# Time for another look at drug decriminalization in the U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-for-another-look-at-drug-decriminalization-in-the-u-s/749974 "2016-03-23T19:55:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-for-another-look-at-drug-decriminalization-in-the-u-s/749974/41 "2016-03-25T23:10:53Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > You could consider the 19th century to be a free-for-all with regards to drugs. When Marx wrote, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” he did not mean it is something the ruling class peddle to keep the proletariat docile. Opium was not yet quite universally considered to be a Bad Thing. Marx meant that religion is something the proles – understandably – choose for themselves to ease the pain of life. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-for-another-look-at-drug-decriminalization-in-the-u-s/749974/42 "2016-03-25T23:17:38Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > You get some opiate restrictions in some cities and the Pure Food and Drug Act before that (and of course alcohol prohibition), but drug prohibition is generally considered to start with the 1935 Uniform State Narcotics Drug Act and the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Even then, drug sentences weren’t that severe until the 1951 Boggs Act. > > [History of United States drug prohibition - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_drug_prohibition) > > You could consider the 19th century to be a free-for-all with regards to drugs. They were widespread, used by a lot of people, and we conquered the west, won our bloodiest war, and built the transcontinental railroad during that time. I’m not saying I’m pro-drugs here, but I am anti-prohibition, and all of history backs me up. > > It’s not that dangerous to let people make decisions for themselves. It is very dangerous to let the government make medical and other health-related decisions for you, _especially_ if there are criminal penalties for disagreeing with them. This is why I feel drug prohibition and the prohibition on abortion pre-Roe are two sides of the same coin. I’m not sure why the right to privacy the Court found in places like abortion and sodomy doesn’t equally apply to taking drugs. Thank you for the cite. I had not realized that your earlier statement was particularly in reference to the US. From what I can read it seems that drug use was unregulated in the US throughout most of the 19th century until towards the end of the century and then increasingly in the 20th century regulations were introduced that limited sale and consumption of drugs. This begs the question: Why? If drug use did not cause society any problems, why introduce laws to restrict it? Other countries took the same road. Britain started regulating drugs in 1868, Australia prohibited the sale of Opium to the general populace in 1905. Apparently the free-for-all situation of the 19th century was then viewed as a problem. I am not saying that prohibition has solved the problem - it clearly has not. But supporters of the prohibition might claim that it has prevented the problem from spiralling out of control. The key question to me is, whether or not legalization would lead to a drastic increase of consumption. I do not think that history provides an answer to that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-for-another-look-at-drug-decriminalization-in-the-u-s/749974/43 "2016-03-25T23:44:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I realize that the Dope is not and never has been a fair random representative sample of American public opinion . . . a messageboard based on a column printed in alternative weekly newspapers that are mostly distributed in big cities and college towns necessarily skews left-liberal . . . but, nevertheless, there are many Conservadopers, and I’m still surprised that **no** poster in this thread so far has yet defended American drug laws as they are now. > > Why is that?! > [@puddleglum](#): > > The Portugal example is way overblown. They did [not](http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/the-myth-of-portugal-s-drug-policy/article_d8a4f99c-ebca-52d1-b6f5-498c55b576e2.html)radically change their approach to dealing with drugs in 2001. They had already stopped arresting people for drug possession for years before that and merely formalized what was already standard practice. After the legalization drug usage rates [went](http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment)up and so did deaths from overdoses. > > In the US people are turning to prescription drugs instead of street drugs. This has resulted in drug overdose rates doubling in the past 15 years. [Now](http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/12/21/guns_vs_cars_and_drugs_1500.html)drug overdoses kill at a higher rate than either guns or car accidents. > Given that we still don’t know what the effects are from legalizing marijuana, maybe we should make sure that goes well and then think about legalizing other drugs. So, are you defending American drug laws as they are now? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-for-another-look-at-drug-decriminalization-in-the-u-s/749974.md?page=2)