You are talking about two different things. Sure drinking does damage to society, but we only punish the SPECIFIC behavior that causes the damage. We punish a person for drunk driving, or being drunk and disorderly in public. We don’t punish a person for having a few beers responsibly in public, or getting blitzed at home so long as he isn’t bothering anyone else.
I would have no problem with the same distinction being made for drugs. You are right that government has a duty to protect us from “drug crazed addicts” but it is unfair and ineffective to outlaw purely recreational use. Plus, if these addicts could buy drugs through legal channels at, then, reasonable prices, there wouldn’t be killings over drugs.
I’m not talking about rape, murder, theivery, etc. where there is an actual victim. I am talking about a victimless crime like drug use…
Do we punish alcholics whose drinking breaks up their home. Businesses lose billions of dollars a year because of drinking employees, children become homeless, health care costs are in the millions. There is nothing good to be said about drinking, nothing at all.
Do we punish alcholics whose drinking breaks up their home. Businesses lose billions of dollars a year because of drinking employees, children become homeless, health care costs are in the millions. There is nothing good to be said about drinking, nothing at all.
Well, maybe its cleaning and antiseptic properties and use as a fuel.
No, we don’t punish alcoholics for divorce anymore than we punish any other reason for divorce. What if a guy is just a plain asshole? Do we pass laws against general assholery, just to keep families intact? Maybe, just for the children, we should pass laws saying that married couples must tell each other “I love you” once per day, backed up with federal penalties?
Same with drinking employees. What if a guy is just plain lazy. No drink, no drugs, he’s just a lazy prick. Do we pass laws against sloth?
Health care costs? Here we go again. Pass laws against smoking, overeating, eating the right foods. Should we pass laws having government inspectors watching us eat dinner to make sure the health care industry runs better?
Maybe you misunderstand me. I don’t condone alcohol or drug abuse. If you can have a drink or two and enjoy yourself, then great. If you can enjoy another drug responsibly, then good for you.
I consider them like everything else in life: do them in moderation. If it becomes an addiction, then you need to stop or get help to stop. Whether that is using cocaine, eating too much junk food, gambling, or smoking cigars.
The whole point of having a “free” country means that you are allowed to do things that most of society may disagree with, but as a “free” person you can do it anyways as long as it doesn’t infringe on others’ freedoms.
Heck, don’t even bother googling, here’s the link. It’s a pretty amusing read, even if the complete idiocy that led to marijuana laws is probably still a major factor in enacting today’s legislation.
It’s certainly a schedule I drug, but there are schedule I drugs that aren’t narcotics (like LSD, ecstacy, peyote, etc), and there are narcotics that aren’t schedule I drugs (like cocaine, opium, morphine, codeine, etc.)
I don’t know whether you are familar with the drug tests on lab mice. Mice were given a choice between a drug (cocaine) and food. It started out ok, but after a while the mice preferred the drug to the food, until the mice died.
I am not sure drugs can be done in moderation, and history tells us the same story, where drugs are plentiful they are abused. We don’t live in a rose garden, life has many disappointments, and people turn to drugs to forget. My doctor told me the most prescribed drug today is anti-depressants. People are not coping well with life, not as well as they used to. There was an attempt to make alcohol illegal but it failed, not due to the crooks but because the people demanded their alcohol which is a substance that is abused daily by thousands of people.
Thinking in the other direction, what if everyone decided not to do drugs or alcohol anymore ever. The drug cartels would disappear along with a ton of other criminal activity. It is not going to happen, of course, mainly because people believe they need drugs in order to enjoy life, and/or cope with life.
Religion which many posters don’t like at all have helped millions of people get off the drugs they are addicted to, and will help many more in the future. Some say religion is a crutch, maybe so, but they have a place in the world in helping people cope with life.
Almost everyone will tell you, “it won’t happen to me” then it happens to them. While in the Navy I became addicted to alcohol, it frightened me when I wanted a drink all the time. So I quit altogether forever. That was almost 50 years ago.
I don’t have all the answers, but I do know that living a positive life style is best. Nothing can keep you from feeling depressed once in a while, like when a loved one dies, but logic, and thought should be used instead of drugs.
So, assuming the same is true of people, which is debatable, why is it better to force people to do something illegal to get something that they want more than food? To me, that seems counterproductive. If they are willing to sacrifice food for drugs, then surely they are willing to commit illegal acts to get them.
Are you OK with anti-depressants being used? The only thing that makes them any safer than any “illegal” drug is the fact that they are legal.
SO, if you admit that this scenario will never happen, what is the only other way to get rid of the drug cartels and the “ton of other criminal activity”? Legalizing drugs would certainly get rid of the cartels. And also much of the other illegal activity currently associated with drugs.
I know many religious people who have addiction problems. They might even help some one else with their problem, but they do not help themselves. Also, isn’t it part of a priests daily ritual to drink wine? That seems like a dangerous practice that could lead to alcoholism.
That is good for you. But, don’t you think that was your decision to make and not the governments?
What if I am not depressed and I want to have a few beers just for fun? What if I want to smoke a joint? Or even shoot up? As long as I don’t do anything that harms anyone other than myself, isnt it my right to do what i want to my body? Tattoos aren’t illegal, and I am sure many people get infections from them, and/or regret their decision to get one, but it is their body so they can do what they want. Birth control Pills are not illegal, and they have several severe side affects, but if a woman wants to take them she can. Why should other drugs with other side affects be treated differently?
For me it boils down to a simple question: Do I get to tell you what to do in your personal life? I am a libertarian wherever possible and so my answer is: “No.”
I am perfectly OK with making it illegal to drive under the influence of drugs (prescription or recreational). But we need to get rid of the notion that we should criminalize personal behaviour.
Prohibition did not work for alcohol, and neither has outlawing recreational drugs. Although Karl Marx said “Religion is the opium of the people,” my observation is that for a large segment, opium and other recreational drugs are the opium of the people. Let them have it. Laws trying to keep the masses from their drugs have simply spawned a large law-enforcement industry. It has not helped those whose lives are wretched and it has actually worsened whole societies–particularly poor black enclaves whose young men are destroyed in the illegal drug trade. I must say there are times when I am overwhelmed by the loss of those young men and the destruction of their lives. And for what gain, really?
Of course legalizing drugs won’t solve the drug problem. We’ll still have a gigantic drug problem–just like we have a gigantic alcohol problem. The difference will be that some of the harms associated with drug use will be mitigated. People will still destroy their lives with drugs and alcohol, the big difference is they won’t take as many other people down with them.
Drug dealers won’t have as many shootouts, addicts won’t rob as many convenience stores.
And of course, we’ve already had stealth drug legalization. Vicodin is legal, albeit only with a prescription. Heroin is illegal. There are plenty of people who have a massive opiate addiction, only they take legal opiates instead of heroin. Lots of people who in the past might have self-medicated with cocaine, pot, or alcohol are now taking anti-depressants, or ritalin, or god knows what, and nobody blinks an eye because a doctor gave them the drugs instead of a guy on a streetcorner. Here’s a great current article on the subject: That Other Drug Legalization Movement
Yeah? Well who cares what you were asking? :dubious:
Oh, yeah, you were the OP, silly me :smack:
If I understand you, you are asking what would happen if narcotics were legalized, and the thread has turned into a pro v. anti legalization argument.
I take it you are asking the worldwide implications of legal drugs. I think we have touched on that. We would have legitimate channels for drugs, just like for coffee or tobacco. No more drug cartels, no Afghan poppy seed farmers thumbing their noses at us.
People who need, want, or are addicted to whatever drug need only to go down to the corner, grocery, or state run store to get their fix. No need for killing and stealing as prices would be reasonable.
People like me, and others who don’t do drugs don’t worry about it, as we stay away from the state run weed store, or the opium aisle at Publix.
And I agree that religion is very much the answer. I practice that in my personal life. However, some other guy (or gal) may think that shooting heroine is his way to peace. I think he’s wrong, but as a free man, he should have that right…
In California in 1980, 379 people were imprisoned for drug possession and in 1999 the number was over 12,000. The rate of incarceration for possession in the U.S. is 44 out of every 100,000 inhabitants and in California that rate is 115. Not coincidentally California has some of the most overcrowded prison facilities in the nation with solitary confinement being a thing of the past in many institutions. Also, presumably not coincidentally, (since Corrections officers and their unions are large contributors to legislative campaigns) attempts to relieve overcrowding are fought by the officers who with overtime make in some cases more than $100,000 per year. This may be barely a living wage in California but it is obviously money that could be better spent.
Of the 155,000 plus prisoners in the Federal system, 55% are there on drug charges.
The legalization of drugs would alow the government to authorize drug sales and tax them in the same way we tax alcohol. If you want to limit these sales to marijuana that is better than nothing but legalizing heroin, crack, and other “dangerous” drugs would drastically reduce crime in this country and reduce the enormous strain on prosecutors, public defenders, jailers, judges, parole officers and everyone else associated with the prosecution of, for the most part, non-violent offenders. Further this relaxation of the burden on employees would allow them to increase their efforts to prevent and solve truly violent crimes and to reduce the need for plea bargaining in cases where the government lacks the resources to fully prepare to convict. Without plea bargaining today the judicial process would be at a standstill. By legalizing drugs we can help guarantee that the criminals that we are really afraid of remain in prison.
Also by legalizing all drugs we can eliminate racial prejudice in the drug arena. At the moment, unless tyhe law has changed recently, possession of the same amount of cocaine in the form of crack allows for a disproportionately higher sentence than does a like amount of cocaine in its pure form. This, it has been argued, is because crack is the drug of choice in the black community, so it is better to put them away for a longer period. Unreasonable and unfair. Why can’t every drug abuser get the same benefit of the doubt (and the same sentence) we gave to Rush Limbaugh?
That is the only way to look at the situation. That is why we have governments. Hopefully to assess the overall impact of decisions and make the right ones. Legalizing drugs is not a good decision for the general public.
Sometimes personal choices and desires need to be limited for the greater good, and individuals should follow the rules whether they like them or not.
In the long run, the drug industry would look like the tobacco and alcohol industry. Large conglomerates would have control over the majority of the market and be continually trying to get more customers. It’d be interesting to see what the heroine and coke manufacturers would do to make their product less likely to kill their customer but still increase sales volume.
Good point. I can see them putting drugs in food, drink, on envelope glue, in tobacco, sprayed in the air in tiny powder bits, there is no limit to the imagination.
