horhay,
Thanks. Well said. Saves me the pain of having to respond to that moron’s close-minded imbecility.
LOL!
I didn’t know which to laugh louder at: Doggus’ post, or horhay’s reply.
Oh, just to stay on track with the OP:
I’m sorta on the fence. Maybe something along the lines of:
- Draw a line between addictive drugs and non-addictive drugs.
- Make sure you have good test results to confirm which is which.
- Non-addictive = legal (why would anyone be against this?!?)
- Addictive = prescription only.
Regards,
Peter
This seems not to have worked out so well as a Great Debate, since I suppose we now have come to the point of arguing over the following resolution:
Resolved: Various people may or may not be idiots and all of them can go fuck off for one reason or another.
Disappointing. I thought this was a pretty interesting question.
Never mind. I guess there’s more coming.
Addictive physically or mentally?–Or both? I think that is a tough standard, frankly, as addiction itself is able to be avoided by proper use. Or so it would seem, having friends who experimented with both cocaine and heroin, none of whom are addicted today. None of whom, in fact, use it today.
Also, you realize that LSD would certainly fall under the “legal” category, and LSD is a drug which people either seem to love or hate. I fall on the love side, but others like those stories about people trying to fly. just thought I’d mention it as I’ve seen quite a few people wimp out over strong hallucinogens being made legal.
Not bad? Versus what? Oh, come on Horhay. I’ve seen plenty of people use, and later, abuse drugs. Some, no… most are highly addictive. And yes, even the “not addictive” ones can act as “gateway” drugs.
I suppose a line can be drawn between recreational drug use and hardcore, addict drug use. You had better make that distinction too —> I have yet to meet a “recreational” heroine user. You can’t lump all drugs together.
And what happens when the abuser’s money runs out? Let’s see.
Horhay: The current system is underfunded and maxed-out. What happens when the abuser population expands? Furthermore, the cost of drugs (and any other commodity in a market) is determined by demand. Obviously, the demand (and the price) of drugs will rise quickly. How will these new addicts find the money for their new found addiction? They will rob you and me… but it won’t be anything personal. They just need the cash to get high!
This is a closed system. Also, this example is not applicable to this discussion. The diabetes sufferer doesn’t affect his family negatively by abusing himself. The drug abuser without a fix roaming around on the street will affect others negatively… s/he operates in an open system.
I liken the legalization of drugs to random gun drops by the government. Yes. As if the government drove around in big trucks and dumped loaded guns on each corner. You might say “I’m not tempted to pick one up.” And that would be fine. But not everyone would be like you. Some people would, and doubtlessly, there would be more gun-related problems. Just like if there are more drugs out there, you may use them with discretion, but others may not have that discretion. There will be more drug-related problems.
BTW, I’ve done recreational drugs, and I wouldn’t have a problem if they legalized them. You might though, and so that risk is sufficiently high enough not to risk the status quo in drug policy.
And horhay, why not just be high on life? 
Acco40 said:"…even the “not addictive” ones can act as “gateway” drugs."
This is the argument typically put forward as a reason not to legalize marijuana, which most people acknowledge is pretty harmless (compared to alcohol,say). Frankly, it makes me want to scream. It’s just bad logic. Just because event A happens before event B, it does not follow that A caused B.
If a person wishes to experiment with mind-altering chemicals, s/he will probably do so. It often happens that the first one they experiment with is marijuana, because that is the most common and easily found of illegal substances. They may then go on to try cocaine, for example, but it does not mean that using marijuana MADE them try cocaine.
IMHO, the “gateway drug” theory is a fallacy.
As for funding, it’s simple: use revenues from taxes on drugs to fund drug treatment and education programs. If that’s not sufficient (I imagine it would be), use some of the millions of dollars we would save on incarcerating people for victimless crimes.
erislover,
I’m not sure what you mean by mentally - am I addicted to my finger nails? I seem to bite them all the time…
What I mean by addicted is that people experience real and reproducible withdrawal effects. Obviously someone would have to come and draw the line somewhere, and I don’t pretend to know where the line should be yet.
However, note that I didn’t say addictive drugs should be illegal. Those who already have, or have somehow illegally developed, an addiction should be able to obtain them legally via prescription.
Of course LSD should be legal. I have never seen any evidence that it was addictive. Of course, if people wanted laws against “public tripping” that’s a different story.
Acco,
Comparing legalizing drugs with government gun drops is not appropriate. What would be appropriate would be comparing legalizing drugs with legalizing guns (which, of course, is already the case).
No one is suggesting the government just drop piles of drugs on street corners. (Well, maybe some people are, but I’m not 
)
PeeQueue
Furthermore,Acco,
Legalizing drugs is in no way similar to “random gun drops”. First of all, no one is suggesting that drugs be given away free. Secondly, drugs ARE NOT WEAPONS. Yes, they are bad for you, but their use harms no one but the user. Yes, some drug users commit crimes to finance their habit, but this is a seperate issue. If someone commits robbery, for example, of course they should be punished, but their motivation for the crime is not a factor. Suppose someone robs a bank to buy a diamond ring for their sweetheart, should we make marriage illegal?
PeeQueue:
Alright, the guns bit was a little off. My point was that by increasing the amount of drugs out there floating around, more people (especially kids) are bound to get their hands on them. (Not to mention have adults buy the drugs for them… the black market opportunities would be limitless.)
Oh, PeeQueue made my point about the guns while I was composing. Maybe I can get this one in first:
Acco, do you currently know of a “limitless black market” of adults buying alcohol for kids?
Of course not. The profit margin is too low and the risks are too great. It would be the same with other legal drugs.
So instead of a drug war between the US and Columbia, we’ll have one between Kentucky and Tennessee.
These are esentially personal attacks against anybody who has posted in this thread in favor of legalization, and adds nothing to the discussion.
What is your evidence here- you and a couple of your friends? Are you saying that people with connections to drug suppliers have no interest in lower prices or fewer inner city children killed each year?
I guess you missed the concept of a victimless crime in previous posts. Do you posit that murder is a victimless crime?
I think you just disagreed with yourself.
Although I am already quite soft on the idea, there are a few things that would need to happen before I would really begin to favor legalization, and erislover’s conditions are a good place to start. Along with serious penalties for violations, I’d like to see employers maintain their drug screening standards, and maybe even tighten them a bit. This helps responsible people stay that way, knowing that they stand to lose their jobs if significant levels of mind-altering substances were found in their urine.
Would this result in more people being fired from their jobs for smoking a few joints? I think not for the following reason: With drugs being legalized, we can assume more people would be doing them (at least experimentally & occasionally), employers would soon find it harder & harder to get employees who tested 100% clean. They would therefore have to start being a little more lenient in terms of how much of a given substance needs to be detected in your urine before you get (first) a warning, (second) a suspension, or (finally) fired.
I’d also like to see legislation that permits a person’s wages to be garnished to cover medical (and other) expenses resulting from drug-related injuries. If a stoned person hits a school bus, he’s got 30 emergency room visits to pay for in addition to a downed traffic light & busted up school bus.
Problem: Drugs as retail commodities would not seem to abide by the laws of supply and demand as we know them. If cost goes up, many people are still addicted and therefore demand wouldn’t necessarily go down. There would still be a black market for low cost (and materially inferior)alternatives.
Lastly, educate children about the Russian Roulette risk of careless drug use, if possible with a real gun, real bullet & life-like manequin filled with some substance resembling blood under pressure. First impressions are lasting impressions.
I said “opportunity” for a limitless black market.
That in itself is a fairly big assumption, nyet?
Acco,
OK, I get your point. I’m not sure I agree that there would be more out there. There is an argument to be made that over time, if legal drugs could be bought, people would stop buying them from illegal sources and those sources would go out of business.
The reason I lean towards legalization is :
- Neither side has convinced me they know what will happen to society if they are legalized.
- I don’t see an intrinsic “badness” in them.
- I believe adults should make their own decisions.
I will probably always be “leaning, but not sure” because I don’t think anyone will ever be able to do 1.
PeeQueue
PeeQueue:
Funny enough, but I too agree with each and every word of your last post…
However, realistically speaking, the legalization of drugs (by the methodology outlined above) wouldn’t work in practice… so why consider it?
Tapswiller,
Two quick points:
An extremely small amount of people that do hard drugs started with hard drugs. They start with pot. Sorry to deflate your fallacy. Scientific study has labeled it a gateway drug, not a big group of Soccer Moms.
Why would we need to fund treatment programs with taxes? We wouldn’t need them if drugs were regulated, right? There wouldn’t be any addicts! Yea!
The burden of proof is on you guys for this legalization thing. And you’re coming pretty weak.
Again, I ask, why would the recreational drug user want the government and corporations involved in the sale of recreational drugs? Just keep scoring from your contact.
Why would a corporate dealer operate any differently than a street dealer?
A corporation is going to give you cheap drugs and your government is going to give you treatment for free why? Because they care. Get a grip.
Why do you want more middle men involved?
Your idyllic dream can be shot down for so many reasons.
Here’s another:
Controlled Substances require larger doses to produce the same effect in a user. How do you plan to accommodate for this?
Acco,
Granted, that was an assumption. I ammend my statement to “IMO, it would likely be the same…”
Also to quote my earlier post:“3. It’s a whole lot easier for kids to get marijuana or ecstasy or whatever than it is for them to get alcohol. Why? Your local street dealer typically does not ask for ID. Liquor stores do.”
I’m not saying kids using drugs would not still be a problem. I’m saying it would (probably) be LESS of a problem than it is now.
doggus - the problem with the ‘gateway’ issue isn’t solved by your statement ‘hard drug users first used mj’. I"d suspect all hard drug users also ‘used’ milk before the mj, right? In other words, you have to demonstrate not only the coexistance of data, but the correlation (did a cause b, not did a preceed b)
(and this from some one who’s not ever been a fan of smokin’ dope etc, works w/offenders, isn’t convinced that legalization is the answer, sure is convicened that the current WOD as practiced isn’t the correct solution either).
And if, when drugs are legalized, drugs cost approximately 1/20 of their current cost, such conduct by drug addicts will be unnecessary. See http://www.economist.com for more details.
And, of course, this ignores two factors: First, the large majority of illegal drug users are not addicted. The highest rates of dependence are for users of opiates, and that figure is 30-35%. Addiction rates for all other illegal drugs are considerably lower. Second, addictive drugs, if legal and affordable, do not cause crime to increase. The dependence rate for nicotine is approximately 80% of users, but when was the last time you read about a cigarette-inspired crime spree?
Hmmm. As for myself:
- You have to judge for yourself, but I don’t think so, and neither does my employer;
- Nope.
- As both an attorney and someone who has worked in the mental health, addiction, and legal profession, I would have to say you are incorrect. But thanks for the overgeneralization!
- Going on IRS figures, my income, which this year will be approximately $214,000, exclusive of my (damn stock market) relatively minimal investment earning, I would say the odds are considerable that my income is higher than yours; and
- My encounters with the authorities consist of one speeding ticket, 4 traffic tickets, and one citation for wasting gasoline (gotta love Montana’s traffic laws).
Any other idiocies you wish to express?
Bah!! I can get drugs whenever I choose - I live in New York.
Have your heard of “economics”? Have you heard of “Prohibition”? Criminalization increases both cost to the consumer and profits for the supplier. Were drugs legal, their costs would plumment. This is demonstrated by our experience with Prohibition. Prohibition made the Mafia. After Prohibition, the Mafia stopped smuggling booze. Why? The Mafia couldn’t compete on price with legal suppliers of booze.
[QUOTE]
Murder is bad. Lots of people go to jail for murder. Our court system is bogged down with appeals from murderers. I got an idea. Just legalize murder.
[/QUOTE[
Murder affects other people (i.e., the victim). Drug use does not. If a person commits murder while on drugs, the option is to charge the perpetrator with the murder, a la crimes committed while drunk.
Oh, I get it. You say it, so we can’t disagree. Makes debate a lot easier – thanks! One question: if 30-35% of opiate users are addicted, it means that 65-70% of opiate users are not addicted. What, exactly, are we proctecting the non-addicted population of opiate users from?
It is crystal-clear that drug-related crime is caused by the high cost of drugs created by criminalization. Yes, a junkie with a $500 a day addiction will very likely turn to crime to support that addiction. But if that junkie can get the same amount of drugs for $25 a day (the likely price were drugs legalized, see http://www.economist.com ), would you agree that drug-related crimes would go down?
Well, I’m not a druggie, but Ise likes my beer. I haven’t had a great cause for complaint about the product Anheiser [sp?]-Busch turns out, though admittedle, I’m more partial to stout.
[QUOTEWhen crime escalates, the price will too.
When deaths escalate, the price will too.
When the governments realizes the money to be made and taxes go up, the price will too.[/QUOTE]
Please re-take Microeconomics 101. Please also take American History 305, which discusses the effect of Prohibition and the repeal of Prohibition.
Again, I refer you to Microeconimics 101. Personal computers are more popular today than ever. Yet, remarkably, I just purchased a much more powerful computer than my last one, for $1,300 less than I spent on my old computer. Why is that? Oh yeah, supply went up in the interim.
Well actually, no. What has legalization got to do with monitoring the use? In fact, if drugs were legalized, monitoring use would be easier. The government could test for purity and quality, and, of course, if we wish to impose limitations on sales (to minors, criminals, etc.), the sellers of drugs would have more incentive to comply - with a legal market, why sell to the illegal purchasers?)
Thanks again for cutting off the debate. Not to be impertinent, Sir, but is it possible to draw conclusion from the fact that Dutch society has not imploded may mean that legalization won’t destroy American society?
Sua
I agree with you wring:
God forbid the status quo would be the best way to go about things. It’s terrible.
Which is another reason that drugs will not be legalized in this country.
It’s too profitable for this country to wage the war.
Too many jobs involved.