Legalize drugs

Great Debates
1

I think it’s time for all Americans to join together for the purpose of cementing our rights once and for all. I call for the legalization of drugs, the release of drug offenders from jails, and the end of the drug war fought on foreign soil.

Legalize all drugs. I admit that crack and meth are in all likelihood really really bad for you. So is tobacco, so are french fries, so is not cleaning up dog poo. OK, so it’s bad for you. My contention is that it’s nobody’s business but my own whether I choose to get high. It was once against the law to do all kinds of things that are now legal, so I don’t think the “It’s illegal cause it’s bad, and it SHOULD be illegal!” argument holds much water. I know it’s probably really really bad for you. But why is that YOUR problem, or anyone else’s for that matter?

Let’s get the potheads out of jail. We’re footing the bill for these guys to go to Crime Grad School and branding them as evil when all they did was smoke a joint or do a couple of lines.

I do want to say that anyone convicted of crimes other than possession/use should not be included in the above. DUI should still be strictly enforced, since that suddenly becomes everybody’s problem, not just the guy drinking/smokin/shooting.

BUT, the people who are currently in jail for nothing more than using drugs should be out on the streets working at the 7-11 or the law firm or wherever they were before.

Last but not least, let’s end the drug war on foreign soil. I agree with Chomsky on this, that it’s really nothing more than an attempt at US imperialism on other nations.

How to distribute drugs legally? Just like you would distribute alcohol. Be 21 and you can buy whatever you want from the corner liquor store. Since it wouldn’t have to be smuggled across the border in balloons by illegal immigrants and all that baloney, I’m pretty sure it could be grown domestically by farmers for a pittance. It’d probably be really really cheap.

Don’t tax it. Keep it cheap enough to eliminate the black market, and thus a MAJOR money supply for organized crime.

So, with one stroke of the pen, we reduce crowding in jails, decrease federal spending, eliminate all the trouble the Coast Guard has to go to, choke the money supply for the local gangbangers, and ensure that you can put that goofy look back on your face as much as you want.

What do you think?

2

Your proposal is entirely sensible and eminently reasonable. Any politician in the country would rather nail his pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire than be the “legalize drugs” candidate. Might as well run on the “stuff all the kittens into blenders” ticket.

America drinks. The cars wrap around trees, the wheel chair industry booms, the emergency rooms are full of tired, haggard people. America orders another one, then drives home. Lay out all the evidence for them, cirhossis of the liver, wrecked marriages, ruined childhoods…they’ll pop open another brewski and tell you drugs are bad.

If you were to rack up every death from drug use of any other kind, from Australian toad lickers to heroin, you’d have to multiply by exponents to get to the level of deaths directly attributable to booze.

Your proposal is perfectly intelligent. It is doomed.

3

You realize, of course, elucidator, that your argument could be used for prohibition purposes.

Then again, look at how bad that turned out.

4

My argument could be twisted that way, perhaps. I have zero faith in prohibition of any kind like that. Monkeys will mess with the chemicals in their brains. Sometimes thats good, sometimes its bad, mostly its not much of anything.

5

So you are against the banning of assault weapons?

6

Moderator’s Note: I edited the title of this thread just to make it clear what the “it” that should be legalized is.

7

Of course not! Guns don’t kill people. Bullets kill people.

8

Yeah. Let’s ban guns, and make all voting electonic, and let’s get rid of books, too.

9

That’s a pretty big leap there, Scientologist. We might as well say that you would advocate the legalization of armed robbery. (I know you probably wouldn’t, but still.)

10

With your one pen stroke, by legalizing drugs, you suddenly eliminate thousands of governmental jobs and millions, if not billions, of government dollars. You think Asa Hutchinson and John Walters, who have control over $180 million worth of anti-drug commercials per year, are going to stand by and let their jobs be taken away? Think about that… $180 million per year, ON COMMERCIALS. The war on drugs is a multi-billion dollar industry for the government. Not to mention the Pharmaceutical and Alcohol PAC’s, who also each make billions by drug (mainly marijuana) prohibition. If marijuana was legal, it’d still probably be cheaper to grow your own than to pay the taxes the government will pour on it (Imagine if every cigarette smoker could grow and process, for $100 in his own house, enough PRIME QUALITY tobacco to smoke for a year. Would he pay $5/pack for it?) The politicians currently have this country by the balls, and they’re gonna hold on with all of their might. I agree wholeheartedly with the legalization issue, but it’ll be a tough fight.

11

You make it sound like the government makes a profit on the War on Drugs. They don’t.
If I were spending billions each year on making dohickeys, and I wasn’t ever making a profit, I’d leave the business. 'Course, the government isn’t as smart as me. :slight_smile:

Cite, please? I guess that your argument is that if pot were legal, people would use less alcohol and/or pharmaceuticals. That may seem intuitive, but I personally doubt it would be true - it didn’t appear to me that myself and my college pothead friends drank less beer than the norm. In fact, we probably drank more.
In any event, if pot were legalized, who do you think would be in the best position to profit? The alcohol and pharma industries (as well as the tobacco industry). They have the marketing techniques (“for all you do, this joint’s for you!”), the brand recognition, and manufacturing techniques down cold. Given that alcohol and tobacco are mature or declining industries, Miller Brewing Co. and Phillip-Morris would probably love to get their hands on pot, as a new profit source.

Absurd argument. A huge number of (legal) consumer products could be produced by consumers at home, at huge savings. People could save thousands of dollars a year with a decent-sized vegetable garden. I personally could save thousands if I cooked at home more and ate out less.

But consumers, in the main, would rather purchase such goods than produce them. And for sound economic reasons: they value their time more than money, and they seek quality and predictability of quality in the products they use/consume.

Sure, a pothead could grow pot for less money than they spend buying it from either a dealer (illegally) or from Anheuser-Busch (legally). And some will do so. But the large majority would (1)rather not invest the time necessary to learn how to grow pot and to purchase the necessary implements, (2) wait two months to get high while the pot is growing, or (3) take the gamble that they’ve done everything correctly and the resultant pot will give them a good buzz.
They’d rather have hydroponically-grown, cloned Maui Wowie available to them down at the corner store whenever they want it, even if they have to pay more. Face it, some people brew their own beer, and save some bucks. But most people don’t - and having sampled some people’s efforts at home-brewed beer, I don’t blame them.

Again with the implication that politicians have an ulterior motive (besides fear of their constituents or personal belief) for their support for the War on Drugs. Given your emphasis, I think you think that politicians personall profit from the War. Cite, please?

I am avidly in favor of legalization of all drugs. I have written huge amounts of words on the subject in this forum, so don’t take me as being opposed to you on this issue. I’m just saying that your arguments in favor of legalization are bad ones, and they aren’t going to change anyones’ minds in this battle.

Sua

12

Gosh,what an oh-so unbelievably, original, thought. Maybe somebody should use the search function. Of course, if the OP did, he would have found this little tidbit . Not only has this been done before, but it’s been done before, by THIS Original poster.

13

Hey, I’ve stuffed kittens into blenders. It’s no big deal.

Of course, I was on drugs at the time.

14

Which is why you forgot about plugging it in. Canadians.

15

I have got to say that this is amazing. There doesn’t seem to be any opposition to legalizing drugs. Is it just the demographics of this particular board, or would you say that this reaction is representative of the USA?

Who is it that wants to continue with the war on drugs? Would you vote for a politician who wanted to end the drug war?

16

There are certain topics about which the American public simply will not budge. All the facts and reasoning in the world will not dislodge it. Would I vote for such a candidate?

No, because I’m unlikely to get the opportunity, just like a national candidate simply has to kiss the capital punishment icon or he’s toast.

And, no, if that’s his only attractive feature. If GeeDubya ran on the same platform but included a “legalize drugs” plank, I still wouldnt vote for him. Now a candidate who has candid enough to say “I’m against drug use, but this war is hopeless”, that might be worth listening to.

17

Hell, isn’t Bill Frist going to be running on the “kittens and blenders” ticket next time around?

I’ll close with the obvious reference:

Every time you masturbate, Bill Frist dissects a kitten.

18

I would legalize them all including current prescription drugs, i.e. you could buy anything you want from a pharmacy (if you are over 18). Of course, anyone with any sense would still use a doctor and would still use a pharmacy service that checks for unwanted interactions. And those people that don’t behave sensibly? With luck, they will remove their genes from the gene pool before reproducing.

19

If drugs were legalized today, would that affect the sentences of those convicted on drug charges? Or would they still have to serve out their time?

20

The President could issue a pardon for federal convicts, and each state’s Governor could pardon state convicts. If there was a huge pro-legalization push, I could see this happening, at least for some states.