legalizing soft drugs?

I had to jump on this...
First off, marijauna does not affect the motor skills one bit. It affects your visual nerves to the extent that you can't fully control your eyes at all times. That being said, I've driven while high at least 30 times, never once have I even gotten close to an accident.
Secondly, Making marijuana legal would reduce costs because the risk for the dealers is in turn nullified. It wouln't be a rampant all out drug buying spree...matijauna isn't mentally or physically addicting. It might make you want it after you try it, but it's not something you'll pawn things off to buy. Will there be a fad of running out all the time to buy marijauna? Of course. But it will die out. There have been fads like this before, Alchohol when you turn 21 being a prime example...Some people DO get addicted, but it's not like more than 25% of the population does. Marijauna will be even less, because let's face it; 80% of the pople in America still view it as a horrible thing that ruins lives, which it's really not.

Just my opinions, feel free to comment.

 

I think non-violent crime is less severe. I'd rather have a murderer in jail than a drug addict. Drug addiction is a health problem, not a criminal one. Throwing an addict in jail doesn't help. You missed the point about cars, just because something has a risk of serious harm to yourself or others doesn't mean it should be banned. Cars have the potential to harm people, but if someone gets in an accident would you charge the CEO of GM with murder?

Maybe its the wrong decision for you, but it might be the best thing to happen to someone else. To that veteran taking MDMA to help maintain a normal life after seeing his best friend blown up by a roadside bomb, drugs are a blessing.

You disagree with their decision so they should be locked up?

I'm not saying drug users aren’t guilty of breaking the law, I'm saying the law it's self in archaic and wrong.

People are doing drugs regardless, and commiting crimes regardless. Making drugs illegal doesn't decrease the occurances. Because the price of drugs would drop after legalization, there might actually be less violent crimes such as armed robbery.

Getting caught may be their fault, but being thrown in prison because of a ineffective, over priced (and by my beliefs) immoral law is not their fault.

Governments only release the money for from Education savings accounts after they have proof you have been accepted into a post secondary education program, If you withdraw the funds, they take away all grant money and take 20% surcharge plus it counts as taxable income, so you would lose money. At least that’s how it works here. I was saying the money they receive by working a job should be used to buy what they want.

If they are doing no harm to anyone but themselves, why should they be arrested?

In the long term, I'd say the opposite would be true.

Of course they take a set weight, do you actually know any drug users? If some guy has uses low grade heroin, then gets some extremely pure high quality stuff, but isn't aware of it, he will take the same dose, but the amount of active chemicals will be higher. Thats how overdoses happen.

But making drugs of a more consistent quality will.

Warning labels and instruction would ensure that users had access to reliable information on doses and administration. I can't understand why you think there would be a huge spike in overdoses in the first place, if drugs were legalized, would you go buy some heroin? Keeping drugs illegal doesn't stop them from affecting non-users, as I posted before, many innocent people have been killed, assaulted and framed by the war on drugs.

 

You act as though drugs addicts or distributors are punished as harshly as if they were murderers. They're not. However just because something's not as severe as murder, it doesn't mean that the criminals shouldn't be thrown into gaol. They obviously don't serve as long a time as murderers, etc, but it is still a criminal act.

About the cars, they're a necessity, and they aren't designed to alter someone's mood or perspective. Besides, cars aren't the catalyst for the deaths, other factors like alcohol, road conditions, fatigue and peer pressure are, so if anything's to get the blame or somehow get banned, it's those factors.

About the veteran taking drugs to deal with trauma, I don't know what makes you think this is the best thing he could be doing. Drugs would only mess up his life up further and they're definitely no solution to such a problem. What he should be doing and spending that money on instead would be grief or general counselling to deal with such a horrific loss and trauma.

Existing criminals would continue to do drugs and commit crimes regardless of legality, but that is no reason to legalise something. For example, people are still going to murder others, does that mean that murder should be made legal?

There is nothing to say that drug addicts are only harming themselves. As another example, heavy drinkers, who according to you are only harming themselves, kill hundreds of people each year through drunken assaults and driving under the influence. The point is that drugs do not only affect the person taking them. If they did, there would be next to nothing wrong with them, but that's not the case.

In the long term it may be so, but in the short term there'd be a drastic spike, and regardless of whether that spike would be worth it or not, no-one would have the balls to initiate that spike. However, regardless of that, there's nothing to even suggest that that spike would actually be worth it. After all, alcohol's been a consistent part of our culture for hundreds of years and it hasn't even settled yet, so I'd hate to see what would happen with other drugs.

Saying that the availability would only change for non-users pretty much the point. For non-users, availability would increase dramatically and that's where the problem lies.

About the set weight, I didn't literally mean it as a weight, I meant people take it for the effect, not for the amount they're taking. Just like with beer, it's got a relatively low and consistent level of alcohol, but that doesn't make it hard to get dangerously drunk off. Concentration and consistency won't make drugs any less harmful.

Access to reliable information on doses, etc, will not make drugs any less dangerous. If drugs were legalised, yes I would go and buy some heroin. Why wouldn't I? Not doing so would be like never drinking, etc.

 

Here, for growing marijuana, you can get up to 14 years in jail. 14 years seems pretty harsh to me, especially since the maximum sentence for murder is only 25 years.

Good luck banning poor road conditions and fatigue, cars will get people killed no matter how alert drivers are, same thing with furnaces, airplanes, fast food and all manner of thing we encounter in everyday life. But despite them being dangerous, they should remain legal to use.

Dangerously addictive drugs are used to treat illnesses all the time. Again you are jumping to the conclusion that drugs will mess up people’s lives 100% of the time. Counseling can be very useful, but doesn't always work. If counseling doesn't work for someone and MDMA does, they should be able to have legal and easy access to it.

The use of drugs doesn't violate anyone else's rights. Murder does.

Heavy drinkers are not hurting anyone but themselves. People who drive drunk or commit assaults are hurting others. There is a difference.

Alcohol use rates are fluctuating significantly? I wasn't aware, I'm not calling you a liar, but could I get a source? It sounds like an interesting study. I think most of the perceived spike in use would be due to people being more open with their drug use, and not being afraid of getting caught by admitting it.

So because there is a possibility of an increase in use for a short time, we should continue using an ineffective and wasteful policy instead of seeking a reliable and cheap long term solution that actually works?

Because something is available doesn't mean people will use it. I could make one phone call and have cocaine in half an hour. It's readily available to me, but I don't buy it, because I don't want to harm my body like that. Tobacco is legal and yet smoking rates have steadily decreased over the years.

Source: http://ww2.heartandstroke.ca/Page.asp?PageID=33&ArticleID=1076&Src=news&From=SubCategory

If some beer was 10 proof and some were 180 proof, with no way of knowing which were which, one could assume alcohol poisoning rates would increase. The reason for the vast majority of drug overdose is a lack of consistency. Legalized drugs mean more consistency which means fewer overdoses. If we are talking about reducing the damage caused by drugs, legalization is more effective. Of course there would still be some overdoses, but it would decrease the amount significantly.

The cause of most overdoses of illicit substances is when users get substance that is stonger than they are used to.

Source: Siegel, Shepard. Pavlovian Conditioning and Drug Overdose: When Tolerance Fails. Addiction Research & Theory, 2001, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 503-513

I'm surprised you would say that to be honest. So what’s stopping you from buying heroin now? The threat of going to jail? More likely it’s the knowledge that doing heroin could seriously harm your body and mind.

You have continued to ignore the fact that, despite drugs being illegal, innocent people are still harmed by them and they have become more widely used. During the prohibition, the rates of alcohol use skyrocketed to record levels. More people were drinking than before it was made illegal. The 1920s prohibition also proved that prohibitions lead to more crime, not less. How do you think criminal organization make most of their money? Selling drugs.

Legalizing drugs Means:

Less wasted money
Less Crime
Less Death by drugs
Less Drug users in the long term
Less innocent people harmed by drugs, both directly and indirectly

More freedom for individuals
More money for both individuals and the state
More effective healthcare
More jobs created

What's the downside again?

 

I don't want to be an advocate for drug use, but this is America, and no where in the constitution does it give the power for the government to regulate drug use

 

yes, but the constitution isnt the only law, it is just a basis for further laws

 

Having a maximum imprisonment of fourteen years for growing marijuana doesn't actually sound as bad as I thought it might, and obviously this is longest time you can get for it, so would only be given to the worst of the growers. It's not as though they'd imprison someone who only had a room or so full of marijuana for fourteen years, it would be reserved for people distribution massive amounts of hydroponically grown marijuana to large drug rings, etc, and those people would truly deserve the fourteen years.

About banning the road conditions, etc, that was kinda my point. They're impossible to ban, so those conditions will always affect drivers, making driving more dangerous. About furnaces, aeroplanes, fast food, etc, if you can't see a difference between them and drugs, then there's next to no point in continuing this conversation. They're necessities, not to mention that they're already inbuilt into our culture.

It's true that drugs can be used for medicinal purposes, and they often are, but that's completely different to legalising them. Also, I find it funny that you dis counselling saying it doesn't work all the time, yet you want these people to be able to cure their own problems with drugs.

The use of drugs does violate other people's rights. It's not like eating a steak or anything. Just because that person's doing it to themselves, it doesn't mean that it doesn't affect others. Drinking is a prime example of this. Heavy drinkers are responsible for a heck of a lot of crimes and deaths, and the vast majority of them would never have been committed if that person had not been under the influence. So, are heavy drinkers really only harming themselves? Certainly not. The alcohol messes with their systems and distorts their perception. They don't retain their composure and make poor decisions.

When did I ever say that alcohol rates fluctuate significantly? Just because they haven't settled it doesn't mean that they're fluctuating. You act as though the chance of a dramatic spike is completely insignificant, as well as acting as though we'd live in a utopian society in the long term. There's absolutely nothing to say that that'd be the case.

Just because you don't use it despite it being readily available, it doesn't mean that once it's legalised and availability increases even further, the general populous won't. I don't either and I'm not avidly aware of anyone I know doing it, but if it was legalised, we all would. I'd be shocked if people didn't, unless it was to do with it still being socially unacceptable. The thing with tobacco is that it's completely unenjoyable and quite harmful. It's disgusting and the people who end up becoming addicted to them must seriously be trying to do so, so when taking that into consideration, along with all the anti-smoking campaigns and restrictions, why would people keep trying to get used to them?

Ok, even if consistency meant fewer overdoses, it wouldn't fix the problem at all. Beer is completely consistent, and you can clearly see the standard drinks in each one, but so many people still get dangerously drunk as well as drink themselves to death. Warning labels are just there to stop companies getting themselves sued, and do not solve any other problems apart from that one.

The thing stopping me from doing heroin right now are the risks involved, mainly legal. However there's also the cost and lack of easy availability. Obviously I wouldn't want to develop a dependency or become a regular or anything, but I'd definitely take it. I'm surprised that you're so shocked to hear me say I would. Who wouldn't?

I'm not ignoring the fact that innocent people are still harmed by illegal drugs, but an appropriate parallel would be that police officers are harmed while enforcing the law. If there weren't any laws to enforce then they wouldn't be at risk, but does that mean they should be abolished? Of course not. Although the harm to policemen would decrease, other issues would be raised as well as a whole other genre of people getting harmed, so just saying that one group of people may be better off, it doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Prohibition is a different situation. The effects and levels of consumption of banning a substance in no way shows how things would change if another substance, that was never legal to begin with, was legalised.

Your comment on how criminal organisations get their money certainly got me thinking. Where do you supposed they'd get their money after that revenue of profit has been cut off?

Your 'upsides' to legalisation are purely subjective and there's nothing that would prove that it'd be the case, especially for less crime, less death by drugs, less drug users in the long term, less innocent people harmed by drugs, ,more money for both individuals and the state, and more effective healthcare.

 

I havn't really looked into the constitutional arguement very much, but I think the main idea behind it is prohibitions violates the prinicples of limited government as outlined by the constitution. Also, that alcohol prohibition needed a contitutional amendment to make it legal, but no such amendment exists for marijuana prohibition.

http://www.paulhager.org/libertarian/drug_con.html

This will probably be my last big post, as I think we aren't going anywhere with this arguement, and neither of us are going to change the other's mind.

"Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects. These include: minimal reduction in the consumption of controlled substances; failure to reduce violent crime; failure to markedly reduce drug importation, distribution and street-level drug sales; failure to reduce the widespread availability of drugs to potential users; failure to deter individuals from becoming involved in the drug trade; failure to impact upon the huge profits and financial opportunity available to individual "entrepreneurs" and organized underworld organizations through engaging in the illicit drug trade; the expenditure of great amounts of increasingly limited public resources in pursuit of a cost-intensive "penal" or "law-enforcement" based policy; failure to provide meaningful treatment and other assistance to substance abusers and their families; and failure to provide meaningful alternative economic opportunities to those attracted to the drug trade for lack of other available avenues for financial advancement.

Moreover, a growing body of evidence and opinion suggests that contemporary drug policy, as pursued in recent decades, may be counterproductive and even harmful to the society whose public safety it seeks to protect. This conclusion becomes more readily apparent when one distinguishes the harms suffered by society and its members directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of drug use upon human behavior, from those harms resulting from policies attempting to eradicate drug use.

With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade.

Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ”

http://www.drugtext.org/library/reports/nycla/nycla.htm#footnotes

Copy pasta ftw


Counselling doesn't work all the time. It's not a "dis," it's a fact. If drugs help people, let them use it. If people can cure their problems themselves, thats even better, I'm tired of seeing kids in emergency rooms with nose bleeds. (True story, what a waste of money...)

The use of drugs does not violate anyone else's rights. Being assaulted or robbed does, and your arguement that these would increase is subjective as well.

Marijuana wasn't made illegal until the 1930's. Cocaine wasn't illegal until WWI. Heroin, in the 1920s. They havn't "always been illegal." Society wasn't in chaos before they were made illegal. In fact, it's a fairly recent thing.

Where would they get their money? Robbery? To risky. Fraud? Can't make enough. Extortion? with a decent modern police force, I doubt it. Maybe they would have to stop doing illegali activities.

Saying that drug legalization would increase crime, lead to more users, etc. Is just as subjective. With marijuana at least, we do have the Dutch example, where it is semi-legal, and hard drug use problems have decreased. Also, the average age of hard drug users increases by one year, every year, showing that few new people are using these drugs.

Good debate, but we're not getting anywhere with this so I probably won't post much more.

 

by the way, how come everyone takes heroin and/or cocaine as an example, there is a big difference between them and marijuana. heroin and cocaine can really ruin a persons body in a few years, while marijuana "only" does small damage to the brain, and if inhaled, to the lungs

 

I've been reading on this topic a lot in the past couple days.

Guess America's #1 cash crop?
Corn? No.
Potatoes? No.
Marijauna? Bingo. Just over $30 Billion in 2002

Why is marijuana not legal then? I mean the debt of the United States is worse than ever, and the taxing they could do on marijuana could help a lot. It's simple; public perception. Weed has been categorized as "dirty" for far too long. To make it legal would leave a giant black mark on whoever approved it's record for a long time.

People assume that marijuana is incredibly potent these days and that "their stash is the best stuff in the world" chances are, they are very wrong. I read about this extract called hash oil, that is a reduction of the resin from cannabis plants that is reduced in alcohol; it contains over 50% THC content. By comparison, in Amsterdam, the mecca of Ganja, the topshelf weed contains 15% THC. The effects of 50% THC could turn marijuana from a "soft drug" into a serious dilemma.

Weed get a little stronger every year. Cross breeding has increased the potency of low grade weed to that of mid grade from 30 years ago.I can see where the senators and head honchos are coming from when they make these laws. But considering marijuana is illegal due to racism in the first place, I find it very shady.

Care to respond?

 

If drugs help people, they do use it. They use it for medicinal purposes and it's ensured that they're taking the right amount at the right times, etc, just like any medication. The whole argument of people needing drugs due to trauma, etc, is useless as those people, being the only people who physically need drugs, get them.

Being mugged by someone who is under the influence of drugs, someone who would not have done so otherwise, is the violation of other people's rights. Drugs change people's perspectives and ability to make rational decisions. The drug is the catalyst. Right now, you're blaming the murder on the knife, not the murderer.

Firstly, society has changed drastically since the 1930's, but most importantly, they would have been removed from the system for a reason. The government doesn't just sit around a round table and say 'ok then, what substance will we ban today?', there are actual reasons for prohibiting such substances. I don't know said reasons, but I'm sure if you want to truly find out, you can present your line of argument to your local council and see what they think.

So you're saying these organisations would just decide to disband and stop all their illegal activities? You wish. Armed robberies, etc, would be the next source of income. About extortion, with all the stories I've heard of American cops, I wouldn't be inclined to call it a decent police force, but that's just my opinion. The point is in any system, not just the American system, there will always be corruption.

One example isn't enough to go by. There are examples where Communism work in practice, does that mean that we should all change to a Communistic society? Of course not, because our society is completely different and it wouldn't work at all. If legalisation of such substances truly was a great thing, other governments would have cottoned on to it already. Also, I find it hard to believe that there's 'solid' evidence of the number of hard drug users. If I started using drugs, I wouldn't be in any records or statistics or anything, so unless they're completely dependant on the honour system for the census, those figures would be rough approximations, if that.

@ TYReaper. Marijuana would only be America's highest cash crop if its price remained high after legalisation. Seeing as it won't, they won't be able to tax that thirty-odd billion dollars, and the money made from marijuana crops would drop to around the same level as tobacco, or thereabouts.

 

Who decides who gets the drugs? How do you decide who really needs them?

He's saying the exact opposite! He's saying that being under the influence of drugs doesn't excuse their actions and they should be punished accordingly. The people that say drugs cause crime are the same people who say guns cause murders. Don't blame an object, or substance, for the actions of an individual.

Any example that isn't from the modern western world is irrelevant then? Ok, look at the drug war, that is certainly failing, there's your example for why we need a change. Having drugs illegal sure hasn't work.

This is truly one of the most despicable things I have ever read. You don't know a reason why they're illegal but they should be because other people told you so? That "reasoning" just made me vomit a little. You're basically saying:

"They're illegal because they're dangerous and they're dangerous because they're illegal"

Government does what it does best. Grow. Governments get their power by enforcing laws, more laws mean more power, so they make unnecessary laws to give themselves more power.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. "

Most federal governments right now are opposed to legalizing of drugs even for medicinal purposes, the relationship between California and the U.S. Federal government is a perfect example. Under state law, marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes, but federal police continue to arrest people for possession under federal law. Talking to any municipal government is a waste of time.

Haha armed robbery as a primary source of income. That’s funny. I don't know anyone who doesn't deal drugs who carries more than $100 cash on them. Hell, I only know a few who carry more then $50 on them. Everyone uses debit and credit cards now. Do you know how many people you would have mug to make as much money as you could dealing drugs? Extortion is much more trouble than its worth, that’s why few criminal organizations, and even fewer successful ones, have done it since about the 1950s.

You assume government will always do the best thing, I’ve found the opposite is closer to the truth. If you live you're life by the decisions of others, and do what everyone else does, then I feel very, very sorry for you.

500 years ago I could have said "If the heliocentric model is the correct one, why do the majority of people believe in the geocentric model?"

This is an extremely weak argument, try again.

The lack of accurate figures of drug users are the reason why Wither was saying that any spike is use after legalization would be due to the ability to keep more accurate rate and because people would be less likely to lie about their use.

I thought that once it was legalized everyone would be using drugs. Isn't that what you said would happen? Supply will increase, yes, but if demand increases, like you predict, then the price probably won't change much. And if demand doesn't increase, then your point about non-users starting to use drugs is irrelevant. Which is it?

You seem to like to call all Wither's arguments "useless" and "subjective." The burden of proof should not be on us to show that drugs should be legal, it should be on you to prove why they should be illegal. What argument do you have besides saying that some users may violate the rights of others? I'd rather have the rights of a few violated by individuals once in awhile than the rights of all violated by government all the time.

 

hmmm yeah why won't the price stay high after legalization?

 

ressurection week, asked a mod if I could bump some ANCIENT threads up a bit to see if there is some life left

Still a big issue, so, i beg of thee, great thread, LIVE!
Also

I haven't really changed my mind on this issue, set a limit to how harmful/addictive is still legal and judge anything by that. I am not sure how addiction could be measured, but there might be a way.

 

This is all you need to see folks.

Mairjuana isn't chemically addictive, and that is the most objective way to define addiction. By any other standard, everything could be illegal, people develop habits, their habits shouldn't affect what other people can and can't do, it shouldn't give the government the right of force.

Also, if you're worried about smoke to the lungs, (which is slightly ridiculous), there are many other mays to ingest the chemically active parts of a marijuana plant without smoking them.

 

i'll just throw this in there:

legal = regulated and taxed, and quality controls.

unregulated = anything goes.

the "war on drugs" has not stopped drugs from existing, nor stopped people from using it- in fact, drug lords are making more money than ever. it hasn't even managed to slow down the drug trade. at some point, you need to minimize harm to society. outright prohibition has not reduced harm in any measurable manner.

now, marijuana: one of the easiest ones to legalize. calling it a "gateway drug" is equivalent to calling alcohol and tobacco a "gateway drug". the only "gateway" it really is it that it teaches people to buy off people on the streets- something that can be solved by legalizing it and selling marijuana alongside cigarettes in liquor stores. it is less addictive than smoking (nicotine), and you simply cannot overdose (like with alcohol) unless you purify the stuff and inject it or something crazy like that.

marijuana is a softer drug than tobacco or alcohol... why shouldn't it be legalized?

 

There is really no good argument against legalizing it. Especially if you can regulate it. I am actually surprised that so few countries did so. My country tolerates up to 15 grams on a person but selling (and probably buying) is still illegal.

 

Can't blame the governments for not wanting more addictive, possible violent-related drugs into the system. Sure you can argue that marijuana isn't dangerous for any man, did it myself for a couple of years. Smoked the old hasch. Pretty worthless experience afterwards though, and with soft drugs harder drugs are going to circle. You smoke da weed. Wanna try something new. BAM YOU HAVE AIDS. Really.

Don't legalize marijuana, it's just a kiddy drug that wastes your time..don't do it.. let the drug dealers keep their jobs dammit!

Ica fingerring over and out