All drugs shall be legalized

[Taverner]

Seriously

Yes, you can make any case you want about Meth or Heroin being dangerous

You can make any case you want about Roofies being responsible for date rape

You can say anything you want about deaths on drugs

But - my only question is this

What good does Drug Prohibition do?

Seriously - what good does it do?

Does making any of these things illegal remove them from the street? No - it has no effect on availability

Does making any of these things illegal make them less dangerous? No - absolutely not. In fact you can't regulate and monitor their uses if they are illegal

So then - why is this considered a valid policy?

[FiveGoodMen]

1. I'm with you.

Prohibition of alcohol was a disaster.

It brought the same gang violence that every other prohibition has produced. Also problems with tainted product, etc.

Finally, we took that one back.

Alcohol continues to be dangerous if not used sensibly, but it sure is better that it's legal.

EVERYTHING about the drug war is fucked up.

EVERYTHING.

We needed to stop this nonsense decades ago.

We need to stop it now.

[TexasObserver]

2. Recommend

[rd_kent]

3. Agreed. Just like guns, the danger is in the poor usage, not in the object itself.

:popcorn:

Flame away....

[virgogal]

4. Not me----I agree wth you (and have never owned a gun).

[Cant trust em]

5. Aren't some guns inherently dangerous?

How far could we go with this?

Bazookas? Grenade Launchers?

[Taverner]

15. Yes - but so are staple guns

And canisters of propane, and gasoline, and lots of things

[Cant trust em]

45. None of those things are designed to kill.

Since an object is specifically designed to efficiently execute its purpose, I'd say that the thing designed to kill is much more dangerous than something designed for a different purpose. Yes, they both have the capacity to do harm. But one is more likely to do so because it was designed to do it.

[Taverner]

61. You have no idea how I wield a staple gun...

IN all seriousness though, lots of things are dangerous - but I would rather us work on changing intent than limiting access to tools

[Cant trust em]

63. I think you'll have an easier time limiting access than changing intent.

Limiting access can be done because its a physical thing. I'd imagine that it would be more difficult to change cultural psyche.

They are interconnected though.

[rd_kent]

40. Only as dangerous as the person using it.

Sure, one could sat that about a grenade launcher, but one could say the same about a knife on the kitchen counter. They all have a POTENTIAL for danger.

[Cant trust em]

43. I think it's a degree of danger that is in question.

Misuse of one leads to a cut on your finger. Misuse of the other results in explosion and death.

[rd_kent]

47. But now you are qualifying items by a subjective opinion.

What is more dangerous to you may be less dangerous to me. It is a matter of opinion.

[Cant trust em]

48. You must be kidding me.

I see now that we've left the real world behind.

[rd_kent]

53. If thats what you think....

Doesnt change the facts.

[Cant trust em]

66. It's funny how taking arguments out to their logical conclusion...

sometimes takes them to a place that doesn't make sense in the real world. It's a little like calculus that way.

[Leftist Agitator]

55. "Misuse of one leads to a cut on your finger."

Um, stab wounds? Cut throats?

"Misuse of the other results in explosion and death."

So does misuse of a can of spray paint or gasoline.

Should we ban spray paint or gasoline?

[Cant trust em]

65. This misuse reference is about making a mistake while using it for its designed purpose.

Knives are typically used to cut vegetables, cook food, etc. If you make a mistake while using it, it's not going to kill you.
Grenades or rocket launchers on the other hand, you have to use a great deal more care with them. The danger potential is much higher.

Secondly, you can kill someone with those most innocuous objects, obviously. I could probably kill someone with this computer. However, some objects just make killing that much easier since they were designed to carry out that function.

[Taverner]

14. Agree as well - and I too don't own a gun

I am pro gun, but I am also pro "the right to not have a gun" too

[rd_kent]

41. Great minds think alike.....

[anonymous171]

64. BUT GUNS ARE DIFFERENT!

UNLIKE DRUGS, GUNS ARE SCARY. THEREFORE THEY SHOULD BE BANNED

[Kievan Rus]

6. Absolutely -- doing it would dry up funding for Taliban and al-Qaeda

[bahrbearian]

16. Actually Drug production in Afganistan was curtailed under the Taliban.

It wasn't till after our invasion did it skyrocket. Tha Taliban doesn't profit from drug sales, the CIA does.

[Taverner]

17. Lots of people profit from the drug economy

The CIA does, but so do local farmers...

And honestly, I think Opium and Opiates have a valuable place in OTC medicine

[bahrbearian]

26. We are in agreement. I don't think the CIA should profit from it.

[DireStrike]

33. Not to mention shady black ops/crime syndicates in our own country

And prisons too.

oops, can't have that. Guess prohibition it is.

[bigwillq]

7. I agree 100 percent (nt)

[immoderate]

8. According to the Conservation of Stupidity Theory...

Stupidity can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore it must be channeled. If we concentrate stupidity on drug policy, then it can't leak over into health care, reproductive rights, civil rights, foreign policy, and economic policy. That's why everything works so well.

--imm

[Taverner]

13. Interesting theory - but what about channeling it to protection of cross-looking thingys?

As in, have those folks protecting cross looking thingys

[Fumesucker]

24. Perhaps, but the two most common elements in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity..

There is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than enough stupidity to go around..

[wuushew]

9. Higher prices are always going affect supply

all contraband has some degree of price elasticity. No blackmarket operates more efficiently than a legal enterprise. The risk of asset seizure and limited access to capital has to be reflected in the price charged to consumer.

[clu]

10. everything but PCP

with everything else legal, and presumably cheaper and regulated... hopefully there wouldn't be a need for PCP.

[Taverner]

11. Explain what good a PCP Prohibition would give us?

Would it stop people from taking it?

[JuniperLea]

12. PCP is already legal for animals... eom

[provis99]

18. well, lets get rid of the Food and Drugs Administration Agency then.

Because, why bother with food regulation, too? People will still sell black market rotten meat; the war on rotten meat has clearly failed, so legalize everything.

[Taverner]

20. That would make sense if there were a market for rotten meat

But there is not

[provis99]

29. haven't been to Food Lion lately, have you?

[reggie the dog]

30. drugs and meat should be regulated by the same FDA

the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINSTRATION

[Johonny]

19. So you want to get rid of the FDA?

[Taverner]

21. Does no one read what I fricken write?

What - do I write my stuff to make me laugh?

As if I please myself?

[LostInAnomie]

22. I only have one reason to be against the legalization of drugs.

It would lead to allowing pharmaceutical companies to make pleasure drugs. Incredibly potent, highly addictive, pleasure drugs that would be beyond anything out there now. Think Soma only real and worse.

[reggie the dog]

32. MDMA already exists

[Festivito]

52. And you don't want people to feel pleasure for what reason?

You're afraid people would be walking around too happy?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

25. The evidence does not support your assertion ..

Portugal legalized *all* drugs and drug use did not go up..

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

[reggie the dog]

34. there are actually victims with crimes like rape and murder

there is no victim when I grow a flower, harvest it, dry it out, roll it up into a joint, and light it. Laws do not really discourage people from using drugs, it just makes us use them in private more than in public. In a given year I will smoke cannabis about 320 days, use MDMA once, and I do not give a damn what the law says.

[reggie the dog]

27. I could not agree more.

Drug Prohibition is about letting the peasants know they are serfs.

[Vinnie From Indy]

28. While I agree in spirit with the OP, there are issues that demand attention

I think that the legalize drugs movement OWES society somes sort of scenario to deal with the practicalities of legalizing drugs. Granted, prohibition is not the answer for some, but how would our society actually deal with making drugs available for those that want them. Would CVS be allowed to sell Meth? Would Costco have available for purchase 24/7 heroin and syringes? How exactly would it work? Would any drugs be unacceptable or would every single drug ever conceived be available if you have the money?

[reggie the dog]

35. heroin and meth would be at the pharmacy

like speed and heroin were in the old days

[francolettieri]

31. http://www.leap.cc

the website everyone should know about relating to this subject. http://www.leap.cc

[mike_c]

36. agreed, 100 percent....

eom

[lib2DaBone]

37. The liquor lobby and Bar Associations will fight normalization..

..however: Big Tobacco might want in because they see the profit.. and they know more people quit smoking their crappy cigarettes every day.

[FatDave]

38. Agreed, but I think we need to start small, with just weed.

It's the most popular and the safest, and a lot easier to make the case for. Plus as somebody else mentioned, the tobacco companies might want to get a piece of the action, and if there's one thing that can get the law changed in this country, it's corporate support.

[handmade34]

39. lunatics control the world

I have advocated for legalization for 40 years

[Jkid]

42. Legalize All Drugs

Watch all criminal and organized gangs go out of business.

[MellowDem]

44. For certain hard drugs...

that are highly addictive and deadly, legalization will most certainly increase the availabilty of the drug as well as lower the price. Personally, I think the more dangerous and addictive the drug, the more that the people who use the drug should pay, because their use of that drug will cost society a lot in the long run. Of course, if the price is raised, then there will be a black market for the drugs at a cheaper rate, etc. etc.

I have no doubt in my mind that people who were too scared to pursue drugs when they were illegal or too afraid to get involved with the right type of people to get the drug will start using it if it is as convenient and safe as going to your local CVS. And I'm not so sure that having drugs controlled by corporate giants is really any better than having it handled by criminals, to me it would be worst actually. I'd rather just have the government control it.

And then there is always the fear that we will eventually become a drug addled society. We are already in bad enough shape with the legal drugs we have in terms of overprescription. But generally I support legalization of all but the hardest drugs. I just think that the cost of drug enforcement for those drugs is less than the cost of legalizing those drugs would have in terms of health care costs on society.

[LooseWilly]

49. In my experience, it's not the question of legality that determines which drugs one uses.

The notion of people being too scared to pursue drugs when they are illegal suddenly not being too scared to pursue those drugs when they're legal seems naive to me. People are only scared of legal implications when scoring, or using in public. On the other hand, many are scared based on the facts of the consequences of use.... and that is reason enough for many of us who have happily used illegal drugs to choose which we are willing to use, and which we have personally judged too insidious to want to have any part of.

We are already a drug addled society. The idea that illegalization is somehow a solution is rather ridiculous. The further idea that illegalization reduces the costs in terms of health care costs seems to assume that illegalization actually stops those that would abuse the drugs from abusing them to the point of needing health care as a result. I don't personally know anyone who has been interested in abusing a drug being meaningfully inhibited by issues of legality. On the other hand, I do know many who have used unto the point of needing treatment of one sort or another.

[Cant trust em]

46. Actually I think that making/keeping it illegal does have an effect on availability.

Right now if I want to score some crack, I'd have to go down to the Tenderloin or something and I'd probably have to walk up to some strangers and ask them if they knew where I could get some. I'd probably feel shitty walking up to a guy who just because he's kinda hoodlumy looking and stereotype him as a guy who knows where to find drugs. Then I'd have to be looking over my shoulder the whole time to make sure that there are no cops around. It would be a hassle. I even live in the city and could get to this neighborhood pretty easily. Imagine if I lived in the suburbs or somewhere that was pretty milquetoast. I'd have a helluva time finding drugs in my hometown. I'd bet that I'd have to have some pretty awkward conversations before I could find someone to sell me drugs.

On the other hand, I can go to Safeway right now and buy a 5th of whiskey. Pretty sweet.

[RedCappedBandit]

51. Don't think you understand just how easy it is, for the people that want them. nt

[Cant trust em]

62. It's a degree of want.

I'd buy it if it were in the stores. But I'm not going to go through any hoops to get it.

[tavalon]

50. I don't know if my being a nurse brings any extra cred.

but I fully support that. Prohibition has never worked and treating drug abuse as a crime instead of a physical/psychological issue is absurd.

[Realityhack]

54. Actually prohibition does effect the street supply of some drugs.

For those that require pharmaceutical grade components supply side control can actually influence availability.
For those that are easily produced at home it makes little difference but I would not generalize to NO difference without better data than anything I have seen.
I *definitely* wouldn't make the claim that their would be less drug use or less experimentation without better data.

But then I haven't done any in depth study of the subject with respect to complete legalization of everything. Among other reasons, it simply is not going to happen.

[Romulox]

56. That's precisely the argument: artificial scarcity leads to inflated prices

It's those artificially inflated prices (the War on Drugs subsidy, if you will,) that drive much street crime, not the inherent properties of the drugs themselves.

After all, when's the last time you purchased gin from a man with a submachine gun in a violin case? :shrug:

[Realityhack]

58. Yes that drive a lot of the crime....

but being high on Meth does in fact lead to child abuse and neglect as well. And it is a hell of a lot more addictive than gin.

I don't think this issue is as simple as some people make it out to be (both sides). I think decriminalization of some drugs or even legalization is called for. Others I think should remain controlled or illegal.

[Dogtown]

57. K&R n/t

[ensho]

59. agree

nt

[Hippo_Tron]

60. I would support decriminalization

Meth and Heroin aren't exactly things that should be in abundant supply. However, nobody should spend time in prison simply for posessing them or being addicted to them.