Drug Prohibition Or Drug Use, Which Is More Harmful To Society?

[Pozessed]

Thoughts and opinions please.

I think the coordinated groups involved in prohibition cause more violence and harm to people than the individuals who use drugs would.

Yes drug users have a potential to harm people and themselves. Thus if drugs were not prohibited the hospitalization for harm to users would increase. More children would need to be fostered. More people would be hindered from drug abusers.

At the same time, I think that the coordinated actions of law enforcement detain more innocent people than drug users would harm. I also think the cartels harm more people than drug abusers would.

I think that with education of drug abuse and treating people as if they were responsible will be more effective than our current methods.

I'm just speculating some thoughts on this. Please don't consider me an activist for drugs. I do advocate marijuana legalization, but as of yet I don't think all drugs should be legal.... People do tend to take things overboard.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Pozessed

[Phi for All]

This is an area where I lean Libertarian. We have all kinds of laws in place to prevent and prosecute crimes committed while under the influence. I think legalizing all drugs and requiring quality assurance similar to all the other poisons we sell legally is the only way to eradicate the criminal aspect and allow people to alter themselves any way they like, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

[MonDie]

This is an area where I lean Libertarian. We have all kinds of laws in place to prevent and prosecute crimes committed while under the influence. I think legalizing all drugs and requiring quality assurance similar to all the other poisons we sell legally is the only way to eradicate the criminal aspect and allow people to alter themselves any way they like, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

 

I would agree if I knew that legalization wouldn't make these drugs more accessible to kids. There's accumulating evidence that adolescence is a sensitive period for cannabis-caused psychosis. I'm not saying alcohol is any better.

Edited October 6, 2014 by MonDie

[Phi for All]

 

I would agree if I knew that legalization wouldn't make these drugs more accessible to kids. There's accumulating evidence that adolescence is a sensitive period for cannabis-caused psychosis. I'm not saying alcohol is any better.

 

So imagine taking all the money used to enforce the drug laws (not the money used to prosecute individual offenses of operating in public under such influences), and using it to shore up our process for keeping kids poison-free. Surgical application of resources instead of attempting to fix everything with a badly-patched blanket.

 

Prohibition doesn't work as well as education. Teenagers are extremely self-focused, and it seems likely that a message appealing to their mental health will be more effective than prohibition.

 

Is it hypocritical to decriminalize all drugs, but increase the penalties for selling to minors?

[MigL]

I would have to agree...

It should be your personal choice whether to use drugs or not.

But once you make the chice, you are responsible for anything that happens while under the influence.

Just like you can't drink and drive, come to work drunk, or excuse stupid, boorish behaviour as the alcohol's fault, so should it be for other drugs.

 

You only have the right to do drugs as long as it doesn't infringe on my right to be safe.

[Phi for All]

Here's an article (I haven't finished reading yet) that talks about Portugal and the results of decriminalizing all drugs (or at least in reasonable personal amounts).

 

The data show, among other things, that the number of adults in Portugal who have at some point taken illegal drugs is rising. At the same time, though, the number of teenagers who have at some point taken illegal drugs is falling. The number of drug addicts who have undergone rehab has also increased dramatically, while the number of drug addicts who have become infected with HIV has fallen significantly.

[Ten oz]

@ the OP, I believe the war on drugs is nothing more than a tool used to influence and control communities. The last 3 Presidents of the United States all admittedly have used drugs. Yet in the united states people are drug tested for various jobs, program egibility and drugs are used to justify any number of police interactions. In modern society where it is no longer tolerated disenfranchising people based of race, sex, age, community, and etc drugs has become the new way to disqualify people and tilting the scales. Walk through any large college campus in the united states and you'll smell marijuana in the air. No police raids or future ruining prosecutions. At the same time in other communities federal, states, and local departments spend time & money running undercover operations looking to prosecute people to the max. For some doing a little ecstasy or weed at a summer festival while watching their favorite band is just part of being young. A right of passage. For others it becomes the reason they aren't allowed to vote, hold a govt job, and struggle for respect in society.

I believe a lot of people do not feel drug laws should apply to themselves but are happy that they apply to others.

[tomgwyther]

I'd go one step further. take heroine for example. It destroys lives, creates crime, spreads disease etc.
If heroine were both legal and freely available on a government health scheme (national health service)

 

If heroine were available from hospitals free of charge;
the drug dealers would be out of business within a month.
The crime related to drug taking and dealing would stop (e.g. burglary to fund habit, drug dealer turf wars)

Overdoses would be rare (The drugs would be administered by trained professionals)

Infection via dirty needles would stop.
addicts could be gently weened off the stuff.
The person administering the drug would have no interest in you buying more, and would actually be encouraging you to stop.

This only leaves the problem of people being addicted to heroine, which at least could be managed better from within a medical establishment.
The cost of such a program could easily be off-set by the savings made in tackling drug crime.

[Ten oz]

@ Tomgwyther, to add on to your comment Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of herione and military operations there to combact terrorism has only grown that industry there. Not meaning to be a conspiracy advocate but the argument could be made that western governments are not interested in combating herione.