the sky is blue, I’m calling NOAA to confirm.) Our academic system does not encouage people to question what is set before them as “fact.” On the contrary, it actively discourages it. If you’d like, I could recommend a few books on the subject.

My how far this thread has travelled!

"THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE is very clear. We…You and I… ALL MEN (as in ALL HUMANS, and not just Americans) have the unalienable right to do what makes us happy as long as we don’t deprive another person of their rights. This is a Truth, this is Nature’s law, this is God’s law.

This includes the right to use drugs."

Bt does it inclde the right to sell drugs? Isn’t selling crack to someone depriing the of their right to a healthy happy life?

I was about to lay into David Weman, cdw about this before i saw that it was a quote attributed to ronbo. what the heck? since when has the Declaration of Independence had any legal standing? it’s a rhetorical document, meant to convey the strong emotions of a people in rebellion, as well as convey a rough idea as to why they rebel. these reasons are couched in the most noble sounding prose they could find. what the Founders wrote, what they believed, and what they advocated for our own system of laws were all very different things. you can use the DoI to advocate the freedom to just about anything- from marxism to libertarianism, from race supremacy to unregulated firearm possession.
as for your other point, religion =! morals. though there is not one particular faith in the US, there are definitely civic virtues that are upheld. civil society has values, whether religiously or practically derived.

anywat, that said, i don’t totally diagree with the rest of that post…though i am still anti-crack, cocaine, heroine. of course, i’m biased- i’m a parent.

David:

I suppose locking somebody up for 20 years for using or selling crack does not deprive someone of their right to a healthy happy life. And why lock we lock them up? For paranoia. That some person might possibly maybe become an addict. On the other hand, if George Bush had been caught and prosecuted…:wink:

The vast majority of people will not become crack addicts. Most of those that do, do not wish to be addicts and are open to if not begging for help. If it weren’t a crime. We are incarcerating a thousand people so that one won’t become an addict.

Crack addiction can be treated, a child’s death due to drug crossfire cannot.

The Following quotes were Originally posted by Stonebow

That is why America is still a long way from its ideals. As I said, The Ninth Ammendment refers to these rights.

The idealists of the founding fathers compromised in order to create a government that included politicians and bigots. That does not mean that we do not pursue our ideals.

Yes many misquided people conveniently forget that these are rights of ALL people…including capitalists, minorities, and people that don’t want to get blown away by an AK-47.

The answer is not to criminalize the Pursuit Of Happiness, it is to find a comprise that even allows the unpopular POH. Find the safest possible way to allow even these pursuits. That is what the government and the courts should have as their goal. Criminalizing POH only backfires and makes the world more dangerous.

I read where a drug delivery gang was busted. They delivered drugs to peoples homes. Isn’t that acutally an answer? Only Licensed dealers are allowed to transport drugs to peoples homes. Only if you leave the house intoxicated or with drugs, will you be prosecuted.

Tyranny of the Civic Values is still Tyranny. I’m sorry but your Civic Values are not mine. This is my Civic Value: Do Unto Others as you wish them to do unto you. Allow me my pursuit of happiness and I will not only allow you yours, I will even consider modifing my POH so that we can both enjoy liberty and freedom.

Thank you for your agreement.

There is a difference between being anti-something, and punishing people just because they disagree with you or your unjust laws. Remember the unjust laws against coloreds?
Just because it is a law does not make it right. Even the Supreme Court has reversed itself.

I am also biased, I am also a parent. I trust my children to make the right decisions. I do not want my children to be the innocent victim of a drug crime. Crack addiction can be treated, death in drug crossfire cannot.

Druggies are going to find drugs. Even your own children will find drugs if they choose to. Even if drugs are illegal. You cannot ban all paints and solvents, and frankly they are so much more deadly than crack. How many brain damaged children are there because crack was not available?

The ideals stated in the DOI are a natural law. Even a small assault on Liberties results in major problems for society.
Peace and Freedom

ronbo

What about parties? Some people only use drugs in social situations. How long would visitors have to wait before being able to leave?

How would we judge intoxication? We’d have to have an exact standard, which would be extremely difficult since drugs affect long-time users differently than “newbies.” It takes less for a first time user to get high than someone who has been using for years. So, blood content wouldn’t be a good standard. What would?

Good Questions.
The answers are simple. Whatever goes for alcohol goes for other drugs. Contrary to government propaganda, distilled alcohol and cigarettes fall near the top of the “drugs that are bad for you list”. In terms of health consequences and addiction potential and withdrawal dangers, alcohol and cigarettes are right up there. The minor differences between alcohol, cigarettes and the other “hard drugs” do not equate to prison or even a fine.

Forget blood levels and breathalizers, we have always had sobriety tests. Now we have video cameras. Let the judge decide.

Your comment about the “newbies” brings up the fallacies of breathalizers and blood tests. An alcoholic with a .08 blood level is probably a safer driver than a sleepy driver or cell phone user.