I completely agree. I approached the issue from the angle I did because since drugs are already illegal it’s easier, IMO, to approach the issue from the standpoint of “This situation is wrong - we should rectify this situation because of reasons X, Y, Z.”
Legal should certainly be the dafault state of affairs unless there are, as you said “darned good reasons” for illegalisation. The reasons given for the current prohibition on drugs do not qualify as “darned good reasons”, IMO.
Ok, I do have a sympathy towards the least amount of government intervention as possible. I am also willing to concede that the current system does not work. But here are my questions / concerns.
1)Given that legalization would make drugs cheaper and more widely available wouldn’t it follow that the number of drug users would increase?
2)Would drug users be able to sue the manufacturers and distributers of the drugs when they suffer ill health affects?
3)Would non-drug using members of society be expected to pay for the medical expenses of drug users?
4)Would non-drug users be expected to pay for the welfare for the increased number of drug users who would rather stay home and get high?
5)Once a drug user runs out of money, won’t they still turn to crime in order to satisfy their habit?
Now I suppose one could argue that placing a tax on drug sales could help offset the additional medical and welfare costs of our new “Hey man, drugs are ok” society but if the taxes make the cost too high then the drug dealers will return to sell drugs on the black market without the taxes.
You may also want to reconsider using the government’s drug classification system, which I think due to politics, is flawed. Doesn’t steroid abuse lead to far more serious health concerns than pot? I would also suggest staying away from the “if it’s natural then it’s okay” train of thought. Plants produce a host of nasty things quite naturally, like nightshade and other toxins.
And are you sure you want to even consider the legalization of drugs like crack and heroin? Folks on these drugs will either undergo a tramatic rehabilitation process or die young. What good could come from their legalization?
Thanks larry, that is exactly what I meant. True hallucinogens like LSD give the user zero affect after one use.
As far as the “bad” drugs go, like heroin, crack, ice, and tobacco, I think we should just bite the bullet and get on with it.
An important part of the drug cycle that I’ve been privvy to is the idea of lack of self worth: you’re a loser who does drugs. Your aprtment is a mess. Look at you (mirrors are evil, IMO, when on any drug). But we aren’t saying that because we think it; we’re saying that because we’re told it.
And what the fuck, if I’m already a loser, why would I care if I use drugs or not?
Self-fulfilling prophecy, IMO.
Yep, but you can grow those in your back yard all you want. Funny, isn’t it? I think I’ll stick with the “natural” argument, thanks.
Ok, “zero” is a bit strong. But I have yet to meet an LSD user who would waste their money on tripping soon after a trip. The effect is small, if not even noticable.
Yeah but we don’t have to outlaw smoking poison ivy for obvious reasons.
The “natural” arguement is worthless for classifying drugs as the effects of natural chemicals have just as much variety when it comes to lethality and health effects as artifical chemicals.
What obvious reason is that, its no fun?
I think the biggest advantage to legalization is that we could then have honest education, instead of education reinforcing the idea that “drugs are bad”. I remember in my health class we “learned” about drugs. I “learned” that a lot of people who take LSD jump out of windows because they think they can fly. Then I took LSD and jumping out of a window was the last thing on my mind. I was more interested in staring at the carpet 
. Luckily, I didn’t think like this, but I can see some people thinking, “if they lied to me about LSD, they must be lying about cocaine too”. It’s not good to feed people information to scare them away, because when they find out the information is false (for most people) they don’t trust your information anymore.
I have done my own research on other drugs and decided that I have done all I want to do, but I still don’t feel satisfied because I read conflicting information everywhere I went. For instance, I read one source that said that pure heroin prepared in a clean environment, while still addictive, is not dangerous at all. That goes against everything that I have heard from the government and my teachers throughout my whole life. That is why I think the biggest advantage of legalization would be that we can finally discuss drugs openly, and only when you know ALL the facts have you truly been educated.
It’s funny; as a prudish goody-two-shoes teenager I wouldn’t come within 10 feet of someone who (gasp) did drugs. I would have gladly written an essay for the DAR on How Drugs Are Ruining America, and probably would cheered the death penalty for drug users.
But now, having lived in the world, considered economics, society, education, and a lot of other things, in addition to having known people who have used drugs both responsibly and irresponsibly, I have to say the arguments for legalization are extremely compelling to me.
I know that some people (my former self included) believe that folks who support legalization have an agenda: they want their own habit to be easier to indulge in. My experimentation days (such as they were) are way, way behind me. When an old prude like me nods at legalization arguments, it’s saying something.
Yes, the number of drug users will increase, for the following reasons:
a. the cost would almost certainly be considerably lower. I have read estimates that cocaine would be 1/20 the current price, and cannabis would cost about the same as tea (prior to taxation, of course);
b. access would be easier, and fears of impurities/“bad trips” would be largely eliminated;
c. the social stigma would diminish; and
d. imagine what a commercially-savvy group like Miller Brewing Co. could do to sell pot?
Don’t see why not, as the tobacco litigation has shown.
Depends on the medical insurance system we choose. To the limited extent we pay for the medical expenses of drug users now, we would probably continue to do the same. One benefit would be that private insurance would likely take up more of the slack, as less drug users would be in jail (and getting medical coverage from the prison system).
To the extent that we already pay for alcohol abusers and the like who’d rather stay home and get drunk. To wit, not very much.
Certainly, to some extent, though with drug prices considerably lower than they are now, drug-related crime should drop dramatically. When’s the last time you heard of a nicotine addict committing crimes to support his/her habit?
Make them too high, and certainly smuggling would occur - though the incentive to get into smuggling would be considerably lower, as the profits would be much less (a smuggler couldn’t charge anywhere near the legal cost).
Experience shows us that people are willing to pay higher costs for the benefit of legality. Moonshine is still out there, but certainly isn’t a large criminal problem - people prefer to pay more to purchase alcohol legally and avoid the risk of getting a bad batch of hootch.
Several benefits would come from legalization:
A re-distribution of harms caused by drugs. Currently, the harms of the drug trade fall most heavily on poor countries and poor people in rich countries. Most of these harms are caused by criminalization, not the drugs themselves, and include - environmental harm caused by spraying herbicides to kill crops, massive corruption and undermining of democratic institutions, a huge prison population; the spread of HIV/AIDS due to limitations on ownership of syringes, a reduction in crimes associated with the distribution of drugs (i.e. turf wars), a reduction in crimes caused by the cost of drugs, etc.
As drug use goes up, there will be additional harms such as addiction, etc., but on balance the amount of harms will decrease, and the harms will fall more directly on users, not on growers, sellers, and the citizens of producing countries.
Government can regulate drugs if they are legal. I don’t mean in terms of distribution and taxation (which are also benefits), but in terms of quality, purity, and health warnings (such as warning asthma sufferers to avoid ecstacy).
Concentration would likely go down. If drugs are illegal, each purchase is risky, and it makes sense to buy drugs in concentrated form. As an example, Prohibition led to a fall in beer consumption but a rise in the drinking of hard liquor.
Sua
You’re the one who’s assuming. Just because someone takes a drug doesn’t mean you can rely on them to do the most unreasonable and irrational things imaginable. LSD does not produce the kind of insatiable cravings you get from cocaine. It lasts 8-10 hours and you usually stay up all night, so you feel a bit shagged the next day. You want to relax a bit and Re-Evaluate Your Life and just don’t feel like taking another lengthy trip.
This depends on what sort of drugs we are talking about. In the case of soft drugs they are already extremely widely available. I normally shun anecdotal evidence in debates but I personally know of no less than seven people off the top of my head who could provide me with the soft drug of my choice any time I like. I don’t do drugs because I want to take care of my body but if I wanted to I could partake of them with the greatest of ease. I could even make it myself if I wanted, it’s not much harder than distilling alcohol if you know what you’re doing. In the case of soft drugs legalisation wouldn’t make them much more widely available because they’re so widely available already that anyone who feels like smoking a joint or popping a pill can get one as easily as they can walk into a shop and buy a sandwich. Think I’m exaggerating? http://www.ecstasy.org has some interesting information (bolding mine)
I know from personal experience that this data, although not 100% concrete, is reasonably accurate.
Drugs are already cheap. Drugs are already widely available. Will legalisation increase drug use? Well I can’t predict the future but it seems to me that it’s going to increase exponentially regardless until the market is sated.
Now, in the case of hard (Class A) drugs, different rules apply. This is where it gets a little more complicated. Class A drugs are harder to get and I agree with you that the price will fall with legalisation. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that use will rise. Sua mentions the diminishing social stigma around drugs which may result from legalisation. However, this social stigma actually has rather negative implications. Drugs are a taboo topic in schools. You may get one lecture or biology lesson about how “Drugs are bad…mmkay?” but you won’t find a source of responsible, full, factual information about drug use. With legalisation will come the collapse of these social barriers. People will be able to learn just how dangerous drugs like heroin are. Put simply, with legalisation will come information; with information will come education; with education will come responsibility. Under the current prohibition this chain is extinguished at step one and children as young as 12 are finding their way into heroin addiction because they just don’t know better.
Also, consider the effects exorbitantly high prices have on those who are genuine addicts. Since drugs are illegal the dealers can charge the earth for them at the expense of their clientele. This is why there’s so much drug related crime. The drug doesn’t force people into a frenzy, they don’t need so much that they are forced to rob and thieve to keep themselves high 24-7. They’re forced to steal to provide themselves with the relatively small amounts of the drug they need because the dealers are charging them so much. Incidences of drug users stealing to fuel their habit will drop like a lead balloon f they are legalised because the price will drop to within their means.
All this, however, assumes that full legalisation of heroin will ever be a realistic possibility. As a realist I can only ever see heroin being legalised to a certain extent. For example, heroin would most likely only be legalised for heroin users. Programmes like this one may become the norm.
Anyway, I hope I’ve answered your question satisfactorily, now on to your other 5
Nowadays you can sue the government for millions if a civil servant treads on your pinky toe. I don’t see why this will be any different.
I’m sure a simple redistribution of funds would cover the vast majority of any costs that would be incurred. Firstly a percentage of the billions of pounds/dollars saved by ending the war on drugs (police time, prison time, trials etc…) could be put towards the cost of medical expenses. Secondly a percentage of government taxation revenue ('cos you can betcher ass all these newly legal drugs would be taxed pretty severely) could be put towards the treatment of drug addicts. Thirdly, prison is no barrier to getting a fix. The prison system is responsible for treating users whilst behind bars. Once drugs are legalised plenty of these users would take up private health plans, reducing the cost further.
That’s an interesting question but I don’t think it’ll cost all that much. Given the prevalence of soft drugs already there’s nothing to stop people staying home and getting high right now.
That depends on how low the price drops. If they become affordable I don’t see why a user would return to crime to satisfy his habit as it would already be within his means.
Frankly, the government would have to slap a hell of a lot of tax onto harder drugs to come close to equaling the price of a fix. According to http://drugs.ort.org/heroin.htm a fix of heroin, as it stands costs:
Besides, what would be the point of selling drugs illegally in a society where they’re legalised. It would be too high a risk for too low a profit.
I’m not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate please mate?
Sua and Gomez, thank you for your well reasoned responses.
I still believe that when it comes to the idea of drug legalization, each drug needs to be examined on a case by case basis. There is an order of magnitude of difference in risk between smoking pot and injecting a drug like heroin. It is quite easy to kill yourself using heroin:
from
http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/07/20/heroin.overdoses/
While under legalization jail time and money may not pose as much as a problem, many addicts will continue to seek rehabilitation from the constant cravings and ill health affects. Additionally, the level of dosage needed to get high steadily increases as the user’s body begins to build up a tolerance for the drug. Using heroin safely, in so much as that is even possible, requires a clear minded approach to the level of dosage. And a clear mind is not something a heroin addict is likely to have.
While pot may be an easy find, heroin is not quite as easy to come by in many places and its legalization will make it suddenly available to many curious young adults.
I dunno, blackclaw, 3/5 of the heroin users I’ve known never became permanent users (and 3/3 never got addicted to cocaine). Not that that still doesn’t present a problem, of course, but it seems to me that the “stupidity” of drug users is more of a cliche than based in statistical reality. Of course, I’d love to support that, but given the illegal nature of drug use its hard to gather evidence from people who may-- you know-- get prosecuted.
I want the best of both worlds when it comes to drugs.
I would like to see the day when non-violent, consenting adults would not be in legal danger for possessing, using, or (in limited circumstances–see below) selling drugs.
However, I would like for drugs to remain underground. I don’t want the government or corporate America getting their hands on them. I don’t want to be able to buy a pack of Diggity Dank 100’s down at the Super A. I don’t want to see ads featuring cute little Speedy the Hummingbird that absolutely do not attempt to market crank to children. I don’t want to hear arguments about whether people should be able to smoke up or shoot up in public places.
I’m not sure how to split the difference, but that’s my (rather odd) objection to total legalization.
Dr. j
The drug laws are not laws. They are usurpations. It should be obvious to the nation by now, that the war has failed. The government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war on drugs. Not one single drug has been eliminated, or significantly reduced. Drugs do not destroy families, the COST of drugs does. If it were not for the prolific cost, most users would lead functional lives. What the war has done is imprison millions of Americans, break apart families, and create a web of violence which surrounds the drug market.
It is obvious that the “people have not consented to the law” A law can not be a law when a high percentage of the people refuse to obey. (25-60 percent use drugs in a year) The US makes up 5% of the worlds population, but hold 25% of the worlds prison population. Land of the free, home of the usurped.
“A Usurper and any deriving from him, hath no right to be obeyed. Nor can such a usurper, or any derving from him, have a title till the people both, are at liberty to consent, and have actually consented, to bestow in him, the power, he hath till then usurped.” John Locke
usurper
Blackclaw, you are absolutely correct about the perils of heroin (though, of course, if heroin is legal and cheaper, periods of abstinence are much less likely to occur and thus the decline in tolerance that leads to ODs is also less likely to occur).
But consider this. Approximately 30% of heroin users become addicted. A scary statistic, to be sure, and more than enough to put me off the use of heroin. But it also means that about 70% of heroin user do not become addicted - they use the drug recreationally.
Now, some 40-50% of heroin addicts beat their addiction, and also some (unknown to me) percentage of heroin addicts are functional. But let’s ignore them for a second, and focus on the 30% addict - 70% recreational users divide.
Assuming that the 30% addiction rate applies across the general population (and it is an assumption, as less than 1% of the population has sampled heroin), does it follow that the rights of the 70% should be infringed due to the problems of the 30%? We do not apply that logic to the 90% of the population that won’t have problems with alcohol, nor the (mere) 20% of the population that won’t get addicted to nicotine.
And, given the massively documented problems associated with the addicted populations of alcohol and nicotine users, our Prohibition policies towards heroin, not to mention other illegal drugs, is illogical. The truly logical alternatives are the banning of nicotine and alcohol, or across-the-board legalization. The reason that we do not ban nicotine and alcohol, aside from civil liberties issues, is we know prohibition of those substances will not work, and the best policy is to legalize and regulate.
Well, guess what? We also know (though our government refuses to admit it), that prohibition of cocaine, cannabis, heroin, etc., will not work. We have been trying for 30-odd years to eliminate those drugs from American society. The result is that heroin costs (retail) 1/5 of its price in 1981, cocaine 3/10, and cannabis 6/10 (cannabis price peaked in the early 90’s). If, after 30 years of increasingly expensive and burdensome efforts to eliminate the drugs trade, drugs are cheaper (and, according to the laws of economics, therefore more plentiful) than ever, what gives us any reason to believe that another 30 years of prohibition will stamp out the problem?
Sua
Sua, thank you for the info.
I am still very reluctant to embrace the legalization of hardcore drugs.
Everyone’s biological make-up is different and one simply has no idea if they will be one of the ones that becomes a hardcore addict until they try it. It’s like playing russian roulette. The thought of a young adult, still confident in their immortality, being able to walk down to the corner store and purchase something that may drastically change their life after just one use is quite disturbing to me. We lose enough people to alcohol. I see no compelling reason why we should offer another possible addiction. Yes, some people will always choose to use heavy drugs, but why should we make it easier for them to do so?
I would prefer to keep such things illegal but redo the way we handle enforcement. Pull back on the interdiction side of the equation and pour money into the recovery side.
Boris B wrote:
You can have my cock ring when you pry it from my cold, dead weiner!
Weird_Al_Einstein:
Agreed, but the trouble is that the people who would have us continue the war on drugs claim that the government does have a legitimate reason for prohibiting everything except tobacco and alcohol. Therefore, it makes sense to show that the reasons they give are either false or don’t justify the harm caused by prohibition.
Blackclaw:
The government has no business infringing upon personal liberty in order to protect people from themselves, that’s why.
Sure they would. The important question is, what are the odds of them recieving actual money? The limited success of the tobacco lawsuits mostly stems from the allegations that the tobacco companies knowingly lied about the effects of their products, so it would probably depend on whether the companies try to downplay the harmful effects of their products.
As I cast my mind back through the years to when I was a minor, I recall that if I wanted contraband substances, all I had to do was walk down the block to the theatres-- Plenty of folks out there reciting the mantra “Pot, Hash, Cid…” But man, try and get a case of beer for the weekend!
Therefore it seems to me that legalization = regulation, and it would serve to restrict minors’ access to drugs.