The War Against Drugs

[Soonerborn]

I tend to agree with Sisyphus about what we should and shouldnt have laws for. Laws are meant to protect a person from injury or property damage by another party. I do not see why the US government is in the business of protecting people from themselves. Its not their job. Laws dealing with morals or "the good of society" should be handled at the city, county and/or state level. Alcohol is a good example of this. Many counties and cities in this country prohibit the sale of alcohol. They exist peacefully next to counties that are wet without developing a crime network to supply intoxicants. If you dont like your county being dry, move or bring it to vote.

 

As far as drugs are concerned there are good arguments for making them legal and good ones for keeping them illegal. I do know that what we are doing now has not and will not work. There is no way to win the "Drug War" if its primary function is to remove the distribution network. It can and will be replaced all to easily and the only impact it has is that it makes law abiding citizens pay to catch the offenders and then pay more to jail them. It has no significant impact on the customer or the producer. Something must change. It must be made legal or the penalties for breaking the law must become more severe specifically for the users. Personally I think that locking someone up for a long period of time because he wants to smoke a joint, smoke crack, shoot heroine or some other self destructive activity isnt right so I tend to lean towards making it legal.

 

Legalizing drugs

PROS

Drugs would become very cheap. (this would have many secondary effects)

. Stop the funding of criminals here

. Reduce crimes associated with users (robbery, theft etc.)

. Remove a huge negative influence in poor areas

. Stop the flow of cash to producers in many third world countries

Create a source of revenue for the government and and entire new industry

Greatly ease the stress on prisons nation wide

Allow law enforcment to spend more time on protecting people from real crimes

Make drugs safer through FDA regulation

Allow for reduction of spending on law enforcement or reapplying that funding to something more beneficial such as education/treatment/counseling

Crime rates associated with drug trafficking like murder would drop

Lower disease transmission (HIV, hepatitis etc.)

 

CONS

Increased drug usage and dependance

Increased secondary crimes (DUI, Rape etc)

 

 

I think an overall policy of legalizing them while restricting them would be the best choice. No advertisements, stiff tax, age restriction, heavy penalty for secondary crimes, funding of treatment facilities and more funding on prevention would do more in 5 years than the "Drug War" has accomplished in its entirety.

 

Self-destructive behaviour is its own punishment and jail time isnt necessary or helpful to anyone engaged in it. Our time and money would be much better spent on prevention and treatment instead of seeking to punish people that cannot possibly be placed in a worse situation.

[aguy2]

I think an overall policy of legalizing them while restricting them would be the best choice. No advertisements' date=' stiff tax, age restriction, heavy penalty for secondary crimes, funding of treatment facilities and more funding on prevention would do more in 5 years than the "Drug War" has accomplished in its entirety.

 

Self-destructive behaviour is its own punishment and jail time isnt necessary or helpful to anyone engaged in it. Our time and money would be much better spent on prevention and treatment instead of seeking to punish people that cannot possibly be placed in a worse situation.[/quote']

 

We spent 200 years showing the world that, 'Free choices by free men in free markets works, while no other system seems to be workable.', and 2 weeks latter turn around and place cohersive constraints on a free market and then wonder why this is creating problems!

 

Are these the acts of 'wise men' (homo sapians)? One would think that we would either need to change our economic policies or our genus species name.

 

aguy2

[padren]

I think you could argue there is a difference between recreational drugs and get-through-the-work-day drugs. People smoke cigs because they can't cope with the stress during the day as part of its normal use. With Alcohol, you drink recreationally on your own time when you are not otherwise required to perform in some capacity.

 

People taking stims to stay awake driving rigs are more frightening to me than a guy at home smoking pot eating a bag or two of dorritos.

 

I think our culture is more suseptible to "get-by" drugs because we are a bit of a quick-fix pill culture. We'd rather get by with numbed symptoms than stop and treat a problem. (/gross generalizations)

 

I do think we are better off with the alcohol laws we have now, than we did under prohibition. By policing bad behavior from chemical abuse is the best solution IMO, instead of banning them outright.

[sunspot]

The solution to the drug problem(s) is easy. Uncle Sams goes in and buys a good fraction of the dope supply at the best wholesale price and then undercuts the entire market. This drives out all the middlemen where the most violence is. All the profit margin is gone and the whole system is disupted.

 

Next, Uncle Sam distributes the dope, at cost (to recoup its investment), through distribution centers that are full of parents, teachers, doctors, clergy, health care workers, police, etc.. The idea is to interact kindly and teach everyone the risks, while stressing the point of moderation leading to indifference.

[JustStuit]

Increased secondary crimes (DUI' date=' Rape etc)

[/quote']

Finally some sense.

 

Does no one esle think that they should be illegal to protect OTHER people - not [just] them selves. Drugs have a way of hurting people - and not just those who use them.

[-Demosthenes-]

The war on drugs puts Americans in jail. They may be dealers or users but many are still Americans. When one has prisoners of War they are POW's. If the AMerican government wages was against its citizens' date=' that is not Costitutional.The war on Terror at least goes after foreigners and the prisoner are considered POW's and are given all which that entails.

[/quote']

 

1) We should imprison foreigners and not Americans? Uhhh, is anyone else hearing racism?

 

2) We put thieves and murderers in jail, and their Americans! That's obviously unconstitutional.

 

Lets look at the example of outlawing tube socks so it becomes a crime to wear them. Some would blindly follow the law. Others would be outraged and in protest would wear tube socks. Others would hate those whos dare to oppose the law and would not hesitate to beat and harrass anyone caught wearing them (a legal excuse to be A-holes). An underground would also form against the stupid law' date=' where those who protest the stupid law could trade in tube socks. It would be a symbol of freedom fighting. These tube sock peddlers would now become public enemy number one, such that if a swat team went in a shot one of them is would be considered righteous. The lawyers would love this and many new jobs would be created.

[/quote']

 

If tube socks are equal to drugs, then a logical step has been taken. Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

It's very hard to justify a law whose only purpose is to keep people from hurting themselves.

 

The problem is that's not all that we have to worry about. Like the problems I talked about.

How will support those addicted to drugs legally? What if they have no family members to take care of them?

 

Everyone says how bad the tobacco company is (getting people addicted and selling them death sticks for the rest of their lives ultimately killing them )... what kind of power would Amphetamines have on this market? A drug that can get anyone hooked within one or two usages, and many people are physically unable to stop using the drug letting the industry charge whatever they want.

 

What strength would an industry have when you stop using their product the withdrawals could kill you?

 

What do we do with those who cannot take care of their families who are addicted to drugs.

 

What do we do about those who need money for drugs, and are so addicted that they steal and kill for it?

 

What cdan we do until we figure a way to fix these problems?

 

Even from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, there's no good reason something like marijuana should be illegal.

 

I find it curious that marijuana is illegal, when things like tobacco are so similar. I can't help but think that it might end up like tobacco if legalized, I'm not sure how we should fix this whole problem.

 

I think an overall policy of legalizing them while restricting them would be the best choice. No advertisements' date=' stiff tax, age restriction, heavy penalty for secondary crimes, funding of treatment facilities and more funding on prevention would do more in 5 years than the "Drug War" has accomplished in its entirety.

 

Self-destructive behaviour is its own punishment and jail time isn't necessary or helpful to anyone engaged in it. Our time and money would be much better spent on prevention and treatment instead of seeking to punish people that cannot possibly be placed in a worse situation.

[/quote']

 

This could be a good idea, but what do we do about drug addicts? If they can't take care of themselves should we let them die?

[Pangloss]

1) We should imprison foreigners and not Americans? Uhhh, is anyone else hearing racism?

 

That's not what he said at all, and you're *this* close to a warning for flaming.

[Dak]

I find it curious that marijuana is illegal, when things like tobacco are so similar. I can't help but think that it might end up like tobacco if legalized, I'm not sure how we should fix this whole problem.

 

Apart from the method by which they are most commonly taken, tobbaco and cannabis are nothing alike.

 

Nicotine is (very) phisically addictive, cannabis is not (although you can become psycologically dependant); at the doses that it is taken in, nicotine has a very mild psycological effect, cannabis a large one; nicotine effects your mood, cannabis effects your mood and your ability to think strait, descision making, motor skills etc; nicotine is the narcotic responsable for the most deaths per year, cannabis is directly responsable, per year, for 0 acute fatalities, aprox 0 chronic fatalities, and 'very few' indirect deaths (in england -- the figures are presumably the same in the us).

 

So, gurt-big differense between cannabis and tobacco.

[-Demosthenes-]

1) We should imprison foreigners and not Americans? Uhhh' date=' is anyone else hearing racism?[/quote']

 

That's not what he said at all, and you're *this* close to a warning for flaming.

 

I supose not.

 

Apart from the method by which they are most commonly taken' date=' tobbaco and cannabis are nothing alike.

 

Nicotine is (very) phisically addictive, cannabis is not (although you can become psycologically dependant); at the doses that it is taken in, nicotine has a very mild psycological effect, cannabis a large one; nicotine effects your mood, cannabis effects your mood and your ability to think strait, descision making, motor skills etc; nicotine is the narcotic responsable for the most deaths per year, cannabis is directly responsable, per year, for 0 acute fatalities, aprox 0 chronic fatalities, and 'very few' indirect deaths (in england -- the figures are presumably the same in the us).

 

So, gurt-big differense between cannabis and tobacco.[/quote']

 

It would seem so.