Should Drugs Be Legal?

[foodchain]

Should all drugs be Illegal, if not which drugs should be legal or illegal. Please explain why you think this way also. Feel free to express your position in ways I may have not covered with the question, such as you may support drugs being legal for people with medical conditions, etc...

[Haezed]

Should all drugs be Illegal, if not which drugs should be legal or illegal. Please explain why you think this way also. Feel free to express your position in ways I may have not covered with the question, such as you may support drugs being legal for people with medical conditions, etc...

 

I tend to think yes, although they should be regulated very much like alcohol. What a blow to crime that would be in this country.

 

After legalization and investors have built huge companies based on the sale of MJ and crak we can turn the trial lawyers on them and grind them into dust. The circle of life....

 

The only down side to all of this is that it would further enrich the trial lawyers which would benefit the democrat's fund raising.

[Sisyphus]

Idealogically, I'm inclined to the maxim that anything which doesn't harm another should be legal in the name of freedom. Just on those grounds, drugs should pretty much all be legal, though strictly regulated - you can buy and use cocaine, but you can't drive under the influence, can't give it to your kids, can't be totally out of your mind in public. Most currently illegal drugs should be age restricted. As for regulation on business, I'd say you shouldn't be able to realistically buy it without knowing the dangers, a la the warning labels on cigarettes. And of course, consumers have to know exactly what they're getting.

 

This would have multiple benefits. Most importantly, crime would go way down, for obvious reasons: organized crime loses their revenue, no violent turf wars between drug dealers, etc. Also, we wouldn't have to pay for an ineffectual "war on drugs" anymore: our prisons, mostly filled with drug offenders of one sort or another, would empty out, and we could stop ruining foreign farmers' livelihoods by gassing their crops. The drugs themselves would be safer (or at least more predictable), being regulated by the FDA. And I suspect there would be less stupid drug habits, since educated moderation usually has far better results than blind abstinence (much like sex education), and it's not like it's hard to get drugs now, anyway.

[the tree]

It's currently illegal in the UK to sell paracetamol in large quantities, for obvious reasons. This isn't really a law I disagree with. It gives shopkeepers a great justification for saying no, which they are allowed to do anyway but it's easier when you've got a law to back you up.

Now getting rid of all drugs laws (which some members of this forum seem in favour of) would also mean getting rid of that law, which makes the idea a very difficult one for me.

[JustStuit]

No, they should not be. They can be too tempting for some people who can't control their urges and it inevitably hurts others. I've seen it many times. Yes, people ought to be responsible, but they can't. And if they don't sell it to minors, it still becomes easily accessible and ends up with minors. Plus, there is no reason they need it.

[insane_alien]

it still becomes easily accessible and ends up with minors

 

you went to some really sheltered schools didn't you? i was offered heroin when i was only 11. believe me, kids can get their hands on drugs pretty damn easy just now. i don't think legalising them will make it significantly easier. it would probably make it harder as the drug dealers would be forced out of business.

[Sisyphus]

it would probably make it harder as the drug dealers would be forced out of business.

 

I think that's an important point. Sketchy drug dealers, who will sell to anyone, couldn't compete with legitimate businesses, who won't. Legalization would therefore actually make it harder for the wrong people to get their hands on them.

[Pangloss]

To me the most interesing thing about this question is how people who ostensibly fall into a specific ideological camp respond to it. It's one of those issues that divides partisans who are otherwise typically united. And as a result, it's one of those "thorny issues" that keep politicians up late at night.

 

Elected officials from the Democratic party are particularly conflicted on this issue, being asked to support legalization of something that's bad for people while at the same time being constantly inundated with requests to ban things that are bad for people.

 

But Republican politicians don't get it easy either, typically failing to recognize that many of their staunchest supporters, particularly in younger generations, support legalization of "victimless crimes", such as drug use and the age-old young-man's favorite, prostitution. And of course it's the support of libertarians and moderates that maintain the fiction of conservative bible-thumpers domination this country's politics.

 

It's ALLLLMOST an issue of younger generations versus older generations.

[JustStuit]

you went to some really sheltered schools didn't you?

 

No, actually, there is a lot of drug activity at my school.

[insane_alien]

so you know how easy it is to get drugs then. unless you mean a few kids having a smoke round the back of the building by 'a lot of drug activity'

[JustStuit]

so you know how easy it is to get drugs then. unless you mean a few kids having a smoke round the back of the building by 'a lot of drug activity'

 

Yes, and I don't see how making it legal will make it any harder. They will find older friends to buy a bunch and they would still have it. Plus there would be a bunch of older delusional people with cars and possibly families.

[Dak]

^^ actually, i could easier get cannabis in my school than booze. even stuff like acid and speed were available.

 

----------

 

intuitively, even tho i'm more or less of sysiphus' opinion (if it only hurts you, it's ok), i'd intuitively say that stuff like heroine, crack, and nicotine should be illegal, on the grounds that people would too often make mistakes with them. kinda like how wearing seatbelts is mandatory; yeah, not doing so will only hurt you, but you still gotta admit that fatal road traffic accidents have gone down since that law was introduced.

 

however, iirc holand (where scag is legal) kinda disproves this knee-jerk reaction, so i guess legalisation for heroine aswell might even be ok...

 

still unconvinced on coke and nicotine.

[ParanoiA]

No, they should not be. They can be too tempting for some people who can't control their urges and it inevitably hurts others. I've seen it many times. Yes, people ought to be responsible, but they can't. And if they don't sell it to minors, it still becomes easily accessible and ends up with minors. Plus, there is no reason they need it.

 

But your argument doesn't hold water since the same can be said of food, tv, video games, alcohol...anything can be abused and does inevitably hurt others, but we don't make it illegal because of it. We hold those people accountable for themselves. I don't believe it's consistent with the core theme of freedom that's supposed to be present in the constitution. Do you have any idea how many working fathers, husbands are doing years in prison, ruined family's - broken homes - all because they like to smoke pot after work?

 

There is no reason you need sugar. There is no reason you need table salt. There is no reason you need TV, or to gamble, or Fatty foods...Since when do you find yourself so important that you should decide what people "need"?

[JustStuit]

But your argument doesn't hold water since the same can be said of food, tv, video games, alcohol...anything can be abused and does inevitably hurt others, but we don't make it illegal because of it. We hold those people accountable for themselves. I don't believe it's consistent with the core theme of freedom that's supposed to be present in the constitution. Do you have any idea how many working fathers, husbands are doing years in prison, ruined family's - broken homes - all because they like to smoke pot after work?

 

There is no reason you need sugar. There is no reason you need table salt. There is no reason you need TV, or to gamble, or Fatty foods...Since when do you find yourself so important that you should decide what people "need"?

 

Yes, but with the exception of alcohol, you can use those and still have proper judgment. Those things can be abused, but how can you use illegal drugs without abusing them inherently. Sugar and salt don't make use do stupid things you might not otherwise do.

Your argument doesn't hold water because those are different than the illegal drugs; they can be used without a high chance of bad effects. And since they are illegal now, I'm not the only one who decided that people don't "need" them.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, but with the exception of alcohol, you can use those and still have proper judgment. Those things can be abused, but how can you use illegal drugs without abusing them inherently. Sugar and salt don't make use do stupid things you might not otherwise do.

Your argument doesn't hold water because those are different than the illegal drugs; they can be used without a high chance of bad effects. And since they are illegal now, I'm not the only one who decided that people don't "need" them.

 

Well, first of all, so what? What right do you or even the majority have to prevent me from hurting myself, if I'm not hurting or endangering anyone else in the process?

 

And second of all, it IS possible to use most drugs without inherently abusing them, despite the fact that yes, they are going to alter your state of mind. Just like with alcohol. Unless you're going to tell me that any alcohol consumption whatsoever is inherently irresponsible and abusive and should be outlawed?

[JustStuit]

Well, first of all, so what? What right do you or even the majority have to prevent me from hurting myself, if I'm not hurting or endangering anyone else in the process?

 

And second of all, it IS possible to use most drugs without inherently abusing them, despite the fact that yes, they are going to alter your state of mind. Just like with alcohol. Unless you're going to tell me that any alcohol consumption whatsoever is inherently irresponsible and abusive and should be outlawed?

 

Well, like the seatbelts, laws have been made to protect people from themselves. And the drugs often affect other people because of the actions people do while under the influence. So you can protect people from themselves and innocent people from others.

The drugs are so often abused, compared to the other things, and what good comes from them? Why allow them to be used? Alcohol's fate has already been determined and accepted so I will not argue with it.

[foodchain]

Well, like the seatbelts, laws have been made to protect people from themselves. And the drugs often affect other people because of the actions people do while under the influence. So you can protect people from themselves and innocent people from others.

The drugs are so often abused, compared to the other things, and what good comes from them? Why allow them to be used? Alcohol's fate has already been determined and accepted so I will not argue with it.

 

You make many good points but overall the idea of drugs covers a spectrum of substances overall. On one end you have say marijuana, on the other lets say you have meth of crack, these drugs are overall different in how they will effect a human being. With that in mind we do have legal drugs, chiefly one could simply point out alcohol which kills thousands of people yearly and destroys families, on that note though you have an untold amount of people that can use these drugs really without any serious consequence for the most part.

 

To add to my position overall it really does at some point associates itself into the realm of being subjective, and on that note it basically means that ideology behind it all is not so much based on anything factually but the current mode of authority. IN many different countries in the U.S drugs laws are drastically different, and it does not take long in regards to looking at Amsterdam to see that many of the problems associated with drug use may in fact not totally be factual, or in some regard actually a bit mythical.

 

IN this regard it then does become somewhat an attack on personal freedom, more so with the constantly occurring bloated statistics of people charged with crimes because of such even though the legality of such its an emplaced legacy really.

 

So overall my position on drugs is a mixed message, I could never really support say crack being legal, but on that context I don’t really know how effective making it illegal really is overall, and I don’t know how you would really quantify such into anything meaningful in regards to objective thought. Then on that same idea you have drugs that are extremely harmful that are legal, that do cause problems in which we basically allow for freedom to exist and personal responsibility to ensue under the notion of liberty and justice and the human experience.

 

Its a complex issue, and for the most part its ruled or regulated not from fact, but from emotion. I cant say with full understanding that such a position is wrong, but I can say overall that it falls short in many regards from making good sense. I would like to chat more on the subject but this post is long enough already for a proper response to take place on the internet.

[Sisyphus]

Well' date=' like the seatbelts, laws have been made to protect people from themselves. And the drugs often affect other people because of the actions people do while under the influence. So you can protect people from themselves and innocent people from others.

The drugs are so often abused, compared to the other things, and what good comes from them? Why allow them to be used? Alcohol's fate has already been determined and accepted so I will not argue with it.[/quote']

 

I'm all for laws against endangering others because of your state of mind. Drunk driving laws are a good example of this. And if I neglect my kids because I'm stoned all the time, by all means, hold me responsible for that as well. But you can't, with a straight face, tell me that some guy smoking marijuana with his friends in his own home is dangerous to anybody.

 

And what "good" comes from anything recreational? "Why allow them to be used?" Shouldn't the question in free societies be "why NOT allow them to be used?"

[JustStuit]

I'm all for laws against endangering others because of your state of mind. Drunk driving laws are a good example of this. And if I neglect my kids because I'm stoned all the time, by all means, hold me responsible for that as well. But you can't, with a straight face, tell me that some guy smoking marijuana with his friends in his own home is dangerous to anybody.

 

And what "good" comes from anything recreational? "Why allow them to be used?" Shouldn't the question in free societies be "why NOT allow them to be used?"

 

The problem I see, is how can you ensure it goes to the guy who just stays in his house and doesn't affect anyone else? If it could be isolated and not affect anyone, I'd be all for the free society, but I don't believe it can.

[the tree]

Why not? We already have laws that make it very clear what situations you're not allowed to be intoxicated in, driving, operating heavy machinery, around firearms et cetera. Why not extend those same laws to cannabis?

Millions and millions of people drink safely, without causing harm to others. So they should be able to smoke cannabis as well.

 

On top of that, how does making drugs illegal stop them from causing harm?

[Edtharan]

The problem I see, is how can you ensure it goes to the guy who just stays in his house and doesn't affect anyone else?

How about looking at Alcohol the same way. People can be violent under the influence of Alcohol, they can loose judgement, etc but we allow it. We have rules that govern how it can be used, and we accept it's use (but not abuse).

 

Well, like the seatbelts, laws have been made to protect people from themselves.

This is a completely different argument. If you are using this to argue about making drugs illegal for our own protection, then cigarettes must be made illegal for our own protection, fatty foods must be made illegal for our own protection.

 

The argument "For our own protection" is not a consistent argument. There are too many exceptions that can be brought up where we haven't applied it. Besides, wrapping people up in cotton wool and denying them the right to choose does not lead to those people developing the ability to make other decisions about what is "safe" or not. If they haven't experimented with danger, when they are faced with it they will not know how to react properly.

 

So on these grounds "For your own protection" fails as an argument.

 

And the drugs often affect other people because of the actions people do while under the influence.

Same with alcohol. So lets ban that. Driving a car can be bad for others, why not ban that too?

 

The reason is that we don't ban these things because of the emotional response that has been socially programmed into us.

 

Your argument doesn't hold water because those are different than the illegal drugs; they can be used without a high chance of bad effects.

Because they are regulated. We have rules and social stigmas in place that act as a control mechanism. When a drug is made illegal, the user needs to keep it secret so they loose any of these controls. This opens the door to abuse.

 

Think about alcohol. When people are first allowed to legally drink, they tend to go out of control. They haven't developed that social stigmas against it. But as time goes on, they learn that they way they act under the influence of alcohol gives others a negative impression of themselves. This then makes then think twice before they drink to excess.

 

Other rules and regulations reinforce these. Bars can't (usually) sell to persons who are intoxicated, you can't be drunk in public, it is illegal to be drunk in certain situations (firearms, driving, operating heavy machinery, etc).

 

It is set up so that we can freely use, but not abuse it.

 

At various times different countries have experimented with banning alcohol, and in each case organised crime prospered off the illegal use of it (think the prohibition era in American history and the Mafia and other organised crime syndicates that flourished). The crime syndicates that existed in the prohibition era that relied on alcohol greatly went into decline when that period ended (or just moved over to another of the illegal substances).

 

The legality of alcohol has allowed a culture to flourish that presents it in a novel form (cocktails, and all the other forms we can get alcohol in). In the prohibition era, the types of alcohol was restricted and people sought out the stronger stuff. This increased the bad effects of alcohol, and as there was then no safety regulations for the contents of the alcohol served, many dangerous substances and additions were added (in terms of modern drugs, they would "cut" the alcohol with other substances to increase the volume they had available as it was expensive, difficult and risky to ship in large amounts).

 

This has so many parallels with the modern (ab)use of drugs and they way they are available that it draws question to the effectiveness of current attitudes.

 

Alcohol's fate has already been determined and accepted so I will not argue with it.

The: "This is how it was, so, this is how it will be" argument. Not really a logical or rational argument. You know what, it used to be that people kept slaves, so lets not question that. It used to be that Women were considered inferior to Men, so why not just keep it that way (hey we never use to use fire, so why should we use it. It is dangerous to your self and others, it is harmful to the environment. So for your own protection and because we never used to use it before, we will not use it now... /jk )

 

No, just because it used to a certain way is no reason to keep it that way.

 

ps: By the way. I have never taken any illegal drug and never wanted to (even though I have been offered and had the opportunity), I don't drink (and I am Australian ) and I am Male.

[Sisyphus]

How about this question: why aren't more drugs legal? How about just cannabis? I hear reasoned arguments for its legalization all the time, but never any for keeping it illegal. So what's the deal? My guess is it's a matter of momentum. No elected politician wants to "stand up for potheads," which is how his enemies would inevitably portray it. It's an irrational policy, but nobody cares enough to end their carreer over it.

 

BTW, full disclosure: I've tried several of the "softer" illegal drugs (none of which were at all difficult to obtain) a couple times, but didn't really care for any of them, and haven't taken any in over a year. I drink alcohol regularly but quite moderately, since I long ago learned my lessons about lack of moderation, and the standardization means I can always judge exactly what I'm getting. Am I an "abuser," somehow? I don't think so.

[Pangloss]

How about this question: why aren't more drugs legal? How about just cannabis? I hear reasoned arguments for its legalization all the time, but never any for keeping it illegal.

 

Well the simple (albeit unsatisfactory to many) answer to that question is "because it's bad for you". I think you're looking for a more detailed answer, though, but I'm not an expert and I can only suggest psychological impact as a motive here. (I.E. "Robbing the user of motivation.")

[JohnF]

I think all drugs should be legal. If you are going to have laws that are for the purpose of protecting people from themselves then it would have to be illegal to do anything dangerous, like mountaineering, skiing, riding motorbikes, etc.

Just think of all the tax that could be raised from legitimate sale of drugs.

[Pangloss]

What about thalidomide?