Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[Mr Endon]

(Discussion started in http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44659)

- Is the criminalisation of drugs an obstacle to freedom or a necessary measure?
- Is drug consumption to be compared to alcohol, and its criminalisation to the Prohibition in the beginning of the 20th century? Or maybe to tobacco, which is being increasingly restricted and taxed for being addicting and harmful for others than the consumer?
- Should a distinction be made between so-called light and heavy drugs in relation to an eventual legalisation?

Have your say!

[Mariamosis]

I was a hair away from using a reference to the Nazi's, but stopped myself. :lol:

[Mr Endon]

Haha, and we all know that's the end of a discussion!

So, until someone from the nay side turns up, let me set the ball rolling (as I'm still largely undecided this discussion is particularly interesting to me):

Granted that personal liberties should be respected, but the problem is the precedent it sets: drugs ruin many lives other than the consumers' own. I brought up the tobacco issue because, for me, the problem is not that smokers may get cancer (that's up to them), but the repercussions on the environment and specially passive smoking.

Also, it's just occurred to me: how do you stand on the legalisation of guns (in, say, the US)? Because if you think, like I do, that that market should somehow be restricted, then there's the problem of the black market - just as there is with drugs. I guess that what I'm saying is that I'm having a hard time coming to terms with a legalisation of drugs because coherence would demand me to also legalise guns. Guns make destruction way too easy - but drugs make self-destruction just as easy. Maybe this analogy is unfair, but surely you understand what I'm driving at?

[hampusforev]

Guns should be legal as well, I think the same sort of logic applies there too. Finland have strict gun policies, and it sure didn't help them. I'm quite ambiguous here though, I despise what people can do with guns, and I haven't really looked in to the statistics and reasons why Americas gun-related violence is so high.

Anyway, on to drugs, and a reply to kelby lake:


If we had total freedom, there'd be anarchy. Should we allow people's 'freedom' to murder someone they don't like? Some people don't know what to do with freedom

People's mindset- legal=okay. Yes, it might help junkies but what about people experimenting?

You are free to do drugs- it's just that there's a consequence if you do. If you want to risk it, you can.


Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. ~Theodore Roosevelt

I don't really get what your point is, should drugs be legal or not? Because you seem to say that: yes you are free to do drugs, but on the same note you seem to advocate the ridiculous nature of the current drug policies which hinders people from doing drugs.

Killing people is never okay, and it's not a liberty because you're taking away other peoples liberty. IE.. their liberty to enjoy the same life as you do.
The analogy is not applicable.
Yes, there should be restrictions, I draw the line at the act of removing other people's liberty (robbery, rape, non-consensual violence etc.)

[Mariamosis]

Guns are an issue I would need to think about. I don't believe that guns should be made completely out of reach for the consumer and I do believe that everyone has a right to protect themselves.... hmmm I may need some time to consider. It is difficult to come to a conclusion since I have never been around guns.

In regards to drugs, I am also on the fence about some of the issues. (I would be doing myself an injustice to pretend that I have all of my opinions sorted)

Concerning whether all drugs should be legalized: I have experimented with different legal and illegal drugs in the past, and have found that nothing can be black and white. A few legal drugs have terrified me enough to convert me, whereas some harsh illegal drugs didn't scare me in the least.

However, I do believe there should be a line drawn somewhere, and further more, anything that occurs naturally in nature should be to the whim of the individual.

(I have some work to do and will get back to this in an hour or two)

[PeterL]

Yes, people should live their own lives without government interference. Obviously, that right stops when it interferes with others.

[Scheherazade]

Legal issues are not government interference but the state. Governments come and go; the state remains regardless.

[Desolation]

I support legalization, with age restrictions of course, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost is BODILY INTEGRITY. As much as they would like to tell you otherwise, your body and mind are not government possessions. They belong exclusively to you, and as such, you should be able to build or destroy them however you so please. The government is over-stepping their bounds by throwing people in prison for non-violent offenses such as drug use.
Second, the War on Drugs costs billions of dollars a year. Here we are wasting money in a war against our own people, while criminals are swimming in drug profits. We could easily sell and tax the drugs ourselves, and make money on them instead of losing it.
Third, I know this argument won't mean much to a lot of people, but the quality of life for users would dramatically increase. For instance, heroin users have to put up with dealers that are dubious at best and cut the drug with a variety of things such as baby powder and laxatives to make the narcotic look more potent and save money. Legalization would guarantee cheap, good quality product. This would also do a lot to stop the spread of AIDS, as clean needles would be readily available. And since the social stigma would be taken off the habit, the user would have more options financially, and as such wouldn't have to steal to get money for drugs.
Fourth(carrying on from my last point), one major impact of the War on Drugs is that it turns people into permanent second class citizens. Say someone was arrested for possession, most likely a young person, maybe freshly out of high school and just experimenting as many people do. Well, now this person is barred from most decent colleges and employment. With any potential legitimate earning power taken away, what are they going to do? They'll probably end up selling drugs, getting involved with gangs, prostitution, or other such activities. It's the War on Drugs that make the "ghettos" what they are.

America likes to call itself the "Land of the Free." As long as this war continues, it has no right to label itself as such.

[hampusforev]

As for the issue of secondhand smoke, I might be biased since I'm a smoker. I certainly do not want the people that I love to die (haha certainly not people that I don't care for either) or get hurt from my own choice. I only smoke outside, and from what I can gather, it's about as harmful as car emissions. I've seen differet reports on passive smoking, as of now, it seems as though there are dangers, but only if you live with a smoker who smokes inside, or spend longer strechtes of time inside with smokers.

It's slightly selfish to risk the harms of others, I know. I guess I don't really have a retort to that.

[Mariamosis]

Hampusforev,
When you finish your speech feel free to post it. I am sure that we would all love to read it!

[papayahed]

darn it!!!! I had my answers just the way I wanted them and erased it all!!:flare:



I shall return!!

[Mr Endon]

People, thanks for the replies. You've been making great points and I only regret that those opposed to legalisation haven't turned up yet. Therefore I'm going to have to play the devil's advocate.

Just because I'm only quoting the bits which I find problematic that doesn't mean I'm ignoring the good ones (sometimes I have the feeling people do this way too much in forums); the point about personal liberty is well taken and it's a very hard one to knock down!


Guns should be legal as well, I think the same sort of logic applies there too. Finland have strict gun policies, and it sure didn't help them.

Are you alluding to some event here? Could you fill me in? And do you support the NRA's views just because of liberty? I think that the 'personal liberty' argument isn't very sound when talking about guns, because it's so easy to interfere with others' liberties with them, mainly that of living.


However, I do believe there should be a line drawn somewhere, and further more, anything that occurs naturally in nature should be to the whim of the individual.

Well, poison is also natural! This may be a disingenuous argument, but still, I think poison should be somehow restricted/controlled even though it occurs naturally.


Yes, people should live their own lives without government interference. Obviously, that right stops when it interferes with others.

Sure, but the problem is where to draw that line. Imagine some guys legally acquire drugs and then make others try it as well through peer pressure (you don't really have to imagine, though, it's pretty much a reality without the word "legally"). You see what I mean? Peer pressure can't be punished by law, yet it leads to the interference with others, maybe sometimes even underaged.


Fourth(carrying on from my last point), one major impact of the War on Drugs is that it turns people into permanent second class citizens.

Well here you're arguing against stigmatisation, which is different. I may think drugs should be legalised, but simultaneously I may think stigmatisation is one of society's means of self-regulation which inhibits people from being introduced to drugs and from consuming them. Having racist views may be legal (as long as you don't put them to practice), but I think it's great that they are stigmatised.


darn it!!!! I had my answers just the way I wanted them and erased it all!!:flare:



I shall return!!

:lol: we're all waiting!

[Desolation]

Well here you're arguing against stigmatisation, which is different. I may think drugs should be legalised, but simultaneously I may think stigmatisation is one of society's means of self-regulation which inhibits people from being introduced to drugs and from consuming them. Having racist views may be legal (as long as you don't put them to practice), but I think it's great that they are stigmatised.Actually, this is arguing against LEGAL stigma, which is a little bit different. Social stigmas will last as long as the person is using, while this form of legal stigma will continue long after drugs stop being a part of the person's life. That is a big problem.

[Mr Endon]

I see what you mean. However, I don't think you can call it a 'legal' stigma, for the simple reason that there's no law saying that convicted drug users must not be hired (I'll admit that I don't know this for a fact, and though this is an assumption I'd be very surprised to learn it is otherwise).

The thing is, even if it were perfectly legal there would be people prejudiced against drug users, and that's a fact; the social stigma, like you said, is a tough nut to crack, ingrained in our collective mentality as it is. For instance, certain employers are obliged to put "m/f" in their classified ads and interview the applicant regardless of gender, but that doesn't mean that the female applicant will be chosen, even if she has better qualifications.

So what you're referring to is social stigma as well. It is a big problem, and it can only be overcome by sensibilisation campaigns and such.

[Mariamosis]

Well, poison is also natural! This may be a disingenuous argument, but still, I think poison should be somehow restricted/controlled even though it occurs naturally.

Perhaps governed within limits, however, not banned. Natural narcotics should be controlled in a similar way in which regulations are put on alcohol, tobacco, Nyquil, porn & etc... (comparatively speaking)

[Stargazer86]

I'm for legalization of certain, more minor drugs (pot) or at least decriminalization. I say, impose a harsh penalty for driving under the influence, or committing any illegal act while under the influence. Tax it, make money off of it instead of losing so much money and filling up already overcrowded jails. It really is no worse than alcohol. Probably even safer than alcohol. Not necissarily as far as long term effects go; that's up for debate. But I've never heard of a violent crime committed because someone was stoned. But I have heard of horrible things happening because people are drunk. At least the DEA finally said they were going to stop raiding our dispensaries.

Even the cops don't think pot is a big deal.

Legalize marijuana.

Now, heroin and things like that...well...let me research a couple of points a bit more and I'll get back to you on that

[Mariamosis]

I'm for legalization of certain, more minor drugs (pot) or at least decriminalization. I say, impose a harsh penalty for driving under the influence, or committing any illegal act while under the influence.

I agree with this statement completely, but I must add that the same law imposed on alcohol should be implied. Blowing a .08BAC sets a standard and there should be some standard for lesser drugs such as cannabis as well.

[Desolation]

I'm all for penalties for driving under the influence of any substance. But, there's something I'd like to note from nothing more than personal observation.

Most of my friends actually drive substantially better when they're stoned. This is likely because drugs like marijuana make you somewhat paranoid which makes you pay an acute attention to details.

[Mariamosis]

Haha...

I found the same thing and especially on the interstate! However, if overdone things can turn ugly.

I also found taking tests to be a breeze, and I am usually a nervous wreck when anyone is grading me. (also, my odds of passing were higher as long as I used the "power of extreme concentration" on the test and didn't get distracted)

[Mr Endon]

Yes, well, like I've said in the OP, we really should make the distinction between light and heavy drugs. I've been thinking about heroin/cocain/etc more than about pot. I too think pot is in a totally different league and should be legalised. It's much harder to make a case for the heavy-weight ones.

(Desolation and Mariamosis, I can understand that it may appear so, but I think you're rationalising :) Scientifically it's not very sound to suggest that pot sharpens your senses)

But I agree that alcohol is more dangerous than pot. An argument could be made that pot incapacitates people and when done at inappropriate times it may cause child negligence or even prove to be, say, a fire hazard. But by that token so does napping, I guess :) so forget about that one.

[PeterL]

Sure, but the problem is where to draw that line. Imagine some guys legally acquire drugs and then make others try it as well through peer pressure (you don't really have to imagine, though, it's pretty much a reality without the word "legally"). You see what I mean? Peer pressure can't be punished by law, yet it leads to the interference with others, maybe sometimes even underaged.

Those are minor issues or non-issues. If someone advocates the use of something that is legal, then there is no issue. Peer pressure is just that, and while some people succumb to such pressure, others push back. Is peer pressure any worse than advertising? I do not see peer pressure as an issue in the matter of drug use. The matter of someone being underage is even less of an issue. The whole concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is absurd. I favor removing the minimum age restrictions for the purchase of alcohol. I have no problem with eight year olds getting drunk. In fact, I think that it might be a good idea for eight year olds to get well and thoroughly polluted; it would stop many from even drinking to excess again, while others would become alcoholics at an early age. If alcoholism were diagnosed at an early age, then people would have a chance to treat it from an early age.

One thing to consider in this discussion is the history the use of opiates and cocaine before they were made illegal. I am only familiar with such history in the U.S., where, 10 years ago, anyone could walk into a pharmacy and buy opium, laudanum, heroin, or cocaine for reasonable prices. Before the Civil War there was little non-medical use of such things, but during the Civil War many thousands of people became addicted to opium, which was used to relieve the pain of wounds. Over the next fifty years those addicts largely continued to use opium, and there were some recreational users, but the overall consumption of opium slowly decreased (heroin was not invented until the 1880's). Cocaine was used the way that novacaine is now used by dentists, and there were some recreational users, but the use of pure cocaine was rare. Both cocaine and opiates were commonly used in beverages for an extra kick; the coca in CocaCola was cocaine, and an extract of the coca leaf is still used in it. Patent medicines often contained opium. For all of the legal sources addiction and health problems were not all that common a hundred years ago, and the drugs were cheap enough that an addict could work and pay for adequate supplies on a working man's pay. Of course, there were some people who were incapacitated by drugs, and they became ragged beggars. That group was quite small.

The next question is what the reaction of people would be if drugs were legaized again. I believe that a small percentage of people would become helplessly addicted, but that many more people would use those drugs occasionally, the way that Sherlock Holmes did. The social costs would be no more than they are now, because most of the people who would become hopeless addicts already are. Some people would become long-term addicts bout would continue to be assets to society like de Quincey. A larger group would use drugs now and then. There would also be many people who would never touch drugs. The profile of the drug users would be about what it was a hundred years ago.

[Mr Endon]

The idea of deliberately getting 8-year-olds drunk is very entertaining but absolutely indefensible. Maybe you're just pulling my leg, but still let me address this.

I still think that peer pressure is relevant, but maybe you're right, not so legally and thus perhaps a minor issue. But the concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is not absurd at all. It has to do with how permanent damage may be caused when the body is still developing. Also, minimun age is basically the age when the average person's body is fully developed and such person is sensible enough to make potentially life-changing choices.

And addiction isn't easier to treat at an earlier age; if anything, it's easier to become addicted. There are children than become addicted to substances ever since they are in the womb - even when they are negative months old! So according to your logic it would be easier to cure their addictions. It isn't.

---
as for the second post:

I don't see how the history of legal drug using is relevant at all. Just because it was legal then it should be legal now? Just because there was racial segregation for so long does that mean it was somehow 'alright'? (sorry about the cheap resort to racism again, but I think that in this instance it's fair play).

And point well taken (in the second part, I mean) though again I don't see how that works as an argument for legalisation. Do we want the profile of the drug user to be like it was 100 years ago?

[PeterL]

The idea of deliberately getting 8-year-olds drunk is very entertaining but absolutely indefensible. Maybe you're just pulling my leg, but still let me address this.

I am completely serious about that. If you don't remember what it was like to be eight and can imagine how you would have reacted to getting drunk, then you wouldn't understand the effect that it would have. I do remember being eight, and I have a good Idea of how I would have reacted to getting seriously drunk, and that reaction would have been a good thing.


I still think that peer pressure is relevant, but maybe you're right, not so legally and thus perhaps a minor issue. But the concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is not absurd at all. It has to do with how permanent damage may be caused when the body is still developing. Also, minimun age is basically the age when the average person's body is fully developed and such person is sensible enough to make potentially life-changing choices.

And addiction isn't easier to treat at an earlier age; if anything, it's easier to become addicted. There are children than become addicted to substances ever since they are in the womb - even when they are negative months old! So according to your logic it would be easier to cure their addictions. It isn't.

I get the impression that you think that children should be coddled and kept from any possible danger. I consider the idea of there being legal minimum ages for buying certain substances is asinine. If people are going to become addicted, then they will. If people will shun certain things then they will shun them. The reactions won't change significantly over a few years.

---

as for the second post:

I don't see how the history of legal drug using is relevant at all. Just because it was legal then it should be legal now? Just because there was racial segregation for so long does that mean it was somehow 'alright'?

And point well taken (in the second part, I mean) though again I don't see how that works as an argument for legalisation. Do we want the profile of the drug user to be like it was 100 years ago?

History is the instruction book for how things work. If people used drugs in certain ways a hundred or a thousand years ago, then they probably will use them in similar ways in two years or two hundred years. Humans have been using intoxicants as long as there have been humans, and other animals use intoxicants. Is it reasonable to expect humans to change so that they will not want to use intoxicants? I would contend that it is reasonable to expect that humans will use intoxicants as long as there will be humans. Whether "we want the profile of the drug user to be like it was 100 years ago" is of no consequence. It is reasonable to expect that the profile will be similar regardless of the desires of anyone.

[Stargazer86]

I'm all for penalties for driving under the influence of any substance. But, there's something I'd like to note from nothing more than personal observation.

Most of my friends actually drive substantially better when they're stoned. This is likely because drugs like marijuana make you somewhat paranoid which makes you pay an acute attention to details.

Having been a major stoner for years (not so much anymore) and having many stoner friends, I can say that this is true in many cases. However, in many other cases it is the opposite. It depends on the person and they type of weed. Too sketchy a thing to allow. I say impose harsher regulations as a compromise and a safety net. Like it's not illegal anymore but there have to be regulations just as there are with alcohol and cigarettes.

[Mr Endon]

I am completely serious about that. If you don't remember what it was like to be eight and can imagine how you would have reacted to getting drunk, then you wouldn't understand the effect that it would have. I do remember being eight, and I have a good Idea of how I would have reacted to getting seriously drunk, and that reaction would have been a good thing.

I'm sorry, but no, I don't think you have a good idea of how you would have reacted. Neither do I, of course. But honestly, what kind of judgement do you think an 8-year-old has? You think 8-year-olds learn lessons with ODs? And they have such frail immunitary defenses. And they get addicted so much more easily than an adult. This is indefensible in too many levels.


I get the impression that you think that children should be coddled and kept from any possible danger. I consider the idea of there being legal minimum ages for buying certain substances is asinine. If people are going to become addicted, then they will. If people will shun certain things then they will shun them. The reactions won't change significantly over a few years.

To not expose children to unnecessarily dangerous situations is not to coddle. Let them experiment all they want when their bodies and minds are minimally developed!

The position defended in the sentence in bold is just impossible to sustain. So kids will always get addicted, might as well give it to them anyway. People will always kill each other, might as well make it easier by handing out guns.

---


History is the instruction book for how things work. If people used drugs in certain ways a hundred or a thousand years ago, then they probably will use them in similar ways in two years or two hundred years. Humans have been using intoxicants as long as there have been humans, and other animals use intoxicants. Is it reasonable to expect humans to change so that they will not want to use intoxicants? I would contend that it is reasonable to expect that humans will use intoxicants as long as there will be humans. Whether "we want the profile of the drug user to be like it was 100 years ago" is of no consequence. It is reasonable to expect that the profile will be similar regardless of the desires of anyone.

I see your point, and it is relevant for the discussion. Still, I think that's again a rather deterministic view of human nature. We had slavery for many centuries, and we eventually realised it was inadmissible. I'm just pointing out that attitudes may change. For example, there has always been and will always be murder, but we should strive to curb that.

Now the natural reaction is: drug use doesn't even compare to murder or slavery. Of course it doesn't, but I'm just trying to prove by making these analogies that
1) just because there has always been [blank] doesn't mean there will always be;
2) just because there will always be [blank] doesn't mean there should be.

Ultimately, then, all we have to take into account are the drugs themselves. My life philosophy is about life-affirming actions. A relative of mine is a judge and through him I've known just too many lives destroyed by hard drugs, it's very depressing the number of kids and adults who steal, abuse physically and verbally and even kill their parents so as to get money to support the addiction.

In an ideal world I'd legalise all drugs, because ideally people would consume them with moderation. In a world such as we have, it would be very irresponsible to allow all sorts of people to get a hold of that. Think about the children born addicted, what chance do they have?

So, marijuana should be legalised and destigmatised because it doesn't really represent a threat to anyone. As for hard drugs, however, like cocain and heroin, I believe that they should be illegal. (this is my provisional view of it, I can't argue for so long for a side without eventually seeing some truth in it)

[Desolation]

Having been a major stoner for years (not so much anymore) and having many stoner friends, I can say that this is true in many cases. However, in many other cases it is the opposite. It depends on the person and they type of weed. Too sketchy a thing to allow. I say impose harsher regulations as a compromise and a safety net. Like it's not illegal anymore but there have to be regulations just as there are with alcohol and cigarettes.I agree. And if you're one of those people that drives brilliantly when you're stoned, then you're not going to get pulled over anyways.

[Scheherazade]

I agree. And if you're one of those people that drives brilliantly when you're stoned, then you're not going to get pulled over anyways.Let's hope that one does not find out that they are not one of those who drive brilliantly when they are stoned only after causing an accident and killing or hurting others who*are*not*oh*so*major*stoners.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I know the OP wanted to consider harder drugs here, but my issue is with legalizing marijuana. It comes back to the same idea as second-hand Tobacco smoke. Until relatively recently, the public was unaware of the risks to people who ingested Tobacco smoke second-hand. Now smoking in close quarters with others is considered unacceptable and harmful. It's known that parents who smoke in their homes are causing damage to the health of their children.

So what about pot smoke? If smoking pot is legal, it will likely become more common in settings like the home and really, is it fair for a parent to get his/her kids high off their second hand smoke?

[Mr Endon]

I have to agree with Scheherazade. The problem with all the studies I've been reading is that the term of comparison is always alcohol. We know you shouldn't drive drunk, so of course marijuana is presented in a necessarily better light: "Studies of driving behavior have been conducted with typical user-preferred doses, and show that the effects, at least on the alcohol impairment scale, are mild to moderate".

Mild to moderate is still worse than none. You may talk about how some people you know drive pretty well when stoned - that's alright, of course. The problem is the conclusion underlying that: that driving under the influence isn't that bad. Well, it is bad, and I think it's irresponsible to downplay its significance, just as it's irresponsible to downplay the significance of talking on the cell phone while driving.


(Great, I've been reading and writing on this thread for so long that now I've got Afroman's "Because I got high" music stuck in my head. I hope you're happy!)


---
EDIT: ClassicCharm, I'm not sure passive smoking applies for pot? I've never heard of it at any rate; I mean, it's not like it gives cancer. Will have to look that up, though.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I get the impression that you think that children should be coddled and kept from any possible danger. I consider the idea of there being legal minimum ages for buying certain substances is asinine. If people are going to become addicted, then they will. If people will shun certain things then they will shun them. The reactions won't change significantly over a few years.

8 year old Johnny pounds a mickey of Rye.
His liver explodes because it can't physically process that much alcohol.
He dies.
Whoops. Now he'll know for next time.

:rolleyes:

So does the parent get charged with negligence, or what?



---
EDIT: ClassicCharm, I'm not sure passive smoking applies for pot? I've never heard of it at any rate; I mean, it's not like it gives cancer. Will have to look that up, though.

I'm not talking about that kind of damage. As far as I'm aware, there's no scientific evidence of pot being carcinogenic. I'm talking about getting high off second-hand pot smoke, and it's affects on, say, a child trying to do homework.

[Mr Endon]

Well, what do you know:


What evidence is there about the link between second-hand marijuana smoke and cancer?

In June 2002, a panel of experts brought together by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (an agency of the World Health Organization) determined that second-hand smoke causes cancer. And we know that marijuana and cigarette smoke contain as many as 50 of the same cancer causing substances. For these reasons, experts believe that exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke is at least as harmful as second-hand tobacco smoke.

That's certainly news to me. And from what seems to be a reliable source, too: http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/How%20you%20can%20help/Take%20action/Advocacy%20what%20were%20doing/Marijuana%20smoking/Cancer%20risks%20of%20long-term%20recreational%20use/Get%20the%20facts%20Frequently%20asked%20questions %20about%20marijuana%20and%20cancer%20risks%20of%2 0long-term%20recreational%20smoking%20of%20marijuana.asp x?sc_lang=en

This being the case, I'd stand by Mariamosis's suggestion of restricting marijuana in a similar way as tobacco.

---
EDIT: However, in 2006 it was stated that "it is currently unclear whether long-term smoking of marijuana causes cancer". (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fxoJPVNKYUgC&pg=RA2-PA247&lpg=RA2-PA247&dq=passive+smoke+marijuana+cancer&source=bl&ots=w2ObOS-8VC&sig=WwdrGu68UE84g4QepsyhKeVoPlY&hl=en&ei=flIoSvqCL-K4jAf2tPHUAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8). There are always dissonant studies. I've read some studies addressing cancer due to tobacco passive smoke and cancer due to marijuana active smoke, but very little has been written about cancer due to marijuana passive smoke cancer.

Draw your own conclusions; if only for the reasons stated by ClassicCharm, I think marijuana should have the same restrictions as tobacoo.

[Stargazer86]

8 year old Johnny pounds a mickey of Rye.
His liver explodes because it can't physically process that much alcohol.
He dies.
Whoops. Now he'll know for next time.

:rolleyes:

So does the parent get charged with negligence, or what?



I'm not talking about that kind of damage. As far as I'm aware, there's no scientific evidence of pot being carcinogenic. I'm talking about getting high of second-hand pot smoke, and it's affects on, say, I child trying to do homework.


Whether or not pot is carcinogenic (and I'm sure, as with anything you light up and inhale, it is), children should not be exposed to it. Not only because of short term affects on homework and things like that, but the addictive qualities (and I don't care what anyone says, regular use does make it habit forming or else people wouldn't be stoners in the first place) and memory loss, munchies, lethargy is not something that should be imposed on a kid.

Good point on the alcohol Classic

[hampusforev]

Wow, this thread really took off. There's too much for me to consider at the moment (I've got quite a hang-over), but I'll get to reading them all and give my answer. I make no distinction of harder and minor drugs, the fact is that some people HAVE been able to use heroin "responsibly" (IE. using it one time then saying "nah, this is not for me". I don't have the links right now, so feel free to disagree and be skeptical. But there's actually a clinic and university (an established one) in Australia which are doing some great research on how we can decrease the dangers in drugs, but still retain the "pleasure" derived form using, say, opium. This really speaks to my hedonistic philosophy, dump this Christianity imposed view that anything carnal and pleasurable is evil.

Here's an article about scientists plea about reclassification of drugs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

As you can see, alcohol is worse than LSD, ecstasy, morphine, amphetamine and cannabis.

[amarna]

Drug addiction is sort of modern slavery, I think, an anonymous, compelling and concealed subjection by industry and market.
When I look around, I can see Johnny Walker slaves, Philip Morris slaves, Novartis slaves, Nestlé slaves and so on. Weird paradox that people fight for their freedom to be enslaved and they've to be suppressed to stay free.

[Mr Endon]

Powerful stuff, amarna.

hampusforev, the problem with that logic is that of the dangerous precedent it sets. Exactly because only 'some people HAVE been able to use heroin "responsibly"' is it hazardous and irresponsible to allow anyone to have access to the addictive substance.

[PeterL]

I'm sorry, but no, I don't think you have a good idea of how you would have reacted. Neither do I, of course. But honestly, what kind of judgement do you think an 8-year-old has? You think 8-year-olds learn lessons with ODs? And they have such frail immunitary defenses. And they get addicted so much more easily than an adult. This is indefensible in too many levels.


To not expose children to unnecessarily dangerous situations is not to coddle. Let them experiment all they want when their bodies and minds are minimally developed!

The children of other people are the responsibility of those people. It is not a legitiamte function of governemnt to tell people how to live their lives, as long as they do not harm others. There are many people who think that gevernment should be the Great Nanny and take care of people; those people fail to consider how poorly governments function in tat role.


The position defended in the sentence in bold is just impossible to sustain. So kids will always get addicted, might as well give it to them anyway. People will always kill each other, might as well make it easier by handing out guns.

That is a false analogy written with the hope that you and others would take it as true. A much closer analogy would be that people have always eaten, so it is reasonable to allow them to procure food.

---


I see your point, and it is relevant for the discussion. Still, I think that's again a rather deterministic view of human nature. We had slavery for many centuries, and we eventually realised it was inadmissible. I'm just pointing out that attitudes may change. For example, there has always been and will always be murder, but we should strive to curb that.

Now the natural reaction is: drug use doesn't even compare to murder or slavery. Of course it doesn't, but I'm just trying to prove by making these analogies that
1) just because there has always been [blank] doesn't mean there will always be;
2) just because there will always be [blank] doesn't mean there should be.

Ultimately, then, all we have to take into account are the drugs themselves. My life philosophy is about life-affirming actions. A relative of mine is a judge and through him I've known just too many lives destroyed by hard drugs, it's very depressing the number of kids and adults who steal, abuse physically and verbally and even kill their parents so as to get money to support the addiction.

The comments about slavery are another false analogy, but there is still slavery, and in many cases it is legal. It would be more accurate to say that many, and perhaps most, animals use intoxicants, so it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to use intoxicants. If you wish to make a negative moral judgement about that, that is your business, but I don't think that you have any reason to expect that anyone will agree with you.


In an ideal world I'd legalise all drugs, because ideally people would consume them with moderation. In a world such as we have, it would be very irresponsible to allow all sorts of people to get a hold of that. Think about the children born addicted, what chance do they have?

So, marijuana should be legalised and destigmatised because it doesn't really represent a threat to anyone. As for hard drugs, however, like cocain and heroin, I believe that they should be illegal. (this is my provisional view of it, I can't argue for so long for a side without eventually seeing some truth in it)

It is not my responsibility to live anyone else's life for them, so I do not have the power or right to tell people what to do, as long as their actions do not harm me or someone else. For those reasons, all drugs should be legal. Each individual can decide whether to take any drug.


8 year old Johnny pounds a mickey of Rye.
His liver explodes because it can't physically process that much alcohol.
He dies.
Whoops. Now he'll know for next time.


So does the parent get charged with negligence, or what?



Some people do drink themselves to death, and that takes a lot of work. Most people barf their guts out long before they do damage. You have to remember that the minimum age limits for buying alcohol are quite recent. They weren't instituted because kids were dying; they were put in place, because parents wanted someone else to take responsibility for them.

[Mariamosis]

The matter of someone being underage is even less of an issue. The whole concept of something becoming legal at a certain age is absurd. I favor removing the minimum age restrictions for the purchase of alcohol. I have no problem with eight year olds getting drunk.

I respect your opinion, however, I find this rather absurd. Psychological, cognitive and physical abilities are developed in the first 5 years of life.

Alcohol acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, effects the gastrointestinal tract, esophagus, stomach lining, various areas of the brain, liver, heart, and pancreas amongst many other organs. The effects on a child would be devastating and greatly hinder the life expectancy and/or happiness of the child as an adult.

In Addition: However, I don't think the age restriction of 21 is exactly necessary. (in the US; I have a more european view on this.) I feel that 16 would be a reasonable age, perhaps accompanied by a parental figure. (such as when you go to the theater) I haven't thought this through completely, but I thought I would throw it out there.

[PeterL]

I respect your opinion, however, I find this rather absurd. Psychological, cognitive and physical abilities are developed in the first 5 years of life.

Alcohol acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, effects the gastrointestinal tract, esophagus, stomach lining, various areas of the brain, liver, heart, and pancreas amongst many other organs. The effects on a child would be devastating and greatly hinder the life expectancy and/or happiness of the child as an adult.

Opinions vary. I would agree that giving a two year old whiskey would not be a good idea, but a two year old would not drink the stuff, because it would hurt so much. Until the early to mid 1800's it was common for children to drink beer, especially in areas where the water supplies might be tainted. It is not unheard of for children to be weaned onto stout in Ireland; although it may not be as common as it was fifty years ago. I have cousins who were wened to stout, and they get along perfectly well.

Ideas about how much alcohol is too much have changed dramatically in the last couple hundred years. Thomas Jefferson, as one example, used to drink in an evening as much as a heavy drinker these days would drink in a week. His alcohol consumption didn't seem to diminish his intellectual abilities very much.

[Mariamosis]

I don't see how the history of legal drug using is relevant at all. Just because it was legal then it should be legal now? Just because there was racial segregation for so long does that mean it was somehow 'alright'? (sorry about the cheap resort to racism again, but I think that in this instance it's fair play).

History is always relevant.

Using history to re-examine racial segregation doesn't mean that it was right. Sometimes history must be weighed to see how things worked and/or didn't work and why. Clearly racial segregation didn't work and was wrong, but we use the perspective of history to judge what should not (hopefully) be tried again. (in this case)


Opinions vary. I would agree that giving a two year old whiskey would not be a good idea, but a two year old would not drink the stuff, because it would hurt so much. Until the early to mid 1800's it was common for children to drink beer, especially in areas where the water supplies might be tainted. It is not unheard of for children to be weaned onto stout in Ireland; although it may not be as common as it was fifty years ago. I have cousins who were wened to stout, and they get along perfectly well.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. As a child of 4 and 5 I was allowed to drink beer in very small doses and it didn't effect me. However, my parents would never have let me have free access at the time of my choosing. (in fact I grew up to hate beer... go figure)

However, hard liquor may be a different matter.

So once again we get back to the discrepancy of the parent, which doesn't always indicate very much. Therefore I still think that the age restriction should apply since I don't feel a child of 8 should be able to go to a bar and buy a beer.

[Mr Endon]

Mariamosis, if you had read a later post you'd realise I admitted as much:

I see your point, and it is relevant for the discussion.

What you should understand is that history, in this particular discussion, may be relevant, but doesn't do any work on his argument at all; in fact, I think it undermines it, hence my questioning his bringing it up.

PeterL, you said that 'It would be more accurate to say that many, and perhaps most, animals use intoxicants, so it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to use intoxicants'. So maybe I believe we could do better than giving in to impulses or whatever that is. And my analogies are rather cheap, but relevant, hence, I believe, not false; relevant because I believe that just because we do it doesn't mean we should. So maybe I believe we can better ourselves. Does that make me a moralist? Fine, I have no qualms with that.

Also, the distinction must be made between parents allowing kids to have a sip and actually selling alcohol to kids. No problems with the former, a lot of problems with the latter. You seem to have backtracked on your very interesting and unusual views after your exchange with Mariamosis, and now I can't tell for sure where you stand on this. If you still stand by selling alcohol to 8-year-olds I'm sorry to have misinterpreted the last two posts.

[Mariamosis]

My deepest apologies, Mr. Endon. :)

[PeterL]

So once again we get back to the discrepancy of the parent, which doesn't always indicate very much. Therefore I still think that the age restriction should apply since I don't feel a child of 8 should be able to go to a bar and buy a beer.

If you want to keep your children out of bars when they are eight, but why should you impose your ideas on others? Do you think that you have the wisdom to know how everyone should live their lives. I doubt that you do, and I know that I don't. If people want to drink boose, that's their choice, and it is not my responsibility to restrain them.


Mariamosis, if you had read a later post you'd realise I admitted as much:


What you should understand is that history, in this particular discussion, may be relevant, but doesn't do any work on his argument at all; in fact, I think it undermines it, hence my questioning his bringing it up.

PeterL, you said that 'It would be more accurate to say that many, and perhaps most, animals use intoxicants, so it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to use intoxicants'. So maybe I believe we could do better than giving in to impulses or whatever that is. And my analogies are rather cheap, but relevant, hence, I believe, not false; relevant because I believe that just because we do it doesn't mean we should. So maybe I believe we can better ourselves. Does that make me a moralist? Fine, I have no qualms with that.

No, that does not make you a moralist. That makes you someone who wantsto control the actions of others in areas where their actions have no impact on you. Some people would describe that as interfering in things that are none of your business.

Your analogies were quite irrelevant.


Also, the distinction must be made between parents allowing kids to have a sip and actually selling alcohol to kids. No problems with the former, a lot of problems with the latter. You seem to have backtracked on your very interesting and unusual views after your exchange with Mariamosis, and now I can't tell for sure where you stand on this. If you still stand by selling alcohol to 8-year-olds I'm sorry to have misinterpreted the last two posts.

Could you be more specific about how you think that I "backtracked"? I am still opposed to there being age restrictions on the sales of alcohol and drugs. If parents want to forbid their children from buying something, that's a completely different matter.

[Mariamosis]

If you want to keep your children out of bars when they are eight, but why should you impose your ideas on others? Do you think that you have the wisdom to know how everyone should live their lives. I doubt that you do, and I know that I don't. If people want to drink boose, that's their choice, and it is not my responsibility to restrain them.

Ah, but allowing a child to drink of their own accord? Children are very impressionable. If a parent drinks in front of a child (which is fine), the child begins to imitate the adult (which naturally children do), and children have free reign of alcohol... so how would we not be imposing our views on others?

[PeterL]

Ah, but allowing a child to drink of their own accord? Children are very impressionable. If a parent drinks in front of a child (which is fine), the child begins to imitate the adult (which naturally children do), and children have free reign of alcohol... so how would we not be imposing our views on others?

Yes, I just remembered how much more closely children are being controlled by their parents these days. I think that children should be allowed to act as they wish within some reasonable restrictions.
In the last few years parents have been trying to dictate the activities of their children for everry minute of every day. If that's what you think is proper, then your dictatorial comments make more sense.

[Mr Endon]

Mariamosis, nothing to apologise for!


No, that does not make you a moralist. That makes you someone who wantsto control the actions of others in areas where their actions have no impact on you. Some people would describe that as interfering in things that are none of your business.

Your analogies were quite irrelevant.

Could you be more specific about how you think that I "backtracked"? I am still opposed to there being age restrictions on the sales of alcohol and drugs. If parents want to forbid their children from buying something, that's a completely different matter.

Please consider analogies and "backtracked" comment withdrawn; let's agree to disagree with the former and I apologise for my misinterpretation regarding the latter.

How is it not my business? Do you think that just because I don't use drugs I have nothing to do with them? So I'm only allowed to have a say on that issue if a toxicodependent mugs me so that he can feed his addiction. Or when a cousin becomes addicted and makes my uncles go bankrupt. Or when my child ODs. Your idea of 'free for all so long as there's no interference with others' is fine by me, but for you apparently it's not my business if I don't use. If that's what you think, I must say you're wrong. It has everything to do with me as well.

[Mariamosis]

(Desolation and Mariamosis, I can understand that it may appear so, but I think you're rationalising :) Scientifically it's not very sound to suggest that pot sharpens your senses)

I don't believe that pot necessarily sharpens yours senses (with the exception of your sense of taste :)), but it definitely had a relaxing effect when test time came, hence, I didn't let the stress overwhelm me.

Regarding driving: I am sure that I was less aware than I believed myself to be, and would never do it again, but at the time it sure seemed like I was a better driver. :rolleyes:

[PeterL]

How is it not my business? Do you think that just because I don't use drugs I have nothing to do with them? So I'm only allowed to have a say on that issue if a toxicodependent mugs me so that he can feed his addiction. Or when a cousin becomes addicted and makes my uncles go bankrupt. Or when my child ODs. Your idea of 'free for all so long as there's no interference with others' is fine by me, but for you apparently it's not my business if I don't use. If that's what you think, I must say you're wrong. It has everything to do with me as well.

There are several issues there, but you can make your statement on anything that you wish. The bankruptcy of your uncles would be caused not by addiction but by the illegality of the drugs to which your cousin became addiction, a cost that skyrocketted when the drugs were criminalized. The same would be true, if your were robbed by a "toxicodependent", assuming that means someone who is assisting a drug addict in gaining money although he or she is not also addicted. If your child OD's, that would be a personal tragedy, but it would not be an issue for me. You seem to think that the world should be set up to save you from any possible unhappiness, even at the expense of the unhappiness of many other people.

It seems that you favor nanny government. I don't think that anyone has the wisdom to determine how others should live their lives.

[Mariamosis]

Yes, I just remembered how much more closely children are being controlled by their parents these days. I think that children should be allowed to act as they wish within some reasonable restrictions.
In the last few years parents have been trying to dictate the activities of their children for everry minute of every day. If that's what you think is proper, then your dictatorial comments make more sense.

Mr. Endon, are we about to practice Godwin's Law or utilize Occum's Razor with this one? (only kidding)

Yes, parents are imposing more strict methods of restraint (all of which I do not agree with), but to use this as an argument for children consuming alcohol freely? Children have always imitated their elders regardless of how constraining the rules became for them.

[Mr Endon]

Haha!, but wouldn't that be a shame, this discussion is so interesting.

No, I wouldn't like a 'nanny government'. But I would like some degree of regulation. Is regulating dangerous substances like drugs so as to protect children from them being a nanny? Then yes, I want a nanny government. I must say I don't understand the kind of world you want. Anarchy? I understand that personal choice and personal responsibility are important, but with no regulation at all (and I infer from your posts that that would be optimal to you) chaos would ensue. Like you said, history teaches, and I'm sure history says, that's just not viable.

[Thanks for the quotation marks, just done a quick search and realised that 'toxicodependent' exists in my mother tongue but not in English. You live, you learn!]

[PeterL]

Yes, parents are imposing more strict methods of restraint (all of which I do not agree with), but to use this as an argument for children consuming alcohol freely? Children have always imitated their elders regardless of how constraining the rules became for them.

I consider the excessive restrictions on children to be a reasonable argument in this matter.

Iagree that children tend to imitate their parents. Children also tend to rebel against their parents and against rules.




No, I wouldn't like a 'nanny government'. But I would like some degree of regulation. Is regulating dangerous substances like drugs so as to protect children from them being a nanny? Then yes, I want a nanny government.

Just keep in mind that many people are quite cabable of living a perfectly good life without getting orders from some government.


I must say I don't understand the kind of world you want. Anarchy? I understand that personal choice and personal responsibility are important, but with no regulation at all (and I infer from your posts that that would be optimal to you) chaos would ensue. Like you said, history teaches, and I'm sure history says, that's just not viable.


There is a huge distance between excessive government control and chaos. Governments have never been good at anything except negotiating differences between or among people. Governments get regulations of individual behavior and business behavior wrong every time, and gavernments always get war wrong. Remember that governments are run by people who aren't as bright as you, and they don't understand the information that they have, so they just do something, and that something is usually wrong.

[Mariamosis]

I consider the excessive restrictions on children to be a reasonable argument in this matter.

Iagree that children tend to imitate their parents. Children also tend to rebel against their parents and against rules.


Children tend to rebel once puberty begins... at a more advanced age.
(okay now I am just splitting hairs)

[PeterL]

Children tend to rebel once puberty begins... at a more advanced age.
(okay now I am just splitting hairs)

So you waited that long before you tried getting away with breaking the rules!! You missed a lot of fun.

[Mr Endon]

PeterL, I'm honestly curious about the sort of society you envision. Apparently, it's one where people are absolutely free and there's no government in the modern usage of the word. Does it have a name, this theory, or is this just a vision of yours? Could you elaborate on your idea of what a government should do, or why there shouldn't be regulation at all?

[JBI]

Yes legislation - legislation giving full power of distribution to the government, as is similar to the laws here for distribution of cigarettes and alcohol. People will smoke and snort no matter what - if the government monitors it, a) crime will be shot in the foot, as there won't be any more drug smuggling or dealing, and b) the taxpayer will get a chop from the profits, instead of just some underground gro-ops making cash and not paying any taxes, or some thugs smuggling the stuff in through the borders.

[Mariamosis]

So you waited that long before you tried getting away with breaking the rules!! You missed a lot of fun.

This is getting a little off topic, however:

I did break rules, but in elementary school and early middle school I was not getting drunk and handling narcotics. When hormones began pumping through my veins things became a little different.

[PeterL]

PeterL, I'm honestly curious about the sort of society you envision. Apparently, it's one where people are absolutely free and there's no government in the modern usage of the word. Does it have a name, this theory, or is this just a vision of yours? Could you elaborate on your idea of what a government should do, or why there shouldn't be regulation at all?

I envision a society where people will live their own lives and let others live their own lives without interference. This is the traditional American ideal that has been around for hundreds of years. These days it is referred to as Jeffersonain Democracy. In the past it was called by a number of names, depending on who was talking.

Has it ever existed? Pretty much in the early 1800's.

"The government that governs least governs best." The purpose of government is to do those things that individuals can't do for themselves and to adjudicate disputes.

Governments make big messes of little messes, as anyone who has studied history knows. It is nice to have people available to settle disputes, and to build and maintain roads, but governments waste little time in poking into things that do not need regulation.

Thomas Jefferson once famously stated 'my right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose.' I paraphrase to fit this discussion: My right to impose my opinions ends where another person's life begins.

[Mariamosis]

I am a little unsure of where I stand when separating mild drugs from harsh drugs.

I think everyone here agrees that marijuana would be considered mild. Where does everyone stand with heroine, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, ecstasy, PCP, mushrooms, & etc?

...and what about legal drugs such as salvia, red dawn, whip-its (nitrous oxide), & etc?

[PeterL]

I am a little unsure of where I stand when separating mild drugs from harsh drugs.

I think everyone here agrees that marijuana would be considered mild. Where does everyone stand with heroine, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, ecstasy, PCP, mushrooms, & etc?

...and what about legal drugs such as salvia, red dawn, whip-its (nitrous oxide), & etc?

I don't see why any intoxicants should be treated differently from others.

[Mariamosis]

I don't see why any intoxicants should be treated differently from others.

Certain drugs have different health risks that are associated with them, and some are more likely to materialize into problems than others.

[PeterL]

Certain drugs have different health risks that are associated with them, and some are more likely to materialize into problems than others.

The health risks vary as much from person to person as they do between substances. Cocaine is an excellent example: about 20% of people are not affected by it, but others are affected to a great degree. Tolerances to opiates and alcohol also vary widesly. What would get one person a minor buzz would kill others.

[Chava]

Yes legislation - legislation giving full power of distribution to the government, as is similar to the laws here for distribution of cigarettes and alcohol. People will smoke and snort no matter what - if the government monitors it, a) crime will be shot in the foot, as there won't be any more drug smuggling or dealing, and b) the taxpayer will get a chop from the profits, instead of just some underground gro-ops making cash and not paying any taxes, or some thugs smuggling the stuff in through the borders.

This, and the millions who use (or abuse) drugs would not have to be labelled criminals. I hope it can be true sometime, though it seems unlikely. Unless you go to Amsterdam of course...

[Mariamosis]

The health risks vary as much from person to person as they do between substances. Cocaine is an excellent example: about 20% of people are not affected by it, but others are affected to a great degree. Tolerances to opiates and alcohol also vary widesly. What would get one person a minor buzz would kill others.

I completely agree with you here, but I have trouble grasping the idea of all narcotics becoming legal without any regulation.

I understand that people should have the freedom to do what they want with their body, but you have to sympathize with the teen and/or adult who wants to experiment and dies because the proper steps weren't taken to prevent a fatality.


This, and the millions who use (or abuse) drugs would not have to be labelled criminals. I hope it can be true sometime, though it seems unlikely. Unless you go to Amsterdam of course...

There is a stigma that seems to be spreading here about tobacco smokers, and I am not speaking of impending laws regarding non-smoking restaurants.

People are beginning to snub their noses at smokers in general; whether or not they are smoking in their vicinity. Strange.

[PeterL]

I completely agree with you here, but I have trouble grasping the idea of all narcotics becoming legal without any regulation.

I understand that people should have the freedom to do what they want with their body, but you have to sympathize with the teen and/or adult who wants to experiment and dies because the proper steps weren't taken to prevent a fatality.

It would be nice, if there would be regulation as to the purity of the substances. As far as dosage goes, people would decide for themselves. Fatalities happen now, but most of the fatalities now are from adulterated drugs. There are people who will killed themselves with drugs regardless of the regulations.

[hampusforev]

Drug addiction is sort of modern slavery, I think, an anonymous, compelling and concealed subjection by industry and market.
When I look around, I can see Johnny Walker slaves, Philip Morris slaves, Novartis slaves, Nestlé slaves and so on. Weird paradox that people fight for their freedom to be enslaved and they've to be suppressed to stay free.

Completely false, I see the analogy from a poetic point of view. But slaves were forced to work for nothing. Being free includes the option to kill oneself and become addicted. Sure you can argue that we're all slaves to an imaginary economy, but that's a bit far, I want tobacco, and so Philip Morris provides it for me. Supply and demand.


hampusforev, the problem with that logic is that of the dangerous precedent it sets. Exactly because only 'some people HAVE been able to use heroin "responsibly"' is it hazardous and irresponsible to allow anyone to have access to the addictive substance.

Well, I think it's hard to tell who should handle freedom and who shouldn't. I guess the route which society has taken now is that of freedom for nobody, so that no one feels left out. I on the other hand want freedom for everybody, so that no one is left out.

[Stargazer86]

{edit}

Things like pot..no biggie. Even if you don't like it, it doesnt result in rehab and abandoned children and all that.

But when you look at something like speed, for example, that does result in all of those things.

True, it's not fair for anyone else to have to pay for treatment programs and jails and all that, but should we really make it a free for all?

And what about people who have made a mistake? Not all druggies are bad people. Some of them just made stupid choices they can't get out of. At least not without help. But I know and work with reformed addicts (both of drugs and alcohol) who are doing extremely well in life now after intervention and rehab programs

[papayahed]

The health risks vary as much from person to person as they do between substances. Cocaine is an excellent example: about 20% of people are not affected by it, but others are affected to a great degree. Tolerances to opiates and alcohol also vary widesly. What would get one person a minor buzz would kill others.

That's the biggest problem I have with legalization. Cocaine is just so damn addicting, for example in her younger years a friend of mine tried cocaine and liked it a lot. when you are on cocaine all you want is more cocaine. Now this friends was able to control the habit because of two things - lack of money and it was a little hard to get. Now, speed up 15 years and legalize drugs, both of those obstacles are gone. I would worry that my friend would become addicted the day after it became legal.


For the most part I'm for legalization, but I would worry about the impact of anything other then marijuana and maybe I would even say just legalize marijuana and maybe mescaline (are the kids still doing that?).

[Virgil]

{edit}
No I'm not for any decriminalization. None. We are trying to push cigarettes out of the culture and reduce alcohol and people are thinking of adding more harfmful products to the list? That's working toward the wrong direction.


Things like pot..no biggie. Even if you don't like it, it doesnt result in rehab and abandoned children and all that.

But when you look at something like speed, for example, that does result in all of those things.
How can a gov't allow harmful products out in the open market? We require people to wear seat belts and you want them to put those products on a supermarket shelf?


True, it's not fair for anyone else to have to pay for treatment programs and jails and all that, but should we really make it a free for all?
I have no idea what you mean for a free for all. I don't want to pay for anyone's stupidity. They get high and get their jollies and I can't afford certain things? I was raised right. I went to school and graduated, didn't get into trouble, got a job and get up at 4:30 AM every morning, and I have to pay for some punk? Sorry, that's not too cool in my book.


And what about people who have made a mistake? Not all druggies are bad people. Some of them just made stupid choices they can't get out of. At least not without help. But I know and work with reformed addicts (both of drugs and alcohol) who are doing extremely well in life now after intervention and rehab programs
Well, good for them. I hope their paying society back somehow. But you said it best: they made bad choices. If drugs were legal, would it any longer be a "bad" choice? It's legal. It's becomes an option. Another choice. Any drug choice is a mistake. Any. Legality sets a line of demarcation of what is acceptable and what isn't. If it becomes legal, I definitely don't want to pay for it. That's their choice. My moral obligation is through.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments will be deleted without any further notice

and

lead to thread closure.

[Stargazer86]

That's the biggest problem I have with legalization. Cocaine is just so damn addicting, for example in her younger years a friend of mine tried cocaine and liked it a lot. when you are on cocaine all you want is more cocaine. Now this friends was able to control the habit because of two things - lack of money and it was a little hard to get. Now, speed up 15 years and legalize drugs, both of those obstacles are gone. I would worry that my friend would become addicted the day after it became legal.


For the most part I'm for legalization, but I would worry about the impact of anything other then marijuana and maybe I would even say just legalize marijuana and maybe mescaline (are the kids still doing that?).


I've never heard of anyone doing mescaline. Aside from Hunter S. Thompson :P

Cocaine is a scary one due to it's extremely addictive quality. I don't think it would necissarily become easier to get as I think people would still operate illegally. They'd get more money that way. But with jail/prison overcrowding, having people in for drug offences fills up incarceration space/time/money and then violent offenders get out way too early and way too easily. An individual's addiction or potential for addiction (as cruel as this may sound) is thier own responsibility, or the parents in the case of minors. Government can't and shouldn't control that, nor should citizens be financially responsible for preventing/treating that. Outside of drug education, that is.

[Virgil]

{edit}


My crabbiness come through. :p Sorry. Some things hit a nerve. I have no patience for those who choose to do the wrong things in life.

[papayahed]

I've never heard of anyone doing mescaline. Aside from Hunter S. Thompson :P



It was popular in the late 80's.:alien:



Cocaine is a scary one due to it's extremely addictive quality. I don't think it would necissarily become easier to get as I think people would still operate illegally. They'd get more money that way. But with jail/prison overcrowding, having people in for drug offences fills up incarceration space/time/money and then violent offenders get out way too early and way too easily. An individual's addiction or potential for addiction (as cruel as this may sound) is thier own responsibility, or the parents in the case of minors. Government can't and shouldn't control that, nor should citizens be financially responsible for preventing/treating that. Outside of drug education, that is

I was speaking about legalization. I don't know if my friend would be able to walk in a store that had cocaine next to the marlboros. On the other hand I never thought in terms of decriminalization. Now that might not be a bad idea.... Ya know a while back there was in article in Atlantic monthly (and we've had this conversation before) about the war on drugs being 30 years old and the amount of drugs coming into this country are greater then ever before.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Government can't and shouldn't control that, nor should citizens be financially responsible for preventing/treating that. Outside of drug education, that is.

Why should it be the government's responsibility to educate minors about drugs, but they're not allowed to have any control over the substances? Seems like that's just pawning off parental responsibility a bit there (and I don't mean that as an accusation to you Star, just the general idea :))

If it's the government's job to teach minors that cocaine can have serious negative consequences, then they reserve a right to have some control over the availability of said substance.

Also, how far do we take this legalization? What about prescription drugs like painkillers or controlled drugs such as Ketamine? Are we just going to start handing those things out as well? In that case, prescriptions become irrelevant if you can get whatever you want over the counter and then who's going to bother to see a doctor anymore. The world would be overcome with self-medicators. That's no longer a healthy society.

[Virgil]

An individual's addiction or potential for addiction (as cruel as this may sound) is thier own responsibility, or the parents in the case of minors. Government can't and shouldn't control that, nor should citizens be financially responsible for preventing/treating that. Outside of drug education, that is.

So you're saying legalize it and let the parents and the druggie pay for it? Well, you know that won't happen. They can't afford it.

And still, gov't mandates wearing a seat belt, and you're going to allow gov't to put out on the open market things that are directly harmful to people? What about the person that would never try drugs if they were illegal and now sees it on the supermarket shelf (or where ever it is) and says let me give it a try? Studies have shown (that I've read, and have no idea where they are so don't ask me to pull them out) that when you make something legal, more people will partake.

[AimusSage]

My crabbiness come through. :p Sorry. Some things hit a nerve. I have no patience for those who choose to do the wrong things in life.
It is merely wrong from your perspective, which is based on your personal moral standard. Based on this view, it can be argued by some that living healthy is wrong too.

[Virgil]

It is merely wrong from your perspective, which is based on your personal moral standard. Based on this view, it can be argued by some that living healthy is wrong too.

Well, when drugs lead to job losses, bankruptcy (sp?), broken families, addictions, I think any moral relativism goes out the window. I think society has an obligation to set moral standards. I have no idea how living healthy can be viewed as wrong. Frankly like I said, if someone chooses to do the wrong things in life, don't come crying to me. I have a family to support.

[aBIGsheep]

Government should always HELP people. Not take care of them.
We should legalize things for the fact that we want to HELP these people. Not to hand them drugs.
Everything should be taken in MEDIOCRITY. Should the government HELP them? Yes, I really think they should.
Should people be RESPONSIBLE? Yes, I really really think they should.

Will people always be RESPONSIBLE? No, sadly they won't.
Will people be willing to ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY? No, sadly they won't.

Legalization is about who we could blame: Is it the parents? Is it the abuser? Maybe it's the environment. Maybe God told me too. Who else, other than me, can I say gripped that red cup and poured it down my throat? Well, I didn't do it. I don't remember when I started drinking cause I was too drunk last night at Jeff's kegger. Woo!

Do you want to HELP me? No, cause I don't have a problem. It's just a drink, right? I can control myself. Just pour me another. Wait, can you get some of that coconut rum stuff? There's no kick to it so I can drink that ALL DAY LONG. 40% alcohol but I don't care about my liver, who needs a liver? I'm 20 years old gaddamnit and I have a full life to lead. My wife is pregnant and I finally got into community college. My life looks pretty good. Now hand me that cup filled with the golden-goodness, eh?

Who wants to take care of a lowlife junky/addict/sub-human? I don't. The parents should. Wait, the environment. Its their fault. They should pay for some of the rehab.

Humans are dumb.

[amarna]

Completely false, I see the analogy from a poetic point of view. But slaves were forced to work for nothing. Being free includes the option to kill oneself and become addicted. Sure you can argue that we're all slaves to an imaginary economy, but that's a bit far, I want tobacco, and so Philip Morris provides it for me. Supply and demand.
Well, I think it's hard to tell who should handle freedom and who shouldn't. I guess the route which society has taken now is that of freedom for nobody, so that no one feels left out. I on the other hand want freedom for everybody, so that no one is left out.

I wish it was an analogy. Hampusforev, I was chainsmoker since I was 16 and smoked 50, 60 cigarettes a day for approximately 10 years. Smoking the very first package was my free choice, ok, but the other 10.000 packages were not. It was result of a neurochemical defect induced by nicotine. I gave 30.000 Euro (sure I was forced to work for the money) to the tobacco industry and got - a cough. :sick:

[Stargazer86]

{edit}
No I'm not for any decriminalization. None. We are trying to push cigarettes out of the culture and reduce alcohol and people are thinking of adding more harfmful products to the list? That's working toward the wrong direction.


How can a gov't allow harmful products out in the open market? We require people to wear seat belts and you want them to put those products on a supermarket shelf?


I have no idea what you mean for a free for all. I don't want to pay for anyone's stupidity. They get high and get their jollies and I can't afford certain things? I was raised right. I went to school and graduated, didn't get into trouble, got a job and get up at 4:30 AM every morning, and I have to pay for some punk? Sorry, that's not too cool in my book.


Well, good for them. I hope their paying society back somehow. But you said it best: they made bad choices. If drugs were legal, would it any longer be a "bad" choice? It's legal. It's becomes an option. Another choice. Any drug choice is a mistake. Any. Legality sets a line of demarcation of what is acceptable and what isn't. If it becomes legal, I definitely don't want to pay for it. That's their choice. My moral obligation is through.


I see what you mean about how we're trying to push out cigarettes and alcohol, but I doubt they'll ever be out completely. Is it really the government's right to control so many personal aspects? Don't you partake in the occasional drink or perhaps a cigar or cigarette? The government has no right to tell you not to. The issue comes in when people get hurt as a result of other's poor choices.

I meant free for all, not as in drugs actually being free for all, but as in legalizing all drugs and saying anything goes. I'm against that. Do I think pot should be legal? Yes. Do I think speed should be legal? No freaking way. I agree with your response on that. I think you misunderstood me. Or that I worded poorly. I'm operating on virtually no sleep and realize I am not writing very clearly.

Drugs are traditionally a "bad" choice regardless of whether or not they're legal. Unless it's used medicinally (and I don't mean smoke a bowl because you have a headache...I'm referring to terminal patients) it's not really a "good" choice as there are no actual benefits. I don't think anyone should be responsible for paying for anyone else's habits at all. Which is why I get ticked off when I'm in line at Food 4 Less and see someone buying a bunch of food on food stamps and then paying cash for thier beer and smokes. In a way, we're still paying for that habit.

But where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and what the government should control? You can't force people to be responsible.


So you're saying legalize it and let the parents and the druggie pay for it? Well, you know that won't happen. They can't afford it.

And still, gov't mandates wearing a seat belt, and you're going to allow gov't to put out on the open market things that are directly harmful to people? What about the person that would never try drugs if they were illegal and now sees it on the supermarket shelf (or where ever it is) and says let me give it a try? Studies have shown (that I've read, and have no idea where they are so don't ask me to pull them out) that when you make something legal, more people will partake.


Well not in that way exactly. I'm saying it's thier own responsibility to pay for it, or in the case of parents with minor children, to deter thier children from doing it through means of education.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the crime (or pay for it)

Classic (sorry, I still don't know how to quote more than one person in a message), I see your point, but I don't see it so black and white as that. I'm not saying make it a free for all or go handing out drugs, but decriminalize it and tax it. Prison overcrowding is overwhelming and expensive and a lot of these people are just in for possession. Because of overcrowding, people who are violent offenders are getting off way too easily and way too quickly.

As far as educating children, it doesn't hurt and isn't that expensive to have programs like Red Ribbon Week. Who knows how effective these are in the long run? A lot of the kids still end up using as they get older, but it does stick with some people. Better than ignoring the subject all together. And what about kids who are growing up in a household where the parents are substance abusers. Don't we want to stop, or at least try and stop the cicle?

[aBIGsheep]

You're never going to stop the circle. The best you can do is influence the people around you to make the right decision.

That's all.

[*Classic*Charm*]

)Classic (sorry, I still don't know how to quote more than one person in a message), I see your point, but I don't see it so black and white as that. I'm not saying make it a free for all or go handing out drugs, but decriminalize it and tax it. Prison overcrowding is overwhelming and expensive and a lot of these people are just in for possession. Because of overcrowding, people who are violent offenders are getting off way too easily and way too quickly.

As far as educating children, it doesn't hurt and isn't that expensive to have programs like Red Ribbon Week. Who knows how effective these are in the long run? A lot of the kids still end up using as they get older, but it does stick with some people. Better than ignoring the subject all together. And what about kids who are growing up in a household where the parents are substance abusers. Don't we want to stop, or at least try and stop the cicle?

But that's the thing when it comes down to it: legal and illegal. Black and white. If Alcohol and tobacco are legal, pot should be. Then if pot is legal, so should cocaine be. Then cocaine is legal, and if something as harmful is that is legal, we should have the right to narcotic painkillers. That's the problem. I'm not saying it would be a "free-for-all". I'm not saying we'll have people driving along throwing pills out to the general public. It would be as controlled as alcohol and tobacco are, but even with legal buying ages and penalties for misuse, there are still astounding levels of alcoholism and there would be astounding levels of drug misuse as well.

And I don't see the validity of your prison overcrowding argument either. If the prisons are overcrowded, the dealers end up back on the streets, correct? Either the dealers do it illegally and end up back on the streets, or they do it legally and never leave the streets in the first place. And I disagree- violent offenders aren't getting off easy because we don't have room for them, they get off easy because we feel the need to protect them from each other while they're in jail. People incarcerated because they're child molesters are kept separate from other convicts because they would be killed by the other convicts. I see that as being wasted space, but that's another argument altogether.

And I'm certainly not arguing against drug education! I think it's very valuable because for the most part as far as I've found, the schools do a better job of keeping up with what's currently popular than the parents do. I just think that if it is the government's responsibility to educate the children instead of the parents, it should to some degree be the government's right to impose restrictions.


You're never going to stop the circle. The best you can do is influence the people around you to make the right decision.

That's all.

I think that's the problem, though, Sheep. There's a lot of different people doing a lot of different influencing and there needs to be something to trump it all.

[aBIGsheep]

Do you understand how much money we'd make if we legalized everything? Not only would we get better, more stream-lined products, (OH GOD AFGHAN KUSH ALL AROUND) but the government would be making a metric butt ton of money from the sin taxes they'd collect. A lot of people smoke weed. I think close to 3 million in America. Now if every stoner happened to buy a pack of Kush with a one, maybe two dollar sin tax . . . Good lord. You can do a lot with 3 or 6 million dollars.

Now to get a pack of this hypothetical brand of cannabis, Kush, it might cost about five, six, or eight dollars per pack untaxed. Hypothetically of course. But then all of that would be jacked up because of the sin tax. So a pack of untaxed weed could go for five or six bucks, but you're pay 12 dollars because of the sin tax. People won't buy something that they can't afford. Now let's say the government wanted to really punish the pot heads. Let's say they jack the sin tax to an additional 20 dollars per pack. Can you really afford that pack? The least I could do is maybe cut down, eh?
If you're addicted to something, good luck and work hard for that money.

The drug user would get some understanding. Junkies, against common belief, are actually people. They hurt just like the next person. They might be a little numb to it, but these are people are still suffering. People wouldn't be caught in this feeling of hopelessness if there wasn't so much shame involved. When we see a person addicted, we don't see this person as a person, we see them an example. We don't help them, we just point a finger and say, "This is what happens if you do crack. See? Do you want to end up like that in a few years? Good." Then Frank the Father leads Jill and Johnny Somebody away from such depravation. There's so much shame to drug abuse. If things were legalized, people would finally be able to share their personal insight and be more welcome to admitting they have a problem. I'm not saying be ignorant and say that drugs aren't bad. I'm saying find some empathy for someone that needs help.

EDIT: All of this was really ambiguous. My bad.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Jacking up the price of cigarettes hasn't really stopped people, has it? The poorest bum on the street (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense) will spend $10 on a carton of cigarettes instead of on a meal.

As someone who used to lead her best friend from class to class in high school when she was messed up on Ketamine and having mushroom flashbacks, I know very well that drug users are real people and that they hurt. And it hurt to see her like that. Those drugs were readily available to her at the time, and were they legal and continued to be available , I can't see that she ever would have stopped.

[Stargazer86]

But that's the thing when it comes down to it: legal and illegal. Black and white. If Alcohol and tobacco are legal, pot should be. Then if pot is legal, so should cocaine be. Then cocaine is legal, and if something as harmful is that is legal, we should have the right to narcotic painkillers. That's the problem. I'm not saying it would be a "free-for-all". I'm not saying we'll have people driving along throwing pills out to the general public. It would be as controlled as alcohol and tobacco are, but even with legal buying ages and penalties for misuse, there are still astounding levels of alcoholism and there would be astounding levels of drug misuse as well.

And I don't see the validity of your prison overcrowding argument either. If the prisons are overcrowded, the dealers end up back on the streets, correct? Either the dealers do it illegally and end up back on the streets, or they do it legally and never leave the streets in the first place. And I disagree- violent offenders aren't getting off easy because we don't have room for them, they get off easy because we feel the need to protect them from each other while they're in jail. People incarcerated because they're child molesters are kept separate from other convicts because they would be killed by the other convicts. I see that as being wasted space, but that's another argument altogether.

And I'm certainly not arguing against drug education! I think it's very valuable because for the most part as far as I've found, the schools do a better job of keeping up with what's currently popular than the parents do. I just think that if it is the government's responsibility to educate the children instead of the parents, it should to some degree be the government's right to impose restrictions.



I think that's the problem, though, Sheep. There's a lot of different people doing a lot of different influencing and there needs to be something to trump it all.

You make excellent points. But because of prison overcrowding, dealers do end up on the streets much faster as well as violent offenders because there is simply no room for them. I'm talking about people going in for posession. In Nevada, for example, people get incarcerated for having a ridiculously small amount of pot on them. I'm talking like a gram or two. But I'll have to look into thier specific law to better make my point.

And pot is really a far cry from cocaine.

If minor drugs such as pot were legalized and regulated, the government would not only make a profit, but it would put a lot of dealers out of business. Once the dispensaries became common out here, a lot of people started buying straight from the dispensaries and it put some pot dealers out of business. Or at least cut it down significantly.

Personally, I'd rather live next door/work with/be friends with a pot dealer than a raging alcoholic if I had to choose between the two

I totally get what you're saying on your last point about drug education. I didn't think you were arguing against it. I just think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure or whatever the saying is. So if there really is an effective means of getting the message through about addiction and substance abuse, then it alleviates part of the problem in the first place. Who knows how many people it has kept from using? I'm sure it has directly affected some people. We just have no way of knowing for sure

[*Classic*Charm*]

Personally, I'd rather live next door/work with/be friends with a pot dealer than a raging alcoholic if I had to choose between the two

Ironically, my next door neighbour is both a raging alcoholic and a pot dealer. Fun times :rolleyes:

[Virgil]

Listen to what you are saying here:


If minor drugs such as pot were legalized and regulated, the government would not only make a profit,
And you find nothing wrong with the gov't making a profit off of pushing bad health on its people? Cigarette taxes to me are the most cynical taxes of all. The gov't is profiting from your demise and then have the audacity to lecture to the cigarette companies.


but it would put a lot of dealers out of business.
Don't bet on it. Criminals will do criminal activity no matter what. If the gov't is charging $10 per pack of pot (can you even imagine such a thing?) dealers will get it and sell if for $5 per pack. A black market will always exist.

Let me repeat my key point:
And you find nothing wrong with the gov't making a profit off of pushing bad health on its people?

[librarius_qui]

(I hope they never decide tea to be a drug, because I use them a lot! ...)

:D

[Stargazer86]

Ironically, my next door neighbour is both a raging alcoholic and a pot dealer. Fun times :rolleyes:

That seriously sucks.


Virgil- I didn't say I see nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying it's a profitable thing that's going to happen regardless, and instead of spending all this money to stop it (which doesn't work anyway) we might as well make a buck off of it. Especially when you consider the severe economic crisis we're in. Now's the time to think about how to generate a profit instead of digging ourselves deeper into debt.

Government/politics is crooked anyway

[Big Al]

And you find nothing wrong with the gov't making a profit off of pushing bad health on its people? Cigarette taxes to me are the most cynical taxes of all. The gov't is profiting from your demise and then have the audacity to lecture to the cigarette companies.

The problem with governing from morality is that morality is relative, subject wholly to the whims of the individual whose ethical code is in question. Asking whether something is "wrong" is dubious. However, collecting taxes off the sale of marijuana and other drugs is both profitable and pragmatic. Besides, ideally that money will go toward benefiting the general populace in some way, and also, by taxing cigarettes and (theoretically) marijuana, isn't the government offering a deterrent to users?



Don't bet on it. Criminals will do criminal activity no matter what. If the gov't is charging $10 per pack of pot (can you even imagine such a thing?) dealers will get it and sell if for $5 per pack. A black market will always exist.


After prohibition ended, almost all mob activity in the alcohol business vanished. The problem with looking at it as a simple comparison of prices ($10 from the government, $5 from the dealer) is that there is far more at stake than money. Buying illegally from a dealer, an individual is putting himself at risk by possibly becoming involved with an underworld of crime and gang violence, as well as facing the danger of legal fines and prosecution. Also, if they are purchased from the government, the drugs are guaranteed to have been strictly regulated for use, and that potentially harmful chemicals will not have been added to the mix. All of these combined factors will probably weigh more heavily than the extra $5 in the minds of most people.

[librarius_qui]

Ironically, my next door neighbour is both a raging alcoholic and a pot dealer. Fun times :rolleyes:

I have friends who'd like to have such a neighbour ...

But then, they are not .. fully addicted themselves. One of them is even a bit sad, because he got marri/ er together with the woman, there, in a proper house he painted and all, and he says he can't get home drunk anymore, which it seems (we can imagine, therefore) he could, when he lived at his parents', until about some months ago.

As well as he can't have maryjuana at home, because she won't allow, and he can't hide there from her, while, at his parents, apparently he managed to hide (?) ... I don't know.

Anyways, truth is that people make use of it. With or without prohibition. It might be forbidden people to be homossexuals, but people would be. There should be no prostitutes, according to law, but there would be. This is a horrible world, has ever been, will always be.

Difference is in your actions.

The less things are allowed, though, the less people will do it without thinking twice, so, it's good that things are forbidden.

(It makes people even to search it as a way of making fobidden things ... But at least they have to deal with their conciences, in what concerns decision of doing something they know to be wrong. And this is something, already.)

[PeterL]

That's the biggest problem I have with legalization. Cocaine is just so damn addicting, for example in her younger years a friend of mine tried cocaine and liked it a lot. when you are on cocaine all you want is more cocaine. Now this friends was able to control the habit because of two things - lack of money and it was a little hard to get. Now, speed up 15 years and legalize drugs, both of those obstacles are gone. I would worry that my friend would become addicted the day after it became legal.

Some people become develop a psychological habituation to cocaine, but it does not create a physical addiction. Most people who use cocaine can do without with no adverse effects, and, as I mentioned, a substantial percentage of people are not affected by cocaine at all. Is it reasonable to inconvenience the majority for the convenience of a small minority? I don't think so.




How can a gov't allow harmful products out in the open market? We require people to wear seat belts and you want them to put those products on a supermarket shelf?


What business is it of the government? If there are harmful products, then the people harmed can take action against those who provided the product. Well, OK, it is the business of the court system. That's why there are courts.

Nor is it within the authority of government to require the us of seatbelts.


I have no patience for those who choose to do the wrong things in life.

I think that you may have meant: "I have no patience for those who choose to do things that I do not like.

[Shalot]

Some people become develop a psychological habituation to cocaine, but it does not create a physical addiction. Most people who use cocaine can do without with no adverse effects, and, as I mentioned, a substantial percentage of people are not affected by cocaine at all. Is it reasonable to inconvenience the majority for the convenience of a small minority? I don't think so.

I had been reading up on drugs a little while ago and something I read had cocaine in a class of extremely addictive drugs which confused me, because I've known people who have used cocaine and and they didn't get addicted. I've also known people who have used cocaine and have screwed themselves up because they got addicted to it. Maybe it's a quantity issue, or maybe it is has to do with the chemical make-up of the user.

In general, I think that we don't understand addiction well enough. Some people could become addicted to anything. Some people become addicted to food and they become fat and yet they continue to eat a giant bag of potato chips every day. They can't stop eating bad food and their health care costs rise which affects other people and causes insurance premiums to go up. So, we should make Lays Potato chips illegal. And Krispy Kreme. Shut that chain down. :D

It's kind of hard for me to make an argument one way or the other as far as legalization of drugs goes (I'm American so I use a z) because we don't understand addiction and we don't understand the brain. We know that if you don't engage in pleasurable activities, then you can't become addicted to them, so we've tried to restrict access to certain pleasure-causing substances to rid ourselves of the negative consequences. Maybe that's not the best approach.

I do know that some drugs will mess you up more than others and that's why I would lean toward legalization of marijuana only, and not legalization of all drugs. Marijuana is illegal and so is crystal meth and no informed person would say that marijuana is just as dangerous as meth. But, to the uninformed 13-year-old, pot=illegal and meth=illegal so pot=meth, so I'm going to do meth. I know that's not the best argument one could make, but it happens. And we all know that the war on drugs doesn't work. Legalize marijuana. 4:20. woo hoo.

[PeterL]

I had been reading up on drugs a little while ago and something I read had cocaine in a class of extremely addictive drugs which confused me, because I've known people who have used cocaine and and they didn't get addicted. I've also known people who have used cocaine and have screwed themselves up because they got addicted to it. Maybe it's a quantity issue, or maybe it is has to do with the chemical make-up of the user.

Quantity is not the determining factor. An individual's brain chemistry makes the difference.



In general, I think that we don't understand addiction well enough. Some people could become addicted to anything. Some people become addicted to food and they become fat and yet they continue to eat a giant bag of potato chips every day. They can't stop eating bad food and their health care costs rise which affects other people and causes insurance premiums to go up. So, we should make Lays Potato chips illegal. And Krispy Kreme. Shut that chain down. :D

Chocolate is also highly addictive to susceptible people.

[AimusSage]

All you need to do is look at drug policy in the netherlands and there is proof right there it works, amongst native Dutch youth, drug use is significantly lower than in surrounding countries. Why? Because they can get it freely. It's not a thrill to get high on smoking weed. Sure a lot of people have tried it, didn't really care for it and just let it go. Some may smoke once in a while and then there is always the group that smokes a lot, but that is a very small group. In Amsterdam by far the largest market share is tourists.

I won't say I agree with a legalization of the so called 'hard drugs' such as cocaine and heroine, but a legalization of marijuana, which doesn't have nearly the same addictive or destructive qualities as nicotine is fine by me.

Changing the illegal status of a product to legal also means taking it out of the black market where there is a total lack of control on quality and standards used. Legal status will allow proper regulation and rules that any producer will have to adhere to, basically decreasing the amount of bad, dangerous drugs on the market that can be excessively damaging to a person's health.

Weed, by and large can easily be come by in nations such as Canada, Sweden, the US, UK and so on. All I had to do in these nations was mention I was dutch and people would offer me weed. This just shows that current policies simply do not work. If a tourist like me can get the stuff within a day of being in a country, one seriously has to question the effectiveness of anti drug enforcement and whether there are no better alternatives available.

Having said that, the first time I ever smoked weed was when I was in Canada, not the Netherlands. I could go to a 'coffee shop' any day I liked and get weed, but I didn't, because I just didn't feel like it. In Canada, I figured I might as well give it a try to see what it was like, and got some weed, it was ok, last time I smoked weed was in Sweden last week. In between I have smoked weed once in the Netherlands, over a period of 5 months.

I consider Alcohol to be far more dangerous to my health, yet the use of this substance is so ingrained in our mindset as being a normal part of society, that it would take a fanatic to consider making it illegal. It's basically a hypocrite's dilemma, how a far more dangerous drug is so accepted, while a mostly harmless one is illegal and considered to be a blight on society.

[Virgil]

{edit}

I'm not getting into the rest of this. I will never support legalization of anything that is inherently harmful to anyone and to society. The alcohol analogy doesn't hold. Alcohol has been part and integral to culture for over ten thousand years. It cannot be stripped out of the culture. If we had to do this over we probably would not have integrated it in. All you have to do is see what drunk drivers have done to society. But it's there now and impossible to undo. To bring in other harmful products into the culture and make them acceptable is working at odds with common sense. We are trying to strip out of the culture cigarettes, we are trying reduce alcohol consumption. To make the list of harmful, detrimental products of socially acceptable substances longer is working counter to the trend of social policy.

{edit}

[Big Al]

{edit}


I'm not getting into the rest of this. I will never support legalization of anything that is inherently harmful to anyone and to society. The alcohol analogy doesn't hold. Alcohol has been part and integral to culture for over ten thousand years. It cannot be stripped out of the culture. If we had to do this over we probably would not have integrated it in. All you have to do is see what drunk drivers have done to society. But it's there now and impossible to undo. To bring in other harmful products into the culture and make them acceptable is working at odds with common sense. We are trying to strip out of the culture cigarettes, we are trying reduce alcohol consumption. To make the list of harmful, detrimental products of socially acceptable substances longer is working counter to the trend of social policy.

You are looking at the issue in very broad strokes of black and white. Not everyone who uses drugs is destroying himself, not every aspect of drugs is inherently bad. Marijuana is used, for example, in treatments of numerous diseases such as glaucoma and cancer, and to alleviate intense pain from a wide range of afflictions. Heroin has also been found to be a successful pain reliever. Many people use illegal drugs as a stress reliever -- as many do legally with alcohol and tobacco -- without hurting others or spiraling into a depraved world of nightmarish addiction (their stories just don't make it into the media). Your point about alcohol doesn't hold water, either, as many drugs currently illegal in the United States and elsewhere have played major roles in different world cultures, such as opium in China.

{edit}

[PeterL]

{edit}

I'm not getting into the rest of this. I will never support legalization of anything that is inherently harmful to anyone and to society.

So you would favor making it a criminal offense to have a baseball bat, or even just the ball itself. Obviously, many kitchen utensils would be illegal under your rule. Yes, this is reducio ad absurbam. You made an absurd assertion. If you were to think about the matter a little, then you would realize that nothing is "inherently harmful to anyone and to society,' so by your reasoning everything should be legal.

[kilted exile]

you would realize that nothing is "inherently harmful to anyone and to society,'

you sure about this?

[Virgil]

So you would favor making it a criminal offense to have a baseball bat, or even just the ball itself. Obviously, many kitchen utensils would be illegal under your rule. Yes, this is reducio ad absurbam. You made an absurd assertion. If you were to think about the matter a little, then you would realize that nothing is "inherently harmful to anyone and to society,' so by your reasoning everything should be legal.

{edit}The fact is that there are thousands of legislation pertaining to what is acceptable and unacceptable pertaining to our food laws. Society has determined that it is unacceptable for the laissez-faire as to what people can injest. You can take it up with the Food and Drug Administration if you don't like it. Take it to the Supreme Court. Society has already determined that certain injestible or intakable products are unacceptable to be sold on the open market. And that certain products need to fit within certain guidelines. That's a reality in every country on the globe.

Next time a cop stops you for some infraction, tell him you also were on the cell phone while driving and weren't wearing a safety belt because you don't think it's right for society to tell you what is best. Let us know what his response is.

[Emil Miller]

Outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to take non prescription drugs except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

[alexar]

outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to take non prescription drugs except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Yeah! Let's hear it for gratuitous self-indulgence. Which is none of the government's business.

[Emil Miller]

Yeah! Let's hear it for gratuitous self-indulgence. Which is none of the government's business.

On that basis you could excuse anything, even murder.

[Michael T]

Outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to take non prescription drugs except for gratuitous self-indulgence. :eek:

Outside of the conception of children, there is no need for anyone to indulge in sex except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to imbibe alcohol except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of educational necessity, there is no need for anyone to watch TV or visit the cinema except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of educational necessity, there is no need for anyone to log on to Lit-Net except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of bodily exercise necessity, there is no need for anyone to go dancing except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of healthy necessity, there is no need for anyone to eat cake, sweets or snacks except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Argue about breaking the law and health issues…but what’s wrong with a little bit of gratuitous self-indulgence every now and then Brian? ;)

[alexar]

On that basis you could excuse anything, even murder.

But is gratuitous self-indulgence ever in itself the legislators' business?

[Emil Miller]

:eek:

Outside of the conception of children, there is no need for anyone to indulge in sex except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of medical necessity, there is no need for anyone to imbibe alcohol except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of educational necessity, there is no need for anyone to watch TV or visit the cinema except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of educational necessity, there is no need for anyone to log on to Lit-Net except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of bodily exercise necessity, there is no need for anyone to go dancing except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Outside of healthy necessity, there is no need for anyone to eat cake, sweets or snacks except for gratuitous self-indulgence.

Argue about breaking the law and health issues…but what’s wrong with a little bit of gratuitous self-indulgence every now and then Brian? ;)

Nothing, provided it is a natural function of existence or lawfully permitted.


But is gratuitous self-indulgence ever in itself the legislators' business?

That is decided when elections take place.

[alexar]

Nothing, provided it is a natural function of existence or lawfully permitted.

The simple fact that something isn't lawfully permitted doesn't make it wrong does it? I thought we were discussing the right and wrongs of legislation here? If everything that's illegal is wrong, there's no discussion to have.

[Emil Miller]

The simple fact that something isn't lawfully permitted doesn't make it wrong does it? I thought we were discussing the right and wrongs of legislation here? If everything that's illegal is wrong, there's no discussion to have.

Exactly, until the voters democratically decide otherwise, that's it.

[alexar]

Exactly, until the voters democratically decide otherwise, that's it.

OK then. But I say cannabis should be legalised. So now we have a discussion again, yay!

[Mr Endon]

In that respect I agree with you, alexar. However, I'd like to know your stance on heavier drugs.

If you ask me, heavy drugs must be criminalised, not for moral reasons, but simply because drugs like cocain and heroin are proven to ruin not only users' lives (who cares, 'it's their life') but many others' as well (e.g. their family). That's why governments rightly prohibit it. How dare anyone put their personal liberties over others' welfare.

Marijuana, however, may cause cancer and be highly addictive, but it's no worse than tobacco, and as other posters have mentioned, I've never heard of a broken home because of cannabis use. For these reasons it should be legal.

[Emil Miller]

In that respect I agree with you, alexar. However, I'd like to know your stance on heavier drugs.

If you ask me, heavy drugs must be criminalised, not for moral reasons, but simply because drugs like cocain and heroin are proven to ruin not only users' lives (who cares, 'it's their life') but many others' as well (e.g. their family). That's why governments rightly prohibit it. How dare anyone put their personal liberties over others' welfare.

Marijuana, however, may cause cancer and be highly addictive, but it's no worse than tobacco, and as other posters have mentioned, I've never heard of a broken home because of cannabis use. For these reasons it should be legal.

If a Democratic administration ( because that is the party most likely to agree to minority pressure ) were to legalise cannabis in the USA, the populace would have to put up with the consequences until an incomng Republican administration repealed the concession to the self indulgence of the anything goes mentality of the irresponsible.

[Mr Endon]

Brian, I know, one would think that, right? But we must look at actual instances of countries where cannabis is legalised. Look at the Netherlands. They're doing fine.

I must say, though, that, for cultural reasons, I don't foresee legalisation in the US in the coming years, so you can sigh of relief :)

[Virgil]

On that basis you could excuse anything, even murder.
Hear, hear!

I've decided to back out of this discussion since it appears that I put at risk my existence on lit net. Arguing over things like this is not why I come to lit net.

And so I leave all you pro-drug people with the word, enjoy. Just don't come crying to me.

[Big Al]

If a Democratic administration ( because that is the party most likely to agree to minority pressure ) were to legalise cannabis in the USA, the populace would have to put up with the consequences until an incomng Republican administration repealed the concession to the self indulgence of the anything goes mentality of the irresponsible.

John Stuart Mill wrote a fascinating philosophical treatise called "On Liberty" which was about, among other things, the problems inherent in a democratic system. In a democracy, Mill asserted, there is the ever pervading chance of what he deemed the "tyranny of the majority," which is the idea not simply that the majority may use its authority to pass legislation which trods upon the rights of the minority, but that it can oppress minority groups simply by controlling what is accepted to be "right" and what is accepted to be "wrong." It is the government's job to try to prevent this tyranny from occurring by governing according to the voice of the majority only insofar as it does not infringe the rights of the minority. Therefore, I say that both your majority which says "no, you can't" and your Republican administration which ignores the rights of minority groups are supremely unjust and unfit to make such decisions about what the minority can and cannot do.

[alexar]

In that respect I agree with you, alexar. However, I'd like to know your stance on heavier drugs.

If you ask me, heavy drugs must be criminalised, not for moral reasons, but simply because drugs like cocain and heroin are proven to ruin not only users' lives (who cares, 'it's their life') but many others' as well (e.g. their family). That's why governments rightly prohibit it. How dare anyone put their personal liberties over others' welfare.

Marijuana, however, may cause cancer and be highly addictive, but it's no worse than tobacco, and as other posters have mentioned, I've never heard of a broken home because of cannabis use. For these reasons it should be legal.

I can go with all of that and I don't pretent to a fixed stance in this difficult area. But I find quite persuasive the argument that much evil, and much real, damaging crime, is created in the world by the drugs trade, which exists because the illegality of drugs raises the price so high that criminal profiteers are attracted to it. In that sense we have to admit that making recreational drugs illegal promotes crime - I mean violence, robbery, criminal empires running whole countries etc etc.

[Emil Miller]

John Stuart Mill wrote a fascinating philosophical treatise called "On Liberty" which was about, among other things, the problems inherent in a democratic system. In a democracy, Mill asserted, there is the ever pervading chance of what he deemed the "tyranny of the majority," which is the idea not simply that the majority may use its authority to pass legislation which trods upon the rights of the minority, but that it can oppress minority groups simply by controlling what is accepted to be "right" and what is accepted to be "wrong." It is the government's job to try to prevent this tyranny from occurring by governing according to the voice of the majority only insofar as it does not infringe the rights of the minority. Therefore, I say that both your majority which says "no, you can't" and your Republican administration which ignores the rights of minority groups are supremely unjust and unfit to make such decisions about what the minority can and cannot do.

Unfortunately, John Stuart Mill couldn't understand the difference between liberty and licence.

[Taliesin]

To spice the discussion up, recently I happened to read an interesting article:

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html?iid=tsmodule)
To sum up some points in that article, in Portugal, apparently, they decriminalized owning drugs (and that means any drug) and replaced jail time with therapy - that one could freely refuse. According to a paper published by a libertarian think-tank Cato, the drug use among teens in Portugal went down, as did the rate of new HIV infections caused by sharing dirty needles. The number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled. Also note that apparently, drug dealing is still is a crime.

Now I am not Portuguese, nor have I read any other media on that experiment and someone on the article also opines that the decrease of drug use could be due to the cyclical nature of it, so perhaps I might have the wrong impression, but it seems to me, that decriminalizing owning drugs, pragmatically speaking, seems to work.

[Mr Endon]

Taliesin, I'm Portuguese and I didn't know that, actually. All I knew was that drugs have been a major problem in Portugal. I've just spoken with a Portuguese judge and he confirms what you've been saying:
- Possession of any kind of drug is legal so long as it is for use only (there's a stipulated amount that is legal to possess);
- Trafficking is still illegal, of course;
- Drug use is has been decreasing since the law was approved.

Though it's true this may be only a cyclical regression, this definitely seems like the fairest way of dealing with the issue. I still staunchly disapprove the trafficking and even possession of heavy drugs, but criminalisation is hardly a solution, I guess. Well, for once I'm proud of my country.

EDIT: A fascinating article, I've just read the whole of it. Thanks for sharing it.

[kasie]

I'm a bit confused here - possession is legal, I understand that bit, but trafficking is illegal, I understand that. So how do users actually get hold of their drugs? And does 'trafficking' include buying as well as selling? Are you allowed to 'grow your own'?

[PeterL]

you sure about this?

Yes, I am certain.


{edit}The fact is that there are thousands of legislation pertaining to what is acceptable and unacceptable pertaining to our food laws. Society has determined that it is unacceptable for the laissez-faire as to what people can injest. You can take it up with the Food and Drug Administration if you don't like it. Take it to the Supreme Court. Society has already determined that certain injestible or intakable products are unacceptable to be sold on the open market. And that certain products need to fit within certain guidelines. That's a reality in every country on the globe.

Next time a cop stops you for some infraction, tell him you also were on the cell phone while driving and weren't wearing a safety belt because you don't think it's right for society to tell you what is best. Let us know what his response is.

Just because legislation has been enacted does not mean that there are valid laws. Just because totalitarianists think that they know how should live does not mean that they do.

[Mr Endon]

I'm a bit confused here - possession is legal, I understand that bit, but trafficking is illegal, I understand that. So how do users actually get hold of their drugs? And does 'trafficking' include buying as well as selling? Are you allowed to 'grow your own'?

I asked that myself. It's complicated.

A Greek lawyer told me that in Greece it's illegal both to buy and to sell, so trafficking in the normal sense of the word. But the police won't hunt you down if you're in possession of drugs, simply because that would lead to overcrowding of prisons (cf. USA); plus, they have bigger fish to fry (drug barons, etc). So though buying is not actually legal, it's not that big an issue. A very intricate matter, I'm sure that had I had more time to talk to him I'd have figured it out better. He told me that basically if you ask "will I be prosecuted if I buy for own use?" the answer is "it depends". I asked if it's possible to grow your own and can't recall the exact answer, but again, I don't think it's as big a problem as, say, selling.

So that's Greece, about which I know next to nothing. As for Portugal, the case is much simpler. The Portuguese judge told me that buying is not illegal, as long as you only buy up to [stipulated amount]; likewise, obviously, you won't have a problem if you're in possession of drugs up to [stipulated amount].

[Mariamosis]

Also, how far do we take this legalization? What about prescription drugs like painkillers or controlled drugs such as Ketamine? Are we just going to start handing those things out as well? In that case, prescriptions become irrelevant if you can get whatever you want over the counter and then who's going to bother to see a doctor anymore. The world would be overcome with self-medicators. That's no longer a healthy society.

(I agree that prescription drugs should not just be open to the average consumer.)

In my opinion, I believe doctors are shooting themselves in the foot. I don't know what country you live in, but in the US doctors/hospitals/insurance companies are becoming crooked and swindling good people out of their health and money. Obviously not all doctors are like this, however, a good majority in NC are under bad habits. (and from my understanding it reaches across the US)

[kasie]

Thanks, Mr E - I thought it must be something like turning a blind eye if the purchase was 'for personal use'.

[Mr Endon]

Don't mention it, kasie; from what I understand, it is so in Greece at least, and in Portugal it's actually quite legal.

In response to Classic Charm: to legalise is not to hand out (I must admit I committed the same mistake in a post replying to PeterL). Of course there must always be restrictions to that sort of drugs, that's what prescriptions are for. To legalise drugs is not to put them up for sale at your local market, but simply not to prosecute those who use them.

[Mariamosis]

Marijuana, however, may cause cancer and be highly addictive, but it's no worse than tobacco, and as other posters have mentioned, I've never heard of a broken home because of cannabis use. For these reasons it should be legal.

It has never been proven that marijuana causes cancer. Yes, smoke inhalation is bad for your lungs. There are numerous other ways to consume marijuana without the necessities of smoke and thereby eliminating toxins.

An acquaintance of mine had received news from his doctor that he had serious lung cancer and was not expected to live more than a few months. He immediately stopped treatment with the doctors and began a strict regime of smoking vaporized cannabis. He went back to the doctor two years later and his cancer had not spread. That was 6 or 7 years ago and it has still not spread. (I know, everyone has a "miracle story", and maybe that was an isolated case, but we can't really say for sure)

Secondly marijuana is NOT addicting. I was a user for over a year (morning, noon, and night; everyday) when I decided that I was tired of spending my money, I stopped. There were no withdrawals, no pain, and I wasn't moody. I just woke up and didn't smoke.

In fact during the year I was using, I found I could substitute marijuana for tobacco and not have cigarette withdrawals. Therefore I quit cigarettes thanks to marijuana. (and it wasn't just me, I don't have enough fingers to count how many friends have quit tobacco the same way and after years have not started again) I don't know anyone who has quit tobacco "cold turkey", with the patch, or the gum who have not had some sort of withdrawals.

[Big Al]

Unfortunately, John Stuart Mill couldn't understand the difference between liberty and licence.

I will bet my life's savings that he understood it much better than you do.

[Mr Endon]

It has never been proven that marijuana causes cancer.

I've spoken with lawyers and judges about this matter and they were of the opinion that it does. But they're no medics, so let's assume they don't know what they're talking about.

While it's true that it may not cause lung cancer like as much as tobacco does (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html), it is still carcinogenic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4350642.stm) and two months ago a study suggested that it may also cause testicular cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7869709.stm).

Well, cancer or no cancer, let's agree on this much:


Chronic daily cannabis use has been shown to have long term harmful health effects

(This is in the abstract of a study in SpringerLink (http://www.springerlink.de/home/main.mpx), which, ask anyone, is an impartial and highly reliable source.)



Secondly marijuana is NOT addicting. I was a user for over a year (morning, noon, and night; everyday) when I decided that I was tired of spending my money, I stopped. There were no withdrawals, no pain, and I wasn't moody. I just woke up and didn't smoke.

The lawyers and judges I spoke with also here say it IS addicting. But don't take my word for it:


A subset of marijuana smokers develop a cannabis use disorder and seek treatment for their marijuana use on their own initiative. A less well-known consequence of daily, repeated marijuana use is a withdrawal syndrome, characterized by a time-dependent constellation of symptoms: irritability, anxiety, marijuana craving, decreased quality and quantity of sleep, and decreased food intake.


Conclusion Co-morbid psychiatric disorders are common among heavy cannabis users seeking treatment. Some psychiatric disorders occur more frequently in this group compared with users of other substances.


Neuropsychological deficits and differences in brain functioning are most consistently observed only among frequent, heavy users, who are those most likely addicted to cannabis. The dire impact of drug addiction on a person’s life and everyday functioning suggests that the large number of individuals addicted to cannabis experience substantial negative effects from its use.

(More abstracts from SpringerLink.)

I think it's terrific that you weren't addicted. However, (I don't want to come across feisty, but) the truth is that that proves absolutely nothing. That fallacy is known as "hasty generalisation"; it's like saying "well, that guy was shot in the head and didn't die, ergo getting shot in the head doesn't kill you".

[Mariamosis]

I think it's terrific that you weren't addicted. However, (I don't want to come across feisty, but) the truth is that that proves absolutely nothing. That fallacy is known as "hasty generalisation"; it's like saying "well, that guy was shot in the head and didn't die, ergo getting shot in the head doesn't kill you".

Thanks for the links. I will view them later today.

I am not going to argue much on the point of cancer, since I only have one source (an quite possibly an unreliable one) to back up my comment.

I can't speak for the tests that were done, but personal experience is hard to overcome. (although personal testimony from someone you met on the internet is hardly convincing, I am sure :) )

I am not a scientist, and I am therefore not going to say 100% that marijuana is not addicting. However, I have met hundreds of people (literally)that I have spoken with regarding their personal experiences with marijuana, and have never heard of one person claim withdrawal symptoms.

I will say that it seems to inhibit your mental processes a bit even between use, however, after a few months of non-using, people always seem to recouperate. (even users of 20 years)

I can't speak for your lawyers and judges either, and I must say I am a little skeptical about their opinion, since I have worked for lawyers and have seen their "so-called" research tecniques. I am not trying to slander your lawyers, however, we must remember that they are only human. You have to wonder where they get their information and you also have to wonder where these medics and scientists get their funding. :)

[PeterL]

I will bet my life's savings that he understood it much better than you do.

And I'd double up on that bet, if I could.

[Mr Endon]

I can't speak for the tests that were done, but personal experience is hard to overcome. (although personal testimony from someone you met on the internet is hardly convincing, I am sure :) )

I'm sure it is hard to overcome, and it's quite a reliable source of information, straight from the well, if you will. I'm only alerting to the fact that only studies using a reasonable sample can give us an accurate perspective on things like these.


I am not a scientist, and I am therefore not going to say 100% that marijuana is not addicting. However, I have met hundreds of people (literally)that I have spoken with regarding their personal experiences with marijuana, and have never heard of one person claim withdrawal symptoms.

I believe you. I must say that I had no idea that cannabis was addicting (I've never done drugs, so I'm very naïve in that respect). It was only after talking with these people working in law that I was introduced to the idea. I'm starting to accept it as valid after having skimmed through a good deal of studies on the matter.

And neither did I say it's 100% addicting; you may notice my careful phrasing: "may cause cancer and be highly addicting". The thing is, even though some people are happily immune to its grip, we should always be careful about generalising that idea and thus incurring in the aforementioned fallacy.


I will say that it seems to inhibit your mental processes a bit even between use, however, after a few months of non-using people always seem to recouperate. (even users of 20 years)

Yes, I've heard of reports which described recuperations to that effect.


I can't speak for your lawyers and judges either, and I must say I am a little skeptical about their opinion, since I have worked for lawyers and have seen their "so-called" research tecniques. I am not trying to slander your lawyers, however, we must remember that they are only human. You have to wonder where they get their information and you also have to wonder where these medics and scientists get their funding. :)

Well one is a relative and the other is a friend, so I don't have much reason to suspect of them! (by the way, in my opinion you can count on the judges to be very sensible, it's the lawyers you must be careful with ;))

And sure, there's a lot of shady business going on, and as for bias, it's very hard to escape it: if you write "cannabis cancer" on google, most of the websites are blatantly either pro-legalisation or anti-legalisation, and there's no prize for guessing what kind of conclusions the "studies" they quote come to. That's why I try to stick to quality websites like JSTOR, SpringerLink, Project MUSE, Wiley, etc. No 'unbiased studies' guaranteed, I guess, but then again, is there such thing?

[Mariamosis]

I'm not getting into the rest of this. I will never support legalization of anything that is inherently harmful to anyone and to society. The alcohol analogy doesn't hold. Alcohol has been part and integral to culture for over ten thousand years. It cannot be stripped out of the culture.

Your argument against drugs based on the idea that alcohol has been a part of culture for over ten thousand years is a bit compromising to your position.

Marijuana has been grown for fiber and used as a source of medicine for several thousand years.

Cannabis has been used therapeutically from the earliest records, nearly 5,000 years ago, to the present day and its products have been widely noted for their effects, both physiological and psychological, throughout the world.

Therefore marijuana has "been part and integral to culture" for over 5000 years. "It cannot be stripped out of the culture", but it has, just as alcohol has been in the past.

Mr. Endon, always keeping me on my toes! :)
I will get back to this conversation in an hour or so!

[sprinks]

I've never heard of a broken home because of cannabis use. For these reasons it should be legal.

I'm not really going to discuss this much more because it hurts, but one guy very very close to me - well it caused a number of problems in his family. It's also physically affected him. He said it was a "social thing" that helped him relax; but it's even screwed with other friend's minds as well. It affects the way they think - not always in a positive way. It has different effects on people, you can't legalize it on the basis that "it didn't affect me badly so it won't affect anyone badly", and you can't make it illegal because "it affected them badly so it will affect everyone badly." It's too much of an individual thing, yet at the same time, it's a dangerous thing. Some people might take something every day for 50 years and be fine, someone might try it ONCE and die. Therefore, the people doing it can keep on doing it, obviously they know what they're doing and they aren't likely to stop if they feel they don't have to - regardless of it's illegal or not, however that fear that results with drugs being illegal might prevent some people from taking things. I'll admit that while I've been curious every now and again, I've never taken any illegal drugs, and never will. Why? Because they're illegal. If they weren't, I would have, I bet (then again books like Go Ask Alice and Anna's Story do put me off even being curious). And who knows what might happen to me, and who knows where it will lead. Some people do indeed use the logic that "well this is illegal and I'm okay, lets try something heavier!"

I understand some people need illegal drugs for medical use. I don't think that that should allow everyone to use them.

People choose to do drugs, knowing that they are illegal, and that's their decision. I suppose a counter argument to what I previously said is that taking away the "illegal" status would prevent some people from taking drugs because the "danger" isn't there, it's not as "rebellious" or "exciting". However, the freedom that would come from drugs not being illegal would certainly result in an increase, would it not? People wouldn't get in trouble for it, and so it would become more widespread, become more advertised in a way, because people would be able to use freely without the fear of being fined or jailed etc. Therefore, a higher demand, and higher risk for more people, as it would become easier to obtain.

[Mr Endon]

Oh, Mariamosis, not trying to put you in check or anything :) I think we actually agree in regard to the whole picture, it's the details that always give food for discussion.

sprinks, I agree with most of what you said. Your post summarises why this is such a hot topic. I'll just reply to two bits:


It has different effects on people, you can't legalize it on the basis that "it didn't affect me badly so it won't affect anyone badly", and you can't make it illegal because "it affected them badly so it will affect everyone badly." It's too much of an individual thing, yet at the same time, it's a dangerous thing.

I'm very aware of the intricacy of the matter, yet one stance must be adopted. The government doesn't make things illegal because they think that "everyone will be affected badly", but because some (or most, or a few) will, and worse than that, because those that will be affected will in turn affect others. The solution in Portugal seems to be the best one: traffic is illegal, consumption is legal (but not entirely without restrictions).


I suppose a counter argument to what I previously said is that taking away the "illegal" status would prevent some people from taking drugs because the "danger" isn't there, it's not as "rebellious" or "exciting". However, the freedom that would come from drugs not being illegal would certainly result in an increase, would it not? People wouldn't get in trouble for it, and so it would become more widespread, become more advertised in a way, because people would be able to use freely without the fear of being fined or jailed etc. Therefore, a higher demand, and higher risk for more people, as it would become easier to obtain.

That's what one would think. However, practical instances show that such speculations are ultimately foundationless. I suggest you to read the excellent article that Taliesin posted here, the Portuguese case study, where all drug use has been legalised for 8 years now and there are not yet any aggravations of any kind to speak of, in fact apparently only improvements: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html?iid=tsmodule


---
EDIT: On the top of this page: "Beat Your Addiction, free advice on the best treatment, discounts available". You gotta love the Google ad-sense. The wonders of technology!

[Emil Miller]

I will bet my life's savings that he understood it much better than you do.

You would probbaly lose them. Like all of his acolytes, Mill talks a lot about rights but seldom mentions responsibilty.

[Mariamosis]

It would be nice, if there would be regulation as to the purity of the substances. As far as dosage goes, people would decide for themselves. Fatalities happen now, but most of the fatalities now are from adulterated drugs. There are people who will killed themselves with drugs regardless of the regulations.

This is a very good point. Much of the problem with milder drugs is too much trust on the part of the consumer and/or untrustworthy providers.

Not to mention the risk of reusing hypodermic needles. (eek!)

[TheFifthElement]

You know, no one is going to agree on this. But interesting debate nonetheless.

However, this curious concept keeps appearing at random stages throughout the thread. It appears in many different forms but basically seems to amount to this:

it is irresponsible to permit people to take responsibility for themselves

I've done some research and it appears to be an increasingly commonly encountered phenomenon known as the responsibility vacuum, a doughnut shaped device found in kitchen cupboards. The responsibility vacuum operates at night when it sneaks into bedrooms and sucks all the responsibility from the room, leaving the occupant slightly euphoric and totally incapable of making decisions for themselves.

Weird, or have I been watching too much Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

[PeterL]

You know, no one is going to agree on this. But interesting debate nonetheless.

However, this curious concept keeps appearing at random stages throughout the thread. It appears in many different forms but basically seems to amount to this:

it is irresponsible to permit people to take responsibility for themselves


I noticed that problem also. I don't think that you idea of a vacuum was involved. I think that some people have been brainwashed into thinking that the so-called authorities actually know how they should live their lives, and they do not know how to live their own lives.

[Big Al]

You would probbaly lose them. Like all of his acolytes, Mill talks a lot about rights but seldom mentions responsibilty.

Mill writes extensively about responsibility, both in the final section of "On Liberty" and in another famous philosophical discourse of his entitled "Utilitarianism." It is Mill's assertion -- and my own -- that, in a free society, the government can only restrict the actions of an individual on if they infringe on the freedoms of another, each individual being responsible for his own behavior. If a person's action do not oppress or do harm to another, then on no logical grounds does the government have either the right or the responsibility to restrict his freedoms. However, in such a case where an individual's action does cause harm to a fellow human being, Mill affirmed the absolute responsibility of the government to step in and take direct action against him.

[Emil Miller]

Mill writes extensively about responsibility, both in the final section of "On Liberty" and in another famous philosophical discourse of his entitled "Utilitarianism." It is Mill's assertion -- and my own -- that, in a free society, the government can only restrict the actions of an individual on if they infringe on the freedoms of another, each individual being responsible for his own behavior. If a person's action do not oppress or do harm to another, then on no logical grounds does the government have either the right or the responsibility to restrict his freedoms. However, in such a case where an individual's action does cause harm to a fellow human being, Mill affirmed the absolute responsibility of the government to step in and take direct action against him.

Mill is only saying what any sensible person knows instinctively i.e. that individual freedom has its parameters. What those parameters should be obviously cannot be determined by the individual without them being called into question. Hence, the necessity for a legal framework to decide what they are.

[Big Al]

Mill is only saying what any sensible person knows instinctively i.e. that individual freedom has its parameters. What those parameters should be obviously cannot be determined by the individual without them being called into question. Hence, the necessity for a legal framework to decide what they are.

Certainly individual freedom has its parameters, and those parameters are the freedoms of others. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and so long as a man does not threaten the liberty of his compatriot, he should be free to do so in every instance; there can logically be no other limits in a free state.

It is a fine line which the governmening body must walk to craft and enact legislation, because every law must have two fundamental goals: to honor the beliefs of the majority (or those beliefs which either benefit or ensure the safety of the general populace), but to do so only insofar as the law does not infringe on the rights of the individual. When governments disregard the second goal, when they ignore the voice of the minority or disregard the right of the individual to do as he likes so long as he does no harm to his neighbor, the legal framework creates a state of oppression and injustice which has rationalized persecution, slavery, segregation and genocide, all because they were in accord with the will of the majority.

[Emil Miller]

Certainly individual freedom has its parameters, and those parameters are the freedoms of others. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and so long as a man does not threaten the liberty of his compatriot, he should be free to do so in every instance; there can logically be no other limits in a free state.

It is a fine line which the governmening body must walk to craft and enact legislation, because every law must have two fundamental goals: to honor the beliefs of the majority (or those beliefs which either benefit or ensure the safety of the general populace), but to do so only insofar as the law does not infringe on the rights of the individual. When governments disregard the second goal, when they ignore the voice of the minority or disregard the right of the individual to do as he likes so long as he does no harm to his neighbor, the legal framework creates a state of oppression and injustice which has rationalized persecution, slavery, segregation and genocide, all because they were in accord with the will of the majority.


Because the pursuit of happiness will often be carrried out at the expense of others, we have laws deigned to prevent such an occurence. Those laws are passed by the legislature in accordance with the will of the majority rather than the individual because it would be wrong to allow a minority to impose its will on the majority. The fine line that you mention between between honoring the rights of the majority and the individual is decided by the government and the courts who are the only bodies who have a legal right to make that decision, whether we agree with it or not.

[sprinks]

That's what one would think. However, practical instances show that such speculations are ultimately foundationless. I suggest you to read the excellent article that Taliesin posted here, the Portuguese case study, where all drug use has been legalised for 8 years now and there are not yet any aggravations of any kind to speak of, in fact apparently only improvements: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html?iid=tsmodule


Just because it happened like that in that country doesn't mean it will in all. Cultures are different, and will take to the matter different. Subcultures within those cultures too will take to it differently. I accept that perhaps in some places it could end up with improvements, but I still don't think that should allow the legalisation of drugs, because it certainly would not be positive for every person in every country.

[Big Al]

Because the pursuit of happiness will often be carrried out at the expense of others, we have laws deigned to prevent such an occurence.

Yes, that is correct, and is, in fact, exactly what I have been saying in every post. And when happiness is pursued at the expense of nobody but the individual pursuing it, why is it the government's concern? Why is it your concern?


Those laws are passed by the legislature in accordance with the will of the majority rather than the individual because it would be wrong to allow a minority to impose its will on the majority.

In the United States until the 1960s, laws were passed which discriminated against blacks and kept them segregated into poverty and squalor. Was this right? After all, it was the will of the majority at the time. Would the government allowing blacks equal treatment under the law have been an example of the "minoirty imposing its will on the majority?"

Instances like these are why a fair government in an egalitarian state absolutely cannot simply listen to the majority and ignore the minority, because it leads to minorities being discriminated against by the very law of the land. This is why governing bodies must realize that they can enact legislation only insofar as they do not infringe on the freedom of the individual. I fail to see how protecting minorities from majority prejudices and allowing them the basic freedom to do whatever they want in life as long as their actions do not harm others amounts to minorities oppressing majorities.


The fine line that you mention between between honoring the rights of the majority and the individual is decided by the government and the courts who are the only bodies who have a legal right to make that decision, whether we agree with it or not.

I am not arguing about the way things are; if that were the case, we would all be debating whether or not drugs are legal, an argument which really wouldn't last very long, for obvious reasons. I am arguing for the way things should be, ideally and necessarily, in a free nation, and just as we would never condone slavery or segregation -- actions of the government -- we cannot condone the idea of the government controlling our lives at the expense of personal liberty. If we do not agree with it, there are always alternative courses we can take; no human being ever has to sit back in complacency and say, "The government has robbed me of my freedom, but such is my lot in life."

Now explain this to me: explain to me why, if I do so without harming you or anybody else, I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana? Why do you feel the need for the government to control behaviors you dislike whether or not they infringe on the lives of others?

[Mr Endon]

Just because it happened like that in that country doesn't mean it will in all. Cultures are different, and will take to the matter different. Subcultures within those cultures too will take to it differently. I accept that perhaps in some places it could end up with improvements, but I still don't think that should allow the legalisation of drugs, because it certainly would not be positive for every person in every country.


Absolutely, I agree, cultures differ greatly. But let's face it, no one solution can 'be positive for every person in every country'. It's definitely a case by case situation, and you'd me an injustice if you inferred from my statements that I'm suggesting a wholesale worldwide legalisation. What I am suggesting is,

1) just because [blank] seems the logical result doesn't mean that's how it'll necessarily turn out in real life. Here's a quote from the article:


At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.

2), and following from 1), it would be very foolish to turn a blind eye on the cases of Portugal and the Netherlands, the only two countries that I know of that do not criminalise drugs and none of which has had any problems because of it.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, that is correct, and is, in fact, exactly what I have been saying in every post. And when happiness is pursued at the expense of nobody but the individual pursuing it, why is it the government's concern? Why is it your concern?



In the United States until the 1960s, laws were passed which discriminated against blacks and kept them segregated into poverty and squalor. Was this right? After all, it was the will of the majority at the time. Would the government allowing blacks equal treatment under the law have been an example of the "minoirty imposing its will on the majority?"

Instances like these are why a fair government in an egalitarian state absolutely cannot simply listen to the majority and ignore the minority, because it leads to minorities being discriminated against by the very law of the land. This is why governing bodies must realize that they can enact legislation only insofar as they do not infringe on the freedom of the individual. I fail to see how protecting minorities from majority prejudices and allowing them the basic freedom to do whatever they want in life as long as their actions do not harm others amounts to minorities oppressing majorities.



I am not arguing about the way things are; if that were the case, we would all be debating whether or not drugs are legal, an argument which really wouldn't last very long, for obvious reasons. I am arguing for the way things should be, ideally and necessarily, in a free nation, and just as we would never condone slavery or segregation -- actions of the government -- we cannot condone the idea of the government controlling our lives at the expense of personal liberty. If we do not agree with it, there are always alternative courses we can take; no human being ever has to sit back in complacency and say, "The government has robbed me of my freedom, but such is my lot in life."

Now explain this to me: explain to me why, if I do so without harming you or anybody else, I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana? Why do you feel the need for the government to control behaviors you dislike whether or not they infringe on the lives of others?

The fact that you might wish to take drugs at nobody elses expense doesn't mean that others will act accordingly. In this country there have been a number of accidents caused by people driving while smoking marijuana and also killings by drug users due their being drugged at the time. The government has to take an overview of the problem and acting on advice from the medical authorities (BMA), prohibits the unnecessary use of drugs per se. It is also a personal concern because I don't want to attacked or injured in an auto accident because some people happen to feel that their personal freedom is being compromised by the government.
As for slavery and segregation, it was governments that legislated to bring them to an end.

The below link is reason enough to keep drugs illegal even though it will never be completely enforced.



http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/27/world/zurich-journal-a-marketplace-for-drugs-a-bazaar-of-the-bizarre.html

[Big Al]

The fact that you might wish to take drugs at nobody elses expense doesn't mean that others will act accordingly. In this country there have been a number of accidents caused by people driving while smoking marijuana and also killings by drug users due their being drugged at the time. The government has to take an overview of the problem and acting on advice from the medical authorities (BMA), prohibits the unnecessary use of drugs per se. It is also a personal concern because I don't want to attacked or injured in an auto accident because some people happen to feel that their personal freedom is being compromised by the government.

I am reminded of a passage from "On Liberty":

The Secretary, however, says, 'I claim, as a citizen, the right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.' And now for the definition of these 'social rights'. 'If anything invades my social rights, certainly the traffic in strong drink does. It destroys my primary right of security, by constantly creating and stimulating social disorder. It invades my right of equality, by deriving a profit from the creation of a misery I am taxed to support. It impedes my right to free moral and intellectual development, by surrounding my path with dangers, and by weakening and demoralizing society, from which I have a right to claim mutual aid and intercourse.' A theory of 'social rights', the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language: being nothing short of this - that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whoseoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of my grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever...The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.

If the government enacted drug legislation simply because of safety, then alcohol should not be legalized. After all, more people die in alcohol-related car crashes per year than marijuana or any illicit drug. Do you ever enjoy a drink, Brian Bean, or at the very least imagine a situation where a man may drink alcohol in moderation without commiting heinous crimes or smashing his car into an unsuspecting pedestrian? Do these instances represent the majority of alcohol drinkers, or a simple few? Is it fair to the majority to punish them because of the transgressions of the minority? Wouldn't that be an example of the government allowing the minority to indirectly oppress the majority, to take away the rights of the majority because a few are unable to handle the responsibility of freedom?

You cannot, I repeat, cannot restrict liberty in a free state based on the possibility that people may infringe on one another's liberty, because this amounts to punishing everybody for the transgressions of the few. The same applies to drugs, to guns, to anything; "he who would sacrifice his freedom for a little safety deserves neither freedom nor safety," and it is the complete antithesis of a free government which attempts to control behaviors which might, but are not necessarily or inherently, be harmful to others. After all, where do you draw the line? You are worried about being injured by a driver under the influence of drugs? I am constantly worried about being injured by any driver who may be sleepy, who may not be paying attention, or who may simply lose control of his vehicle for some reason or another. Therefore I say that cars are simply to great a danger for citizens to be allowed to own and drive them. And in case your counter-argument to this analogy is that drugs offer not benefit to society, then allow me to take preemptive action and disagree.

First, drugs have been shown to be enormously beneficial in numerous medical treatments from glaucoma to cancer, and they are an effective pain reliever. Second, the legalization of drugs would actually contribute to a safer, more ordered state with far less crime, as explained in an issue of "The Pragmatist":

As Jeffrey Rogers Hummel notes ("Heroin: The Shocking Story," April 1988), estimates vary widely for the proportion of violent and property crime related to drugs. Forty percent is a midpoint figure. In an October 1987 survey by Wharton Econometrics for the U.S. Customs Service, the 739 police chiefs responding "blamed drugs for a fifth of the murders and rapes, a quarter car thefts, two-fifths of robberies and assaults and half the nation's burglaries and thefts."

The theoretical and statistical links between drugs and crime are well established. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.

The reasons are not difficult to understand. When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." There are no statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged thanks to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine.

For heroin the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a five-hundredfold jump.

The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:

Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.
Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. And drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known retailers. When was the last time we saw employees of Rite Aid pharmacies shoot it out with Thrift Drugs for a corner storefront?

When drugs become legal, we will be able to sleep in our homes and walk the streets more safely. As one letter-writer to the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, "law-abiding citizens will be able to enjoy not living in fear of assault and burglary."

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/12reason.htm

The legalization of drugs would also help formally end organized corruption, would cripple the mafia and other organized crime syndicates, it would help control the spread of AIDS and other infectious diseases spread through unclean needles, it would help end prison overcrowding and unclog the courts, and it would free up billions and billions of dollars of public funds, a small fraciton of which could be used to fund free or inexpensive drug treatments for addicted users which have been shown to be exponentially more effective than prison sentences or conventional punishments.


As for slavery and segregation, it was governments that legislated to bring them to an end.

Only after they became worn down by the tireless efforts of civil rights activists, minorities whose rights had been trampled on by the majority and by the government for hundreds of years prior.

[PeterL]

The legalization of drugs would also help formally end organized corruption, would cripple the mafia and other organized crime syndicates, it would help control the spread of AIDS and other infectious diseases spread through unclean needles, it would help end prison overcrowding and unclog the courts, and it would free up billions and billions of dollars of public funds, a small fraciton of which could be used to fund free or inexpensive drug treatments for addicted users which have been shown to be exponentially more effective than prison sentences or conventional punishments.


This economic rationale for legalizing drugs is, along with the tax revenues and decreased costs for police, corts, and prisons, the strongest argument. After what happened around alcohol during prohibition, one would have thought that the lesson had been learned, but it didn't sink in. Nearly all of the crime related to drugs is caused by the legal ban, rather than to the use.


The fact that you might wish to take drugs at nobody elses expense doesn't mean that others will act accordingly. In this country there have been a number of accidents caused by people driving while smoking marijuana and also killings by drug users due their being drugged at the time. The government has to take an overview of the problem and acting on advice from the medical authorities (BMA), prohibits the unnecessary use of drugs per se. It is also a personal concern because I don't want to attacked or injured in an auto accident because some people happen to feel that their personal freedom is being compromised by the government.


The harm done by people using illegal drugs in the course of their intoxication is negligible, a small faction of the rate for people using alcohol or who are not intoxicated. If you worry about that, then you should also take precautions against meteors.

[Emil Miller]

I am reminded of a passage from "On Liberty":


If the government enacted drug legislation simply because of safety, then alcohol should not be legalized. After all, more people die in alcohol-related car crashes per year than marijuana or any illicit drug. Do you ever enjoy a drink, Brian Bean, or at the very least imagine a situation where a man may drink alcohol in moderation without commiting heinous crimes or smashing his car into an unsuspecting pedestrian? Do these instances represent the majority of alcohol drinkers, or a simple few? Is it fair to the majority to punish them because of the transgressions of the minority? Wouldn't that be an example of the government allowing the minority to indirectly oppress the majority, to take away the rights of the majority because a few are unable to handle the responsibility of freedom?

You cannot, I repeat, cannot restrict liberty in a free state based on the possibility that people may infringe on one another's liberty, because this amounts to punishing everybody for the transgressions of the few. The same applies to drugs, to guns, to anything; "he who would sacrifice his freedom for a little safety deserves neither freedom nor safety," and it is the complete antithesis of a free government which attempts to control behaviors which might, but are not necessarily or inherently, be harmful to others. After all, where do you draw the line? You are worried about being injured by a driver under the influence of drugs? I am constantly worried about being injured by any driver who may be sleepy, who may not be paying attention, or who may simply lose control of his vehicle for some reason or another. Therefore I say that cars are simply to great a danger for citizens to be allowed to own and drive them. And in case your counter-argument to this analogy is that drugs offer not benefit to society, then allow me to take preemptive action and disagree.

First, drugs have been shown to be enormously beneficial in numerous medical treatments from glaucoma to cancer, and they are an effective pain reliever. Second, the legalization of drugs would actually contribute to a safer, more ordered state with far less crime, as explained in an issue of "The Pragmatist":


The legalization of drugs would also help formally end organized corruption, would cripple the mafia and other organized crime syndicates, it would help control the spread of AIDS and other infectious diseases spread through unclean needles, it would help end prison overcrowding and unclog the courts, and it would free up billions and billions of dollars of public funds, a small fraciton of which could be used to fund free or inexpensive drug treatments for addicted users which have been shown to be exponentially more effective than prison sentences or conventional punishments.

Only after they became worn down by the tireless efforts of civil rights activists, minorities whose rights had been trampled on by the majority and by the government for hundreds of years prior.

I could give chapter and verse to your arguments but it would be to no avail. You are obviously a libertine and I am obviously a conservative. {edit}I repeat, the law is the law by democratic acceptance and that really is it until you and your cohorts are able to change it by pleading your cause.

[Big Al]

I could give chapter and verse to your arguments but it would be to no avail. You are obviously a libertine and I am obviously a conservative. {edit}I repeat, the law is the law by democratic acceptance and that really is it until you and your cohorts are able to change it by pleading your cause.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

The law is neither just nor fair because it is a law or because it is supported by the majority. Luckily there are plenty of "anarchists," such as Martin Luther King, who with his "cohorts" plead his cause and revealed to the world what oppression a democratic government could be capable of. Or perhaps you are in support of segregation? No matter either way as the government will eventually take the just path, right? Even if it takes a few hundred years.

But I suppose you could give "chapter and verse" explaining to me why every law enacted throughout history has, in fact, been just and worthy of unquestioning obedience. Some people simply cannot bow out of a debate with dignity and grace...

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments will be deleted without any further notice

and

lead to thread closure.

[Emil Miller]

The harm done by people using illegal drugs in the course of their intoxication is negligible, a small faction of the rate for people using alcohol or who are not intoxicated. If you worry about that, then you should also take precautions against meteors.

Exactly, and that is why I support laws designed to keep it that way.

Oh, and incidentally, the scientific community are doing quite a lot of work on trying to prevent meteors from striking earth.

[PeterL]

Exactly, and that is why I support laws designed to keep it that way.

Oh, and incidentally, the scientific community are doing quite a lot of work on trying to prevent meteors from striking earth.

OK, I was not aware that there were laws that encouraged people to get drunk and cause automobile accidents.

The scientific community is looking for ways to detect large asteroids that might cause widespread damage. While considerable progress has made in detection, the plans for doing something about stopping them from doing great damage has not moved. I was referring not to the mountains but to the micrometeors.

[Emil Miller]

OK, I was not aware that there were laws that encouraged people to get drunk and cause automobile accidents.

The scientific community is looking for ways to detect large asteroids that might cause widespread damage. While considerable progress has made in detection, the plans for doing something about stopping them from doing great damage has not moved. I was referring not to the mountains but to the micrometeors.

I agree that there are many automobile accidents caused by drink driving but the anti-drug laws that we have, prevent a similar situation arising through people using drugs. If we have an accident problem because of alcohol, it is senseless to compound it by allowing further intoxicants to be taken?

[PeterL]

I agree that there are many automobile accidents caused by drink driving but the anti-drug laws that we have, prevent a similar situation arising through people using drugs. If we have an accident problem because of alcohol, it is senseless to compound it by allowing further intoxicants to be taken?

In what way would the legalization of drugs be "compounding the problem"? Under the influence of marijuana, and other hallucinogenic drugs people are usually very careful and drive cautiously. Under the influence of CNS stimulants people usually drive the way if they had not taken any drugs. CNS depressants have effects that are similar to alcohol, but people often drive while under the influence of legal CNS depressants now. Most of the people who drive while under the influence of drugs that are presently illegal are already driving under the influence of alcohol, so the net effect would be safer roads, because they would be using things that would have less negative effect on their driving.

[Emil Miller]

In what way would the legalization of drugs be "compounding the problem"? Under the influence of marijuana, and other hallucinogenic drugs people are usually very careful and drive cautiously. Under the influence of CNS stimulants people usually drive the way if they had not taken any drugs. CNS depressants have effects that are similar to alcohol, but people often drive while under the influence of legal CNS depressants now. Most of the people who drive while under the influence of drugs that are presently illegal are already driving under the influence of alcohol, so the net effect would be safer roads, because they would be using things that would have less negative effect on their driving.

That is not the view of the medical authorities, if it were, they would be recommending issuing marijuana and hallucinogenic substances to drivers.

[PeterL]

That is not the view of the medical authorities, if it were, they would be recommending issuing marijuana and hallucinogenic to drivers.

You may be giving too much credence to the so-called "medical authorities". When you see an announcement from them, the medical part has been reduced so that it will fit what politicians want said. One example of that is the matter of alcohol consumption and heart health. The experimental results show that the more alcohol one consumes, the healthier the heart, but public is falsely told that moderation is best, even when heart health is involved. On the other hand, the experimental results announced are not always what actually happened in the experiment. One should be extremely careful about relying on the so-called "medical authorities".

[Scheherazade]

"Nice People Take Drugs" ads pulled from London buses (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/09/nice-people-drugs-ads-pulled)

[Emil Miller]

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

The law is neither just nor fair because it is a law or because it is supported by the majority. Luckily there are plenty of "anarchists," such as Martin Luther King, who with his "cohorts" plead his cause and revealed to the world what oppression a democratic government could be capable of. Or perhaps you are in support of segregation? No matter either way as the government will eventually take the just path, right? Even if it takes a few hundred years.

But I suppose you could give "chapter and verse" explaining to me why every law enacted throughout history has, in fact, been just and worthy of unquestioning obedience. Some people simply cannot bow out of a debate with dignity and grace...



I haven't quite bowed out of this thread although I may do after answering your last two posts.

1. Alcohol and tobacco are often cited as a reason for legalising other narcotics:
When the English colonists of Virginia introduced tobacco to Europe in the 17th century, they thought it was a good idea;we know now that it wasn't. After the link between smoking and health was made in the 1950s, the UK government didn't try to ban it as that would have led to a black market and cries of human rights violation. Instead, they chose to hammer home the heath risk for the next 50 years to the point where many people, myself included, gave up smoking altogether. A further extension of this tactic has been the recent anti-passive smoking campaign
It looks like alcohol will be next on the agenda and hopefully that will go the same way in due course, even though I drink quite heavily myself. If people can be persuaded to give up stimulants that are damaging to their health, not to mention their wealth, that must be more sensible than allowing them to continue regardless of the consequences.

2. I mentioned the medical use of drugs in my first post.


3. If the inclination to take illegal substances is tackled in the same way as that used for the elimination of legal drug use, in the long term the drug barrons will lose out to common sense, even though there will remain certain sections of the community who will still use to them. The bottom line is that
nobody, outside of medical necessity, needs to take drugs. For those who still insist on doing so, it should be done within democratically enacted constraints.

4. Obviously I dont know that every law that has ever been enacted throughout history has been just, but what I do know is that respect for the rule of law is the bedrock of civilisation and that its opposite is anarchy.

[Big Al]

I haven't quite bowed out of this thread although I may do after answering your last two posts.

1. Alcohol and tobacco are often cited as a reason for legalising other narcotics:
When the English colonists of Virginia introduced tobacco to Europe in the 17th century, they thought it was a good idea;we know now that it wasn't. After the link between smoking and health was made in the 1950s, the UK government didn't try to ban it as that would have led to a black market and cries of human rights violation. Instead, they chose to hammer home the heath risk for the next 50 years to the point where many people, myself included, gave up smoking altogether. A further extension of this tactic has been the recent anti-passive smoking campaign
It looks like alcohol will be next on the agenda and hopefully that will go the same way in due course, even though I drink quite heavily myself. If people can be persuaded to give up stimulants that are damaging to their health, not to mention their wealth, that must be more sensible than allowing them to continue regardless of the consequences.

And what about people who realize its negative health effects and choose to drink or smoke regardless? We must not "allow" them to continue, to put their own health at risk if they so choose? I know many people who turn to cigarettes or alcohol (or bad food, or sex) as a means of, for one instance of a positive benefit, relieving stress. They understand that they are putting their health at risk, but it is a trade-off that they choose to make. I think that it is an excellent idea to encourage drug abstinence through non-coercive tactics. But freedom is ultimately about choice, and a free government should not be able to regulate such behaviors, because I don't think you realize just how murky the line becomes:

Does the government have the right to pass a law forcing unmarried couples to abstain from sex until they are married? Certainly this would cut down on the number of STDs contracted, and also the number of unwanted pregnancies. You justify banning drugs on the grounds that they can be detrimental to one's health, and certainly an individual can contract STDs through sexual intercourse. Do you honestly believe that pre-marital relations ought to be outlawed? If not, how can you justify holding both positions without engaging in hypocrisy?

Another example: should homosexuals be allowed to even exist in society? No, I am not a homophobe. However, there are many (typically Christian fundamentalists) who believe that homosexuality is harmful to society, and even that the social acceptance of it precipitates deaths, natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Can you legally ban and restrict it on this basis? What if the majority in a democratic society believes so?



3. If the inclination to take illegal substances is tackled in the same way as that used for the elimination of legal drug use, in the long term the drug barrons will lose out to common sense, even though there will remain certain sections of the community who will still use to them. The bottom line is that
nobody, outside of medical necessity, needs to take drugs. For those who still insist on doing so, it should be done within democratically enacted constraints.

The first part of your arguments isn't really supported by...Well, anything, so I don't feel the need to argue with it. As for the second part: there are few things we do in life that we actually need to do. I don't need to eat an ice cream sundae to stave off my hunger, and you don't need to drink alcohol for nourishment. You also don't need to sit and post on an Internet message board; you do it (presumably) because you enjoy it, or because it provides mental stimulation, or because it helps you relieve stress, or because you find it exciting. That's the beauty of life -- it is not a monotonous parade of everything we must do or need do; to celebrate life we do things we want to do, and so long as somebody's purely unnecessary, possibly even irrational desires don't infringe on my or somebody else's rights, that is perfectly fine with me. The government certainly can't legislate "need," or ban ice cream sundaes for that matter.


4. Obviously I dont know that every law that has ever been enacted throughout history has been just, but what I do know is that respect for the rule of law is the bedrock of civilisation and that its opposite is anarchy.

The opposite took place in 1776 when a group of anarchists we Americans like to call the "Founding Fathers" defied the official law of Britain and formed a free, independent nation. "An unjust law is no law at all."

[alexar]

sex puts your health at risk?

[Big Al]

sex puts your health at risk?

You've obviously never tried to have physical relations with Brigitte Nielsen.

[Jozanny]

Al:

I have not gotten into this debate because it is beyond my pay grade, but can say one thing.

Tobacco is losing the addiction game, and coming from me, this is a net win for the nanny state. Cigarettes not only kill their users, but those around them. I am a poor writer barely hanging on in public housing, and until recently, smoked a pack a day. There were three smokers on my floor, and the cigarette odor was distinct in my hallway. One of these smokers moved upstairs, one died, and I am in a major struggle to end my addiction, sucking fake cigarettes for dear life, one, because I have given myself emphysema, and puke up phlegm in cycles that can be agonizing, and two, because I am tired of feeling guilty about the air quality on my floor. Tobacco cigarettes may not quite be illegal yet in the U.S., but it will be, give or take twenty years.

Having said that though, not every dangerous behavior can be regulated, I agree, but tobacco smoke is a social health hazard which has no real justification in defense of personal autonomy. Even my maintenance man had issues with his boss, my apartment manager, about smoking in the front of the building--though the company backed off a little on that. They did not come after me, too many tenants here smoke, but pressure on negative behavior doesn't have to be official.

Another reason I am fighting with it now is direct injury. I lit my hair on fire and cost Medicare and Medicaid thousands of dollars for my medical treatment, and have burn scars, which, though I am not vain, have made me resign myself to the fact that I'll probably never make love with anyone again, since I was too disabled for the standard pressure shirt treatment, and don't have a Bill Gates to fund plastic surgery.

[Big Al]

What you are asserting is the same fundamental argument that has come up dozens of times through the course of this thread: drug use and drug users are a potential threat to others, and so drugs (in this case, tobacco) ought to be outlawed. The issue is that word "potential." If I were to smoke in the privacy of my own home, where the pollutants I exhaled would not cause harm to anyone who did not enter my home voluntarily, am I creating a social health hazard? Or if I consume alcohol, am I creating a hazard to all drivers currently out on the road? Perhaps -- but not necessarily, and certainly not in the vast majority of cases.

[Jozanny]

What you are asserting is the same fundamental argument that has come up dozens of times through the course of this thread: drug use and drug users are a potential threat to others, and so drugs (in this case, tobacco) ought to be outlawed. The issue is that word "potential." If I were to smoke in the privacy of my own home, where the pollutants I exhaled would not cause harm to anyone who did not enter my home voluntarily, am I creating a social health hazard? Or if I consume alcohol, am I creating a hazard to all drivers currently out on the road? Perhaps -- but not necessarily, and certainly not in the vast majority of cases.

No, it isn't that simple. I am just picking one instance, and personally, I probably can't kick the habit. Cut down, yes, but I will probably die, like Cafavy, from some form of cancer, and I can only blame myself, not for losing to the addiction, so much as starting it. On the other hand, I am unhappy with my disability, and dying in my 60's with cerebral palsy is better than dying in my 80's with it.

The underlying conflict isn't the drug, per see, but personal autonomy over and above social good. I can't help the broken body. It will cost the state unless the state at some point can no longer accept the burden of the cost. But the consequences of tobacco, in a social context, are monumental, and not just in the west. This is the reason social acceptence of cigarettes has so rapidly eroded. Fairly soon, I imagine, the FDA will get to regulate both tobacco and nicotine, and once that happens, its legality is going to be severely restricted. And that restriction will not have the over-reach of Prohibition, which I grant was a disaster.

Legalization isn't so much either/or, but mediating between an individual freedom and social good, and tobacco is losing as an individual freedom. The data is fairly self-evident. Restaurant bans, building bans, so on. The cancers and other health problems, as well, are too much of a burden to over-ride your personal right to make yourself sick.

[PeterL]

No, it isn't that simple. I am just picking one instance, and personally, I probably can't kick the habit. Cut down, yes, but I will probably die, like Cavafy, from some form of cancer, and I can only blame myself, not for losing to the addiction, so much as starting it. On the other hand, I am unhappy with my disability, and dying in my 60's with cerebral palsy is better than dying in my 80's with it.

The underlying conflict isn't the drug, per see, but personal autonomy over and above social good. I can't help the broken body. It will cost the state unless the state at some point can no longer accept the burden of the cost. But the consequences of tobacco, in a social context, are monumental, and not just in the west. This is the reason social acceptence of cigarettes has so rapidly eroded. Fairly soon, I imagine, the FDA will get to regulate both tobacco and nicotine, and once that happens, its legality is going to be severely restricted. And that restriction will not have the over-reach of Prohibition, which I grant was a disaster.

Legalization isn't so much either/or, but mediating between an individual freedom and social good, and tobacco is losing as an individual freedom. The data is fairly self-evident. Restaurant bans, building bans, so on. The cancers and other health problems, as well, are too much of a burden to over-ride your personal right to make yourself sick.

Yes it is a matter of personal liberty versus the public good. Since any damage is simply a problem for the individual, the commonality has no valid position in the matter.

[Mr Endon]

Yes it is a matter of personal liberty versus the public good. Since any damage is simply a problem for the individual, the commonality has no valid position in the matter.

Again, that's a blatant oversimplification. What is the commonality but the sum of all individuals? Maybe this definition is itself another oversimplification, but surely we can work out a synthesis? I most certainly approve the defense of personal liberties, yet your view of 'absolute freedom' still strikes me as very extreme and unconciliatory. Of course you don't have to compromise, but the truth is we must strive to find some sort of conciliation, or at least the establishment of common ground. Otherwise it's just pure antagonism, and that results in no progress after 100+ posts of discussion. Well, nevermind this rant.

What I mean is, when I read your posts I get the impression that 'the commonality' is like an evil dictator whom it's the individuals' duty to defy. Whatever happened to Hobbes's 'Leviathan'? Or maybe you think that that definition of the 'common good' is obsolete?

[Jozanny]

Peter, Endon caught your error before I did, but look, if heroin was legally regulated, and I shot up, you're right, it is a personal liberty, as long as I'm not driving stoned, or using a dirty needle and getting HIV and then giving this lethal disease to a lover.

Tobacco, however, includes more than my personal autonomy, or Al's, or yours. It is a lethal carcinogen which can and does kill people other than the individual smoker, and the state does have a vested interest in equal protection. When I lit my hair by accident, had I not reacted as quickly as I did, I might have died and also damaged the building I lived in. Fires caused by cigarettes kill too.

This does not mean I am against your right to pursue happiness, or that I'd ban alcohol, or trans fat; there are differences over how far the state can push. But tobacco as a legally farmed product is on its way out in the United States, and in China, the disease costs of nearly unhindered cigarette use is tragic. The numbers I've read are astounding, and I am a smoker, but a smoker whose consequences are beginning to fetch.

[Shalot]

Yes it is a matter of personal liberty versus the public good. Since any damage is simply a problem for the individual, the commonality has no valid position in the matter.

I would agree here, but the reality is that a lot of smokers get food stamps and go to the grocery store and buy food with their food stamps and with their cash, they buy a carton of cigarettes. That's not propaganda or fear mongering - that's fact. I've seen it. The damage in these cases is not simply a problem for the individual, because the individual is using tax dollars to feed themselves but they are resourceful enough to come up with money to buy cigarettes. Then again, cigarettes are so addictive, that I can see it. As a former smoker, I know I would be doing the same thing if I were in their shoes and under the stress they're under.

These same people probably don't have health insurance if they qualify for the food stamp benefit, and their use of cigarettes just makes their health care needs go up. Their kids, if they have them, will have more ear infections and respiratory infections, and they will require trips to the MD, which their parents can't pay for. If they don't qualify for whatever health care assistance might be available through the state, they just go to the emergency room and there they receive treatment. Emergency room care is expensive and they can't pay for it, despite any collection activity the hospital might engage in, so the hospitals end up carrying these huge unpaid revenue balances on their financial statements. These hospitals find themselves in a cash shortage situation more often than not and have to seek government funding and grants. Where does that money come from?

Cigarettes don't just harm the individual and they're more detrimental then they are pleasureable. Cigarettes don't even make you feel good. They make you crazy when you need one and can't smoke one and then you feel better after you satisfy your craving, but the initial cigeratte buzz is so lame when you compare it to the coughing and craving and stink that you have to put up with long after cigerettes stop giving you that buzz. Cigarettes just kill you slowly and turn you into this stinking, coughing, burden to society.


However, if someone wants to smoke cigarettes and die, they should be free to do so as long as they're not trying to collect food stamps or going to the hospital expecting someone else to pick up the tab for their health problems. The problem is that a lot of these people who smoke don't have the resources to quit.

I'm not arguing that cigarettes should be illegal - I guess I'm just trying to show how use of cigarettes does become more of a social burden than an individual one in the U.S. Giving up the freedom to not pick up this nasty habit doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice given the damage cigarettes do in comparison to the lack of benefits they offer.

[PeterL]

Peter, Endon caught your error before I did, but look, if heroin was legally regulated, and I shot up, you're right, it is a personal liberty, as long as I'm not driving stoned, or using a dirty needle and getting HIV and then giving this lethal disease to a lover.

What error do you mean? Did I make a typo?


Tobacco, however, includes more than my personal autonomy, or Al's, or yours. It is a lethal carcinogen which can and does kill people other than the individual smoker, and the state does have a vested interest in equal protection. When I lit my hair by accident, had I not reacted as quickly as I did, I might have died and also damaged the building I lived in. Fires caused by cigarettes kill too.

Nicotine does not cause cancer. Nicotine can encourage the development of cancer in some people. Interestingly, the people who are most likely to get cancer are people who are least likely to become addicted to nicotine. The state does not have any responsibility for your health. That you managed to get some governmental entity to pay for your medical care was to your advantage, but that is no more a proper function of government thn it would be for you to expect me to pay for your medical care.



This does not mean I am against your right to pursue happiness, or that I'd ban alcohol, or trans fat; there are differences over how far the state can push. But tobacco as a legally farmed product is on its way out in the United States, and in China, the disease costs of nearly unhindered cigarette use is tragic. The numbers I've read are astounding, and I am a smoker, but a smoker whose consequences are beginning to fetch.

My right to act is limited only when it impinges on an other person.

Tobacco is not dangerous when smoked in reasonable amounts by people who like it. Nicotine is the most powerful anti-depressant that is known. Some of the additives in cigarettes are of questionable safety, and some are deadly chemicals. If you want to profit from the nearly total ban on tobacco that will be imposed within the next few years in the U.S., then you should buy stock of companies that produced anti-depressants.


Again, that's a blatant oversimplification. What is the commonality but the sum of all individuals? Maybe this definition is itself another oversimplification, but surely we can work out a synthesis? I most certainly approve the defense of personal liberties, yet your view of 'absolute freedom' still strikes me as very extreme and unconciliatory. Of course you don't have to compromise, but the truth is we must strive to find some sort of conciliation, or at least the establishment of common ground. Otherwise it's just pure antagonism, and that results in no progress after 100+ posts of discussion. Well, nevermind this rant.

What I mean is, when I read your posts I get the impression that 'the commonality' is like an evil dictator whom it's the individuals' duty to defy. Whatever happened to Hobbes's 'Leviathan'? Or maybe you think that that definition of the 'common good' is obsolete?

There is a huge difference between the "common good" and the good of each individual. The "common good" is that which is good for the people as a group; things that will be to the advantage of most of the people most of the time. That includes a good court system, good roads, effective police, etc. The "common good" does not include things that are thought by some to be good for each individual but that are not available for all people. Examples of things that are not for the "common good" would include national medical insurance, because that is advantageous only to people who are sickly, so healthy people are simply paying some bills for other people. I won't go on, but I think that you should get the idea. Remember that just because some guy with a government job says that something is good does not mean that that thing actually is good. He might just be saying whatever, because they pay him to say things like that. The term "common good" is not obsolete, but many people try to twist it to mean something other than what it does mean. Some people simply mean 'things that I like' when they say 'common good'.




Cigerettes don't just harm the individual and they're more detrimental then they are pleasureable. Cigerettes don't even make you feel good. They make you crazy when you need one and can't smoke one and then you feel better after you satisfy your craving, but the initial cigerette buzz is so lame when you compare it to the coughing and craving and stink that you have to put up with long after cigerettes stop giving you that buzz. Cigerettes just kill you slowly and turn you into this stinking, coughing, leach on society.

I suggest that you do some research on nicotine. It happens to be the strongest known anti-depressant.



However, if someone wants to smoke cigerettes and die, they should be free to do so as long as they're not trying to collect food stamps or going to the hospital expecting someone else to pick up the tab for their health problems. The problem is that a lot of these people who smoke don't have the resources to quit.

I agree. Medical care is also a personal matter, and no government should involved itself in that.


I'm not arguing that cigerettes should be illegal - I guess I'm just trying to show how use of cigerettes does become more of a social burden than an individual one in the U.S. Giving up the freedom to not pick up this nasty habit doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice given the damage cigerettes do in comparison to the lack of benefits they offer.

The use of cigarettes is not a "social burden". It is a completely personal matter, and no government should be involved. I feel as strongly against the intrusion of governments in medical care than I do about the right of people to smoke cigarettes, hemp, opium, or anything else that they might want to.

[Emil Miller]

And what about people who realize its negative health effects and choose to drink or smoke regardless? We must not "allow" them to continue, to put their own health at risk if they so choose? I know many people who turn to cigarettes or alcohol (or bad food, or sex) as a means of, for one instance of a positive benefit, relieving stress. They understand that they are putting their health at risk, but it is a trade-off that they choose to make. I think that it is an excellent idea to encourage drug abstinence through non-coercive tactics. But freedom is ultimately about choice, and a free government should not be able to regulate such behaviors, because I don't think you realize just how murky the line becomes:

Does the government have the right to pass a law forcing unmarried couples to abstain from sex until they are married? Certainly this would cut down on the number of STDs contracted, and also the number of unwanted pregnancies. You justify banning drugs on the grounds that they can be detrimental to one's health, and certainly an individual can contract STDs through sexual intercourse. Do you honestly believe that pre-marital relations ought to be outlawed? If not, how can you justify holding both positions without engaging in hypocrisy?

Another example: should homosexuals be allowed to even exist in society? No, I am not a homophobe. However, there are many (typically Christian fundamentalists) who believe that homosexuality is harmful to society, and even that the social acceptance of it precipitates deaths, natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Can you legally ban and restrict it on this basis? What if the majority in a democratic society believes so?




The first part of your arguments isn't really supported by...Well, anything, so I don't feel the need to argue with it. As for the second part: there are few things we do in life that we actually need to do. I don't need to eat an ice cream sundae to stave off my hunger, and you don't need to drink alcohol for nourishment. You also don't need to sit and post on an Internet message board; you do it (presumably) because you enjoy it, or because it provides mental stimulation, or because it helps you relieve stress, or because you find it exciting. That's the beauty of life -- it is not a monotonous parade of everything we must do or need do; to celebrate life we do things we want to do, and so long as somebody's purely unnecessary, possibly even irrational desires don't infringe on my or somebody else's rights, that is perfectly fine with me. The government certainly can't legislate "need," or ban ice cream sundaes for that matter.



The opposite took place in 1776 when a group of anarchists we Americans like to call the "Founding Fathers" defied the official law of Britain and formed a free, independent nation. "An unjust law is no law at all."


Obviously a democratically elected goverment is not likely to legislate agaisnt pre-marital sex but they often do determine by law the age at which it can legally take place. From your standpoint that is a violation of a child's rights but few people, with the possible exception of paedophiles, would agree with it.

As for banning homosexuality for the reasons you have given, the answer is yes, if an elected government thinks it necessary.


In relation to the problem of drug barrons, I meant that if illegal narcotics were to be phased out of society in the same way as tobacco and alcohol by increased pressure from an enlightened general populace. The drug barrons would largely lose their raison d'etre even though some recalcitrant members of the public would still be likely to use them.

I enjoy drinking, that's why I do it, but I would be the first to admit that it is not necessary and were the government stupid enough to try to ban it outright I would give it up, even though I disagreed with the ban, until, as in 1933 America, the law was repealed. On the other hand, having got used to being without it, I would probably stay off it and save myself a lot of money. As I said, it is not necessary to human existence, I know people who don't smoke or drink and they seem quite unstressed to me .The same applied when I gave up smoking.

It is interesting that, according to Wikipedia, 25 of the 55 founding fathers were lawyers and the they drew up the US Constitution from which a legal system was formed. It is this system that you are apparently at odds with in relation to narcotics and their control. You do have the right to protest to your elected representative and to join other like-minded people in trying to convince your compatriots that illegal drugs should be legalised. You may succeed but nothing that has been written on this thread so far has convinced me.

[Mr Endon]

Some people simply mean 'things that I like' when they say 'common good'.

Right, I got it now; the phrase I've emphasised encapsules where I believe the crux of the matter lies. Or at least why my opinion about drug legalisation has been so cloudy and unsteady. After all, I haven't been challenging your main argument at all (since I'm pro-legalisation as well), I'm only having problems with your justification of drugs, because you, unlike me, have no problems at all with drug use. And this is something entirely personal, almost like religion, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of legalisation of drugs.

'Life-affirming' actions are the key to my new philosophy, and drugs don't fit in my scheme. For me, drug use (and smoking, and drinking, and so on) is a kind of self-indulgence which in no way makes you a better/healthier/happier person (yes, I'm everything Thom Yorke hates, and of course I'm aware that I'm a hypocrite, not all that I do is 'life-affirming'). Personally, I'd be very happy if there were no drugs on earth. And yet I defend legalisation, and for two reasons:

1) like you've been mentioning, it's very dangerous to put the state above the individual;
2) criminalisation won't make the problem go away; in fact, it only aggravates matters.

For example, prostitution is a scourge in all societies, and it would be better if it didn't exist. But it can never be wiped out, it's virtually impossible, so we might as well make it tolerable for the prostitutes, who hardly ever choose the life they have. I think it's important to decriminalise it, so as to ensure decent life and work conditions, curb exploitation, stop making pimps rich, etc.

All this is in line with some of the things you've said. And also like you've said, history teaches, and indeed looking back never has prohibition of anything ever worked out for anyone.

So, I'm for legalisation of possession of all kinds of drugs. However, I also defend firm limitations to drug use, such as age restrictions and high taxation - pretty much what is being done to tobacco. Thus I find the balance between personal liberties and what you've termed 'nanny government'. This is the only respect where, as far as I can tell, our opinions diverge (legally speaking, of course), and I dare say the sole insurmountable barrier to full agreement.

[PeterL]

Right, I got it now; the phrase I've emphasised encapsules where I believe the crux of the matter lies. Or at least why my opinion about drug legalisation has been so cloudy and unsteady. After all, I haven't been challenging your main argument at all (since I'm pro-legalisation as well), I'm only having problems with your justification of drugs, because you, unlike me, have no problems at all with drug use. And this is something entirely personal, almost like religion, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of legalisation of drugs.

Fundamentally, all opinions are personal, and they are quite like religion. Most people believe their opinions because some authority has told them what to believe. Just as some people think that some religions should be restricted, because the tenets of that religion differ from their own religious beliefs, some people believe that other people should be restricted from taking drugs, because the authorities have said that such things should be restricted.


'Life-affirming' actions are the key to my new philosophy, and drugs don't fit in my scheme. For me, drug use (and smoking, and drinking, and so on) is a kind of self-indulgence which in no way makes you a better/healthier/happier person (yes, I'm everything Thom Yorke hates, and of course I'm aware that I'm a hypocrite, not all that I do is 'life-affirming'). Personally, I'd be very happy if there were no drugs on earth. And yet I defend legalisation, and for two reasons:

1) like you've been mentioning, it's very dangerous to put the state above the individual;
2) criminalisation won't make the problem go away; in fact, it only aggravates matters.

For example, prostitution is a scourge in all societies, and it would be better if it didn't exist. But it can never be wiped out, it's virtually impossible, so we might as well make it tolerable for the prostitutes, who hardly ever choose the life they have. I think it's important to decriminalise it, so as to ensure decent life and work conditions, curb exploitation, stop making pimps rich, etc.

All this is in line with some of the things you've said. And also like you've said, history teaches, and indeed looking back never has prohibition of anything ever worked out for anyone.

So, I'm for legalisation of possession of all kinds of drugs. However, I also defend firm limitations to drug use, such as age restrictions and high taxation - pretty much what is being done to tobacco. Thus I find the balance between personal liberties and what you've termed 'nanny government'. This is the only respect where, as far as I can tell, our opinions diverge (legally speaking, of course), and I dare say the sole insurmountable barrier to full agreement.

Fine

[Big Al]

Obviously a democratically elected goverment is not likely to legislate agaisnt pre-marital sex but they often do determine by law the age at which it can legally take place. From your standpoint that is a violation of a child's rights but few people, with the possible exception of paedophiles, would agree with it.

When we argue about the legalization of drugs, we aren't arguing about the rights of children; there are already laws in effect to keep children away from tobacco and alcohol, which are legal to those of age, and adults may legally have pre-marital relations but not use certain drugs. So looking at the analogy as it affects strictly adults rather than children, how can you justify one but not the other?


As for banning homosexuality for the reasons you have given, the answer is yes, if an elected government thinks it necessary.

If this answer doesn't cause you to lose all credibility, I don't know what would. We're talking about the legislation of prejudice, and you feel that it is justified if enough people accept it, or can at least make up phony, unsubstantiated reasons for why it should be illegal?


In relation to the problem of drug barrons, I meant that if illegal narcotics were to be phased out of society in the same way as tobacco and alcohol by increased pressure from an enlightened general populace. The drug barrons would largely lose their raison d'etre even though some recalcitrant members of the public would still be likely to use them.

Drug use has been steadily increasing for several decades, and it is currently on the rise.


I enjoy drinking, that's why I do it, but I would be the first to admit that it is not necessary and were the government stupid enough to try to ban it outright I would give it up, even though I disagreed with the ban, until, as in 1933 America, the law was repealed. On the other hand, having got used to being without it, I would probably stay off it and save myself a lot of money. As I said, it is not necessary to human existence, I know people who don't smoke or drink and they seem quite unstressed to me .The same applied when I gave up smoking.

Is that fact that you have met people who don't smoke or drink and who seemed "quite unstressed" supposed to rebut anything? Does your personal experience supersede all others?


It is interesting that, according to Wikipedia, 25 of the 55 founding fathers were lawyers and the they drew up the US Constitution from which a legal system was formed. It is this system that you are apparently at odds with in relation to narcotics and their control. You do have the right to protest to your elected representative and to join other like-minded people in trying to convince your compatriots that illegal drugs should be legalised. You may succeed but nothing that has been written on this thread so far has convinced me.

The current governmental system active in the United States is as far removed from that of the Founding Fathers as you can get. Much of the constitution has been disregarded, and the government has seized more power than was ever granted to it. The system I am at odds with is the one which has risen up in opposition to that proposed by the Founding Fathers; those who would ban alcohol and tobacco are actually the ones at odds with the Founding Fathers, as evidenced by the fact that many of them enjoyed and profited from alcohol and tobacco products. Either way, I do not consider the systems set up by the Founders to be perfect (Thomas Jefferson believed that the government and the constitution should be revised every so often to keep pace with changing times), and there are obvious flaws inherent in a democratic system. My point was to show that freedom can arise from disobeying law and order, and that not all laws are just, and believing otherwise is pure naivety.

By the way, I notice that you are from London, England. Are you a native of England, or a transplanted U.S. citizen? Because either way, you don't seem very well equipped to argue with me about American history (especially if you have to resort to looking up information on Wikipedia).

[Jozanny]

I rest my case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090612/us_time/08599190425000).

As to the critique of modern government being too powerful, you really can't put the genie back in the bottle. Civilization may be more fragile than we like to believe, but you also need governments to be able to handle the demands of a 21st century, inclusive of infrastructure, trade, social policy, defense, health care, humane working conditions, oversight agencies, and all the rest. Personal liberty is never an absolute unto itself.

And to correct an error, nicotine is by no means an efficient anti-depressant. It is a very quick acting stimulant which wears off rapidly, which is why smokers get sick. They need to keep burning tobacco, or use other methods of rapid absorption, to maintain endorphin levels. Cocaine is much stronger.

[PeterL]

I rest my case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090612/us_time/08599190425000).

As to the critique of modern government being too powerful, you really can't put the genie back in the bottle. Civilization may be more fragile than we like to believe, but you also need governments to be able to handle the demands of a 21st century, inclusive of infrastructure, trade, social policy, defense, health care, humane working conditions, oversight agencies, and all the rest. Personal liberty is never an absolute unto itself.

I disagree. Although the genie has been let out, it can be returned to the bottle, and it won't be all that difficult to do it; if I decide to put things back into proper order. No one needs government for social policy, and all governments that have tried to set social policy have made things much worse. No one needs government for health care or humane working conditions, because neither of those matters are functions of government.


And to correct an error, nicotine is by no means an efficient anti-depressant. It is a very quick acting stimulant which wears off rapidly, which is why smokers get sick. They need to keep burning tobacco, or use other methods of rapid absorption, to maintain endorphin levels. Cocaine is much stronger.

You should look into it. Nicotine is the most powerful anti-depressant known. One of the reason why it is so powerful is that it acts as a stimulant in the brain but it tends to relax muscles. People who become addicted to nicotine metabolize it quickly, but there are many people who do not metabolize it quickly, so they don't become addicted. Cocaine is some of the effects of nicotine, but it requires larger doses.

[Jozanny]

Being a published disability journalist who specializes in health, I have looked into it. Your feelings on the function of government are prosaic, to say the least, but I certainly need what it does for me so that I can stay integrated in the community. It can be a double edged sword, certainly, but that is why I'm a trained advocate.

[Nick Capozzoli]

What started as a simple question, "Should drugs be legalized?" has, inevitably, turned to a discussion about individual liberty and the constraints placed upon it by society in the form of government and laws. This has been the subject of libraries full of books written over the millenia of recorded history. I don't think any of us is going to yield any really new, startling, or decisive insights.

When humans started living together in roving and more stationary groups (first family bands, then multifamily cohorts, then tribes, then villages, cities, city states, and even bigger groups), there was a progressive subordination of individual will and liberty to group will. At some point in this process of individual subordination, formal laws developed, mostly in a "Thou shalt not" format. The earliest "Thou Shalt Not's" served mainly to prevent individual's from harming others. As things got more complicated, and groups competed with each other, the survival of the group, rather than just the individual, became paramount.

One way to look at this social evolution is to compare it to the biologic evolution of single celled to multicelled organisms. The multicelled organism consists of an assemblage of cells. With few exceptions, the cells that constitute these multicellular organisms cannot live independently. The organism "wants to" survive, and it is "willing" to sacrifice some of its cells to do so. Forgive the attribution of desire and will to the biological imperative, but it's justifiable.

I think it's pretty easy to extend this reasoning to all of our laws, but I don't want to do so here. Let me say that the more a society views its members as "cells" in the biological sense, the more society will demand that individual liberties be restricted, in the name of the enhanced "health" and "survivability" of society. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the Nazi's had some of the most restrictive "public health" and "hygeine" laws in human history. The Nazis criminalized "inappropriate matings," euthanized "mental defectives," and sought to ban smoking in the 1930's, well before the rest of the world got on that bandwagon. The reason for this was apparently that the Third Reich believed that the bodies of all good Germans belonged to Der Fuhrer, and good German's should not defile what did not really belong to them. ;)

[Mr Endon]

That's a fascinating set up, Nick! The first three paragraphs are quite informative.
Yet I can't help but think that your last remark (that the nazis wanted cigarettes banned) is a very subtle reductio ad hitlerum. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Are you implying something bombastic about vegetarianism?
Of course that your comparison does do some work, but I'd be careful to tread the grounds of demagogy.
That said, I think it's a valid perspective, but I wonder what you think of a society that allows the marketing of tobacco, drugs, alcohol et al, but restricts its use. Would you still contend it's tied to an eugenic agenda? Even if it is, aren't personal liberties assured?

[Nick Capozzoli]

Yet I can't help but think that your last remark (that the nazis wanted cigarettes banned) is a very subtle reductio ad hitlerum. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Are you implying something bombastic about vegetarianism?
... I'd be careful to tread the grounds of demagogy.
That said, I think it's a valid perspective, but I wonder what you think of a society that allows the marketing of tobacco, drugs, alcohol et al, but restricts its use. Would you still contend it's tied to an eugenic agenda? Even if it is, aren't personal liberties assured?

[B]Re[B][I] vegetarianism...I didn't say anything about that and didn't mean to imply anything. However, humans cannot get all their essential nutrients from a purely vegan diet. Vitamin B12 is not present in any plant foods, and needed to be supplemented. If not, the vegan will develop pernicious anemia and neurological problems.

As regards tobacco, alcohol, [I]etc. marketing, these are allowed for various reasons: free market individual capitalism is a big reason. Even in capitalist economies, the State may get money from taxing these markets, and in non-capitalist economies the State may realize,a profit from the selling of tobacco, EtOH, and even heroin and cocaine.... Italy runs a tobacco company called "MS" (monopolio dello stato---literally "State Monopoly."

The Obama Administration is looking into creative ways to finance socialized medicine, and these ways include "sin taxes" on things like tobacco and booze...and I'm sure they;ll come up with taxes on ice cream, Big Macs, and other foods that the FDA finds "unhealthy."

[Mr Endon]

What I meant was that the reduction ad hitlerum is basically the following: Hitler was evil, Hitler did X, therefore X is evil. It's like saying, Hitler was vegetarian (which he was), therefore there must be something twisted about vegetarianism. The same with smoking. By siding Hitler with smoking ban you're basically saying: "smoking ban? Well the last one to try that was Hitler, and we all know how that ended up".
But nevermind this, this is peripheral.

I don't wish to tread on Obama ground (you're relatively new and may not know that this forum doesn't allow discussion of current politics). I'll just ask this again: are liberties undermined if the products are readily accessible yet taxed? You can still gorge on Big Macs if you want, but I don't see why we shouldn't fund roads and healthcare and education with drugs and booze and fastfood. Call me a moralist, but at least this is a plausible compromise between the group's urge to protect the individual and the individual's urge to do whatever he likes.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Ok, this is something I feel strongly about. My answer is a straight NO. Drugs should not be legalised. I have seen friends from school take the plunge, and some of them are no longer with us. Enough said.

/Claes

[The Atheist]

Ok, this is something I feel strongly about. My answer is a straight NO. Drugs should not be legalised. I have seen friends from school take the plunge, and some of them are no longer with us. Enough said.

/Claes

That's an understandable, but knee-jerk reaction.

I'm guessing they died through using illegal drugs, so it's hardly evidence that drugs being illegal will help others.

The evidence of Prohibition, plus all other kinds of prohibition, indicates that less harm is done by legalisation.

Legalisation allows better control of addiction, which is always a good thing.

[Emil Miller]

The evidence of Prohibition, plus all other kinds of prohibition, indicates that less harm is done by legalisation..

What about paedophilia?

[The Atheist]

What about paedophilia?

Crimes harming others cannot be compared to drug taking.

[Logos]

Yeah, puleeeze don't allow this to degenerate into a discussion on pedophilia :brickwall

[Emil Miller]

.

The evidence of Prohibition, plus all other kinds of prohibition, indicates that less harm is done by legalisation..

I repeat.

[The Atheist]

I repeat.

I think you're abusing the word "prohibition", because I've never seen criminal acts referred to as "prohibited" before in a discussion on drug-taking.

For the sake of this discussion, let's assume we're talking about ingestion.

[Jozanny]

My problem with this discussion is the either or aspect of it. Either legalize the opiate derivatives or don't.

As I have demonstrated, with the agonizingly slow turn against tobacco (medical evidence was uncovered as early as 1911), liberal societies tend to cherry-pick. There was a heart-rending story in TNR about an extremely gifted anesthesiologist who became an addict; he was caught and committed to rehab more than once--as western medical establishments try very hard to save doctors and nurses who abuse--and he od'd, in the end, making sure they could not save him, by taking a drug designed to halt breathing.

Why would the die-hard libertarians among you want a lung suppressor drug free and unregulated among the general public? The issues surrounding drugs and addiction are not particularly easy, and they aren't black and white.

[The Atheist]

Why would the die-hard libertarians among you want a lung suppressor drug free and unregulated among the general public? The issues surrounding drugs and addiction are not particularly easy, and they aren't black and white.

There are thousands of substances which can be ingested which are 100% guaranteed to kill you, so adding a few medical drugs wouldn't faze me. In the case of supply and demand, I doubt hospitals would be required to sell the stuff and the demand wouldn't exist to make a market.

You talk about the time frame - well, we've had drugs illegal in most of the world for a century and it hasn't slowed the rate of addiction, so instead of wasting billions criminalising addicts I figure it's probably worth trying an alternative.

[Jozanny]

You talk about the time frame - well, we've had drugs illegal in most of the world for a century and it hasn't slowed the rate of addiction, so instead of wasting billions criminalising addicts I figure it's probably worth trying an alternative.

Criminalizing addiction and regulating drugs aren't the same thing--but as to the former, my deceased brother was convicted on a rape/robbery charge before he died of AIDS. He was doing really hardcore substances--his case doesn't make the don't blame the disease reasoning easy.

I was, in turn, assaulted by an addict when I lived in the American inner city proper, and, I will never quite be cured of the trauma this induced, because it has been cyclic.

I am not saying the Swiss approach is wrong Atheist. I know they see needle use as a mitigate the harm approach, and there is something to that, but I have to live with harms caused--by family, by violators, even myself. I never imagined that a moment's carelessness with a match would give me yet a new psychological horror piece, if I can manage it. It is difficult to recall cooking myself even though I have posted about it more than once. Not just here. I mentioned it on a middle-aged chick site which I think went out of biz.:p

As I said, beyond my pay grade my dear man.

[PeterL]

Ok, this is something I feel strongly about. My answer is a straight NO. Drugs should not be legalised. I have seen friends from school take the plunge, and some of them are no longer with us. Enough said.

/Claes

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. That some people died from illegal drug should be a reason for wanting drugs made legal.

[Scheherazade]

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. That some people died from illegal drug should be a reason for wanting drugs made legal.So that they will have died of legal drugs as opposed to illegal ones?

:rolleyes:

[PeterL]

So that they will have died of legal drugs as opposed to illegal ones?



While that is one possibility, most people who die from drugs in the U.S. die not from the drugs themselves but from adulterants, which are usually used as fillers. Such fillers make the sales of drugs more profitable, but there would be little reason for them, if the drugs were legal. There is also the matter of drugs becoming less interesting when they are legal, which usually leads to fewer users.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

That's an understandable, but knee-jerk reaction. I'm guessing they died through using illegal drugs, so it's hardly evidence that drugs being illegal will help others.Knee-jerk reactions kan keep you alive. The drugs involved were most certainly illegal, and I would prefer them to remain so due to the fact that no resources will be made available to keep legal (but lethal) drugs off the street.

Crimes harming others cannot be compared to drug taking.There is no need to compare them, since drug abuse and harming others walk hand in hand: The blokes I talked about managed to hurt lots of people before they bought the farm. Drug abuse will always put perfectly innocent people through experiences they should not have to endure.
Your reasoning doesn't make sense. That some people died from illegal drug should be a reason for wanting drugs made legal.In one word: Why? Making them legal would neither make them any healthier nor keep them from spreading.

/Claes

[PeterL]

In one word: Why? Making them legal would neither make them any healthier nor keep them from spreading.

/Claes

As I have noted, most deaths from drugs are caused by adulterated drugs. The additives kill, rather than the drugs.

What difference does it make whether drug use spreads? If people want to use drugs, then they will.

[The Atheist]

Criminalizing addiction and regulating drugs aren't the same thing--but as to the former, my deceased brother was convicted on a rape/robbery charge before he died of AIDS. He was doing really hardcore substances--his case doesn't make the don't blame the disease reasoning easy.

I understand how you feel, but it's important to remember that these harms happened while drugs are illegal, so prohibition clearly hasn't worked.

The even bigger problem is that if you want to link crime and rugs, PeterL makes the obvious point that contaminated and impure drugs will disappear, but it misses an even bigger issue.

The most dangerous part of the drug culture is the dealer. Gets rich, instigates crime, keeps prices high which encourages addicts to descend into crime to pay for the drugs. The last two policemen killed in NZ - both this year - were the result of illegal drug trade. The whole drug culture is a hideous thing, and as you've seen, creates lifelong consequences for families all over the world, and the finger of blame goes on the suppliers for probably 95% of drug crime.

I have no dog in this fight, so I think I'm able to assess the situation logically and objectively. If there were any likelihood of harm or addiction increasing, I would be against legalisation; controlled solely by government agencies.


There is also the matter of drugs becoming less interesting when they are legal, which usually leads to fewer users.

As Holland's skunk bars' business returns have shown over the past decade. There's nothing like legal drugs to make them less appealing.


Knee-jerk reactions kan keep you alive. The drugs involved were most certainly illegal, and I would prefer them to remain so due to the fact that no resources will be made available to keep legal (but lethal) drugs off the street.

That's a fallacy, and easily borne out by the alcohol and cigarette markets. Governments are able to sponsor far better programmes with legal drugs because they have the income from the drugs themselves, plus immense savings in legal and police systems.

Legalisation is a far cheaper option, no matter where you look at it from.


There is no need to compare them, since drug abuse and harming others walk hand in hand: The blokes I talked about managed to hurt lots of people before they bought the farm.

And was that hurt caused by them being off their faces and committing violent crime because they were high, or were they criminal acts to support a habit made expensive by the illegality?

In most cases, the second option is the truth. Bank robberies, muggings, murders; all sorts of crimes support habits, but if drugs are freely available and cheap, no druggie is going to bother ripping off some old lady's handbag when he can nip to the chemist and buy a gram of methamphetamine for 50c.


Drug abuse will always put perfectly innocent people through experiences they should not have to endure.In one word: Why? Making them legal would neither make them any healthier nor keep them from spreading.

/Claes

As noted, it will actually do both. Cleaner drugs will save thousands of lives a year and legalisation is likely to stop them spreading.

Again, given that the century of prohibition is an abject failure, why would you merely recommend retaining the status quo? More policing will only drive the prices up, criminalising addicts leads to the US situation of jailing victims for life; what else might reduce the harm from drugs?

[Nick Capozzoli]

What I meant was that the reduction ad hitlerum is basically the following: Hitler was evil, Hitler did X, therefore X is evil.

I don't wish to tread on Obama ground (you're relatively new and may not know that this forum doesn't allow discussion of current politics).

Re: #1 above: I get your point & no, I didn't mean a "reductio ad Hitlerum". I did mean to point out that the Nazi's instituted hygenic laws that were based on the idea that your body really doesn't belong to you but rather belongs to the State, and that you are just a cog in the machine (or a cell in a multicellular organism) and that the good of the machine (or organism) is paramount...

Re: #2 above: I wasn't aware of the prohibition on current politics discussion, so I'm sorry if I violated that rule, and I won't do so again.:(

[Mr Endon]

Re: #1 above: I get your point & no, I didn't mean a "reductio ad Hitlerum". I did mean to point out that the Nazi's instituted hygenic laws that were based on the idea that your body really doesn't belong to you but rather belongs to the State, and that you are just a cog in the machine (or a cell in a multicellular organism) and that the good of the machine (or organism) is paramount...

I usually object to references to Hitler outright because more often than not they're used in the service of demagogy. However, I guess that in this case it's not unreasonable to mention Nazism. Yours is very much a valid point.


I wasn't aware of the prohibition on current politics discussion, so I'm sorry if I violated that rule, and I won't do so again.:(

Don't worry, I could tell you weren't deliberately disobeying a rule but rather unaware of it, so I just thought I'd tell you about it. It's a shame, though, because I'd like to know what you think of universal healthcare.

[Nick Capozzoli]

While that is one possibility, most people who die from drugs in the U.S. die not from the drugs themselves but from adulterants, which are usually used as fillers.

I presume you mean that most people who die from using illegal/recreational drugs die from included adulterants/fillers...

You need to provide evidence for that statement.

It is certainly true that some recreational drug users die from other substances that illegal dealers put in their products...e.g. strychnine and other bad stuff used to cut heroin and cocaine, methamphetamine mixed with cocaine, etc. Also, it's true that infectious agents can make their way into varoius drugs via contamination either by getting into the drugs themselves or by unsterile administration (botulininum toxin in black tar heroin; HIV and Hep C in cocaine and heroin). If you include all cases of infectious disease associated with illegal drug use, that may lead to a very large morbidity and mortality figure.

However, the morbidity and mortality associated with drugs like opiates, cocaine, and methamphetamine is pretty substantial, even after the effects of toxic adulterants and infectious agents are excluded. Heroin and other opiates kill by overdose cardiorespiratory toxicity. Speed and cocaine cause harm by cardiovascular effects (vasculitis, acute hypertension) that lead to stroke, cardiac arrythmia, and heart attack, all without the "benefit" of any adulterants. And I haven't even mentioned the effects on mental status, such as psychosis and depression...

[Shalot]

Also, it's true that infectious agents can make their way into varoius drugs via contamination either by getting into the drugs themselves or by unsterile administration (botulininum toxin in black tar heroin; HIV and Hep C in cocaine and heroin)


I don't really have anything to add to the discussion here but I do have a question - are you saying that the drugs themselves can become contaminated with infectious agents such as Hep C or HIV? For example, the needle is clean somehow, but the heroin is not for some reason...can that happen? I mean it really doesn't matter - I was just curious because it just never really occurred to me that disease could be spread via the drugs themselves. Suppose you had some junkie who was resourceful enough to get his own needles somehow (say he just liked to get high) but got HIV anyway because the drug supply was contaminated. Is that what you're saying?

[The Atheist]

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion here but I do have a question - are you saying that the drugs themselves can become contaminated with infectious agents such as Hep C or HIV? For example, the needle is clean somehow, but the heroin is not for some reason...can that happen? I mean it really doesn't matter - I was just curious because it just never really occurred to me that disease could be spread via the drugs themselves. Suppose you had some junkie who was resourceful enough to get his own needles somehow (say he just liked to get high) but got HIV anyway because the drug supply was contaminated. Is that what you're saying?

Diseases in the supplied drugs isn't much of an issue - the likelihood of passing on HIV or Hep B/C through the drug itself is minute. Re-using needles is by far the biggest danger for intravenous drug users.

There will be some batches of narcotics which get contaminated by bacteria from poor practice; hospitals keep supplies scrupulously clean for a reason. It's easy to get blood-poisoning from dirty drugs. In the case of additives, the point isn't deliberate poisoning, because that's destroying the dealer's own market, but things used to cut the drug to the required weakness vary and can include ingredients which are lethal. Still, all the speticaemia and accidental poisonings added together wouldn't make 10% of the HIV cases, I'd imagine.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion here but I do have a question - are you saying that the drugs themselves can become contaminated with infectious agents such as Hep C or HIV? For example, the needle is clean somehow, but the heroin is not for some reason...can that happen?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The needles and other injection paraphrenalia can be infected, and often are (shared needles. etc.), but the drugs themselves can get contaminated with bacteria or bacterial toxins (like Botulinum toxin) or viruses (Hep B/C and HIV).


Diseases in the supplied drugs isn't much of an issue - the likelihood of passing on HIV or Hep B/C through the drug itself is minute. Re-using needles is by far the biggest danger for intravenous drug users.

There will be some batches of narcotics which get contaminated by bacteria from poor practice; hospitals keep supplies scrupulously clean for a reason. It's easy to get blood-poisoning from dirty drugs. In the case of additives, the point isn't deliberate poisoning, because that's destroying the dealer's own market, but things used to cut the drug to the required weakness vary and can include ingredients which are lethal. Still, all the speticaemia and accidental poisonings added together wouldn't make 10% of the HIV cases, I'd imagine.

I agree with your points...unsterile needle use and injection practice is certainly the cause of most infections (Hepatitis, HIV, bacterial abcesses and septicemia). Toxic effects of drug adulterants are significant but less frequent causes of mortality than inconsistent concentrations of the drugs themselves. Quite a few cases of overdose occur when an addict injects exceptionally "pure" heroin, for example. Sometimes this is "accidental," but I've seen cases where addicts have died from "hot shots" of really "pure" dope that was probably supplied to them by dealers with a homicidal intent.

And no one doubts that unclean injection practices are responsible for the high rate of hepatitis and HIV in injection drug users. But it is also clear that viruses and bacteria have contaminated the drugs themselves. We've seen the same thing with tatooing (especially in places like prisons), where the tatoo equipment and even the ink itself have been contaminated with Hepatitis and HIV.

This whole subject is complicated.

[kelby_lake]

(Discussion started in http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44659)

- Is the criminalisation of drugs an obstacle to freedom or a necessary measure?
- Is drug consumption to be compared to alcohol, and its criminalisation to the Prohibition in the beginning of the 20th century? Or maybe to tobacco, which is being increasingly restricted and taxed for being addicting and harmful for others than the consumer?
- Should a distinction be made between so-called light and heavy drugs in relation to an eventual legalisation?

Have your say!

1- Making drugs criminal may be more complicated than the law would like us to believe, but legal=okay in everybody's mindset. These stupid people who bang on about 'freedom'- why do you think you got told not to get into cars with strangers? It's for your own safety- and everyone else's. If you ran out in front of a car, sure you're 'free' to do that, but it's the ripple effect.

2- Alcohol can be taken in moderation. Drugs cannot be taken in moderation. Alcohol isn't physically addictive, only occasionally mentally- whereas drugs are both. We don't say: 'Hmm, I think I might have a couple of pills to go down with my roast dinner.'

3- Maybe.

[The Atheist]

1- Making drugs criminal may be more complicated than the law would like us to believe, but legal=okay in everybody's mindset.

No, and again, this is proven by cigarettes. Nobody, smokers or not, believes cigarettes are harmless or okay, despite their legality.


These stupid people who bang on about 'freedom'- why do you think you got told not to get into cars with strangers? It's for your own safety- and everyone else's. If you ran out in front of a car, sure you're 'free' to do that, but it's the ripple effect.

I can't say that I've seen anyone claiming legalisation of drugs is about freedom, because they're free to do them whether or not the taking is legal.

It's about commonsense, reducing harms and decriminalising the drug-takers.


2- Alcohol can be taken in moderation. Drugs cannot be taken in moderation.

Fallacy. Drugs can indeed be used in moderation and I can show an easy example: Carl Sagan. One of the greatest geniuses of humankind, Sagan used to have an occasional joint and that's all.

He is by no means alone, but is the best-known example.


Alcohol isn't physically addictive, only occasionally mentally- whereas drugs are both.

Sorry, but this is another fallacy - two of them in fact. Alcohol is physically addictive, which is why alcoholics are almost impossible to treat, while many drugs are not at all physically addictive - marijuana being the best example.


We don't say: 'Hmm, I think I might have a couple of pills to go down with my roast dinner.'

This is of no relevance, because wine is drunk with dinner not to get drunk on, but to encourage the flavours of the meal, which is why only a barbarian would drink port with chicken or sauterne with fillet steak.

Lots of people say, "Hmm, I think I'll have a joint after that fine meal."

[Mariamosis]

.2- Alcohol can be taken in moderation. Drugs cannot be taken in moderation. Alcohol isn't physically addictive, only occasionally mentally- whereas drugs are both. We don't say: 'Hmm, I think I might have a couple of pills to go down with my roast dinner.

Physical dependance is defined as the appearance of withdrawal symptoms when the substance is suddenly discontinued. Anyone who has ever known an alcoholic knows that alcoholism is not just a mental disease, but is severely detrimental to the body as well.

I apologize, but I have to wonder where you are getting your information.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Physical dependance is defined as the appearance of withdrawal symptoms when the substance is suddenly discontinued. Anyone who has ever known an alcoholic knows that alcoholism is not just a mental disease, but is severely detrimental to the body as well.

I apologize, but I have to wonder where you are getting your information.

Alcohol certainly is addictive and can lead to a physical dependence and an abstinence ("withdrawal") syndrome, which in its extreme state is referred to as delirium tremens, or the "DT's."

It is important to distinguish psychological "addiction" from physical "dependence." Addiction refers to a psychological need and craving for drug effects that leads to continued use despite adverse impact on the user's life. Physical dependence means that the user experiences specific uncomfortable physical symptoms when deprived of the drug. Using these definitions, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, alcohol, and nicotine are considered to be both addictive and dependence inducing. Marijuana and some other drugs are just addictive.

Nick

[Shalot]

This thread is making me really sad. Some of the statements that are posted here are not correct, and I know that a lot of people in my community and my country are not informed, or they're given wrong information pertaining to drugs and their effects. If people actually knew what they were talking about instead of spewing facts that they read from some pamphlet issued by some suspect organization, they might begin to realize how little sense the current drug policy actually makes.

[PeterL]

This thread is making me really sad. Some of the statements that are posted here are not correct, and I know that a lot of people in my community and my country are not informed, or they're given wrong information pertaining to drugs and their effects. If people actually knew what they were talking about instead of spewing facts that they read from some pamphlet issued by some suspect organization, they might begin to realize how little sense the current drug policy actually makes.

It is sad how much propaganda is accepted as fact. I suppose that's why people use propaganda.

[Nick Capozzoli]

This thread is making me really sad. Some of the statements that are posted here are not correct, and I know that a lot of people in my community and my country are not informed, or they're given wrong information pertaining to drugs and their effects. If people actually knew what they were talking about instead of spewing facts that they read from some pamphlet issued by some suspect organization, they might begin to realize how little sense the current drug policy actually makes.

Shalot,
Which posted statements on this topic do you consider to be incorrect?Were you referring to any of my posts?

[Mariamosis]

Alcohol certainly is addictive and can lead to a physical dependence and an abstinence ("withdrawal") syndrome, which in its extreme state is referred to as delirium tremens, or the "DT's."

It is important to distinguish psychological "addiction" from physical "dependence." Addiction refers to a psychological need and craving for drug effects that leads to continued use despite adverse impact on the user's life. Physical dependence means that the user experiences specific uncomfortable physical symptoms when deprived of the drug. Using these definitions, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, alcohol, and nicotine are considered to be both addictive and dependence inducing. Marijuana and some other drugs are just addictive.

Nick
Okay I see your point here. My mistake.
I suppose I should be more thorough in my terminology.
However, my point is that alcohol is physically ...hmm... damaging.

[Jozanny]

Okay I see your point here. My mistake.
I suppose I should be more thorough in my terminology.
However, my point is that alcohol is physically ...hmm... damaging.

But can be good for you in moderate amounts. I never did develop alcohol dependence. Why, I don't know, but both my father and myself drink wine for bad hearts, and my doctor advised gin and tonic for my cramps from wheelchair sitting.

Alcohol is as much a food as a drug, which is why I side with the libertarians on this one.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Okay I see your point here. My mistake.
I suppose I should be more thorough in my terminology.
However, my point is that alcohol is physically ...hmm... damaging.

Actually I did not think you made a mistake...I was referring to the post from kelby_lake you had quoted...:)

[Scheherazade]

Alcohol is as much a food as a drug, which is why I side with the libertarians on this one.Yeah, and chocolate is a vegetable actually so should count as one of the five a day!

:D

[Mathor]

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion here but I do have a question - are you saying that the drugs themselves can become contaminated with infectious agents such as Hep C or HIV? For example, the needle is clean somehow, but the heroin is not for some reason...can that happen? I mean it really doesn't matter - I was just curious because it just never really occurred to me that disease could be spread via the drugs themselves. Suppose you had some junkie who was resourceful enough to get his own needles somehow (say he just liked to get high) but got HIV anyway because the drug supply was contaminated. Is that what you're saying?

Also crushing a drug or snorting a drug using a quarter or a dollar bill, etc can give you HIV. It's the things you use to do the drug that give you HIV, not the drugs themselves.

[The Atheist]

Also crushing a drug or snorting a drug using a quarter or a dollar bill, etc can give you HIV.

Nope. You cannot catch HIV snorting coke through a dirty dollar bill.

[Mariamosis]

But can be good for you in moderate amounts. I never did develop alcohol dependence. Why, I don't know, but both my father and myself drink wine for bad hearts, and my doctor advised gin and tonic for my cramps from wheelchair sitting.

Alcohol is as much a food as a drug, which is why I side with the libertarians on this one.

I agree with you here. In moderation, alcohol can be a great stress reliever amongst other things.

It is when you start using it to fill a void in your life that it tends to develope into a problem.


Also crushing a drug or snorting a drug using a quarter or a dollar bill, etc can give you HIV. It's the things you use to do the drug that give you HIV, not the drugs themselves.

In reference to getting HIV through snorting with an external instrument such as a straw, quarter, or dollar bill:

In order to contract HIV through an outside source the conditions would have to be precise.

HIV is a very fragile virus and is sensitive to fluctuations in temperature as well as contact with oxygen.

HIV can only survive for a couple of minutes outside of the body (if that long) and the temperature must be maintained at/or around 98 degrees. HIV is a blood to blood pathogen which is why it cannot be contracted through touching.

This is why this would be extremely rare, if not impossible, unless using an internal device such as a hypodermic needle.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Nope. You cannot catch HIV snorting coke through a dirty dollar bill.

I don't know about HIV and coke snorting, but it is well documented that HCV has been transmitted by coke snorting. Snorters get nasal mucosa lesions that apparently provide a portal of entry for the virus. The virus nay be borne on coke spoons, straws, etc, but some also apparently gets into the coke itself, maybe from contact with paraphenalia.

As to how long and under what conditions viruses can remain infectious outside the body (usually in association with body fluids like dried blood etc. on various substrates), HCV is more "durable" than HIV. However, it is incorrect to say that HIV can remain infectious only for "minutes" and only when maintained in moist conditions at near body temperature. HIV can remain infectious in dried blood at ambient temps for hours if not days. HCV can remain infectious for a much longer time. This is all well documented in the medical literature. Asserting that HIV is somehow non-infectious after a couple of minutes outside the body might encourage some people to nonchalantly take lethal exposure risks. And HCV is nothing to sneer at. I wouldn't want to contract either virus.

I think we should be allowed to freely express our opinions on this site, and we all realize or should realize that public sites like this are not fact-checked or expert peer-reviewed. But it worries me when we have posters making medical assertions that are simply not true (e.g. what drugs are addictive or not addictive, how you can or cannot get infections from using drugs, how long and under what circumstances various viruses remain infectious, etc.).

It worries me because these assertions may be taken by readers at face value as medical advice, with disasterous consequences. :(

[Mariamosis]

However, it is incorrect to say that HIV can remain infectious only for "minutes" and only when maintained in moist conditions at near body temperature. Asserting that HIV is somehow non-infectious after a couple of minutes outside the body might encourage some people to nonchalantly take lethal exposure risks. And HCV is nothing to sneer at. I wouldn't want to contract either virus.

I have no intentions of telling people to take lethal exposure risks.

HIV can survive outside the body in substances such as undried blood, sperm, and etc. Once the fluid has made contact with oxygen, therefore exposing the virus to oxygen, the virus breaks down in a matter of minutes.

However, I still would not recommend rubbing your open sore on a dried pool of infected blood.

As far as HCV is concerned... I know nothing.

[The Atheist]

It worries me because these assertions may be taken by readers at face value as medical advice, with disasterous consequences. :(

I don't think that's likely to happen, and if it did, there has to be a great deal of caveat emptor when using information gleaned from discussion sites.

[NikolaiI]

or - who to trust? The US government in the 1930s put out posters saying that weed made people insane, and kill each other or theirselves. And yet the same government created and made other drugs available for the public, and did things like distribute cocaine to inner city people and in the ghetto. They actually and truthfully did this, introduced it to the inner city, and are directly responsible for an uncountable number of deaths and addictions. I'm not a conspiricist, and I don't spend much time thinking about the innumerable evils going on in the world, but I don't close my eyes to it and I am aware of some of them.

There are also two main issues involved here. One is the legalization of all drugs. The other is the legalization of certain drugs, primarily marijuana. The second should come before any legalization of all drugs.

The main thing is to get a wide variety of information. There's been an increasing number of commercials and television shows about marijuana for a long time now. But it is also a drug which has highly varied effects depending on the indidvidual.

However scientifically the effects are well known. It is interesting that marijuana is classified as a soft drug. It is not an intoxicant, but a hallucinogenic. The main reaction which goes on when anyone smokes, or drinks alcohol, is an increase of dopamine in the brain. Dopamine is the main way we feel pleasure, we feel it when we eat chocolate (a minute amount), we feel it when we are happy, laugh, and when one smokes marijuana the dopamine centers are triggered, and a lot is released.

This doesn't result in loss of brain cells. There are many varied types of experiences depending on intensity, duration, and many other factors. It usually lasts for at least a couple of hours. As time goes by the high changes. The first two or three times will be a different category of experience than the next few times, the first few months will be a different category and the whole first year is a category itself - in other words, during the first year it is decidedly different than years after. That's when a slight, long-term tolerance begins.

The dopamine does not actually kill brain cells, contrary to popular thought. It can injure mental activity in the following way - if it is over used. If marijuana, just like anything else, is over-used, it can have harmful effects. In fact if one smokes every day for a long enough time, it will have harmful effects on intelligence. If it's used more than this, which is already excessive, then serious damage can occur. The results of this are generally a slowing down and actually retardation can occur.

But actually smoking even more than once a month is excessive. Once a week is too much. Once a day for a while will not have a great detrimental effect. But if that is continued, then development is seriously hurt. A little bit of experience with drugs can help development, but not always, sometimes it hurts. And anytime some behavior like smoking marijuana - drinking alcohol is included in this, and much worse - continues on, into adulthood, then the person doing it is going to miss out on some development. Challenges are necessary for development, and a sober mind can learn, but a drunk cannot learn anything. So, just like alcohol, marijuana has its place in life. If it takes a prominent role, then it can be ruinous.

But not as ruinous as alcohol. Marijuana is not physically addictive. I do not have the exact numbers, but the numbers of magnitude of difference between deaths in cars due to alcohol in relation to those caused by marijuana, I am sure it would be astounding.

My grandfather on my father's side, and the mother of my mother both died of alcoholism. My grandmother when she was 54, and my grandfather when he was 74 (I think). They each died in a completely undignified, truly miserable state of suffering. Alcohol absolutely destroys the body and mind - when used like this. Once, on a route to feed homeless, I met someone named "Whisky," living under a bridge, with no food, but some bottles of whiskey or vodka, he didn't eat very much, and he drank still.

Alcohol destroyed the body and mind of my grandfather, who was a very intelligent man, who played chess well and piano very well.

So marijuana should be legalized. Since it is illegal, it is unethical to use it now - because there is no telling what crimes the money buying it is fueling. It should be legal to grow it yourself though. Why should it not, why do we not have that right? Tax law is said to be so big it could fill a small to medium sized library. We have all this law but the fundamentals behind it are often wrong, and it isn't changed. We can grow tobacco, we should also be able to grow marijuana. That's our right as human beings.

We should also be able to grow mushrooms, peyote, anything like this that grows naturally, we should be free to grow and use - responsibly. This is a delicate issue, and when I've come across people who are fanatical about the opposing side, they are quite fanatical. You can't discuss with them. But they don't know how wrong they are - about shrooms, mescaline, acid, and so on. People do not know anything about those drugs, and misinformation religiously, fanatically, it is the common knowledge but also worth dying over, by some people. My psychology teacher said that LSD was more addictive than cocaine, and it killed you and made you insane. He knows absolutely nothing, and you could not be more wrong about anything in the world. But it's such a hot-button topic I avoid it. But about any drugs, you have to actually do research, take in all the information, opinions, research. Read the research of the doctors who were first testing those drugs, and read the research of philosophers who took them and used them as experience in their philosophy. It's quite amazing.

[The Atheist]

Excellent piece, Nikolai.

[NikolaiI]

Thanks, Atheist. :)

[Mariamosis]

Well said, NikolaiI! :thumbs_up

[tonywalt]

The last thing you need to worry about when snorting coke is HIV, whether it be a (crisp new) bill or a jumbo straw.

[Delta40]

I am not sure what 'our rights as human beings means' What a broad statement to make and yet how selective at the same time. Granted the law isn't always right but neither is it always wrong. I'm in my forties and everyone I know who is a long term user of dope is an unproductive loser. Depression and mood swings figure in their lives and their ability to make responsible choices are diminished. Same with alco's. Perhaps the law should only apply to functional users - those who won't abuse it and the rights of all the others can go hang?

[NikolaiI]

I am not sure what 'our rights as human beings means' What a broad statement to make and yet how selective at the same time. Granted the law isn't always right but neither is it always wrong. I'm in my forties and everyone I know who is a long term user of dope is an unproductive loser. Depression and mood swings figure in their lives and their ability to make responsible choices are diminished. Same with alco's. Perhaps the law should only apply to functional users - those who won't abuse it and the rights of all the others can go hang?

Well thing is, for me, when the law is particularly harmful it should be changed. I know that's getting close to politics but the thread itself is - and we could just as easily be talking about the morality of substances as the legality. Now, for me it's a personal issue because two of my four grandparents died of alcoholism - my maternal grandmother, at age 53, and my father's father, at age 74. Neither one died in a good way. So alcohol killed them. Why? Sure, they used it irresponsibly, but it's a hard drug. But the society we live in masks that fact with every sit-com, and every commercial relating to it. The much less likely to kill you, soft drug marijuana is illegal, and we can thank that same misguided society to make you think it is somehow worse. Millions per year die from alcohol related causes of death, either directly, indirectly, or in-indirectly (killed in a car crash by a drunk driver, perhaps the worst way). Perhaps less would be killed if a safer recreational drug were legal. The facts are very plain, and very simple, and very scientifically proven. But propaganda, started decades and decades ago but still going strong, has a good deal of the population completely hoodwinked. And I use that term in its strongest sense.

I am not at all recommending use of either drug. I don't use either. But neither should be illegal.

[Delta40]

I don't disagree with you about alcohol. Thing is, we already had prohibition and we can't turn back the clock. That doesn't mean we should legalise other 'recreational' drugs. The effects of any substance on people with serious mental health issues are devastating to say the least, let alone the multitude of people who abuse through overuse. One harmful substance cannot offset the other or replace it. It can only add further to the abuse that already exists in society.

[JuniperWoolf]

That doesn't mean we should legalise other 'recreational' drugs.

No, but you see, the reasons why prohibition didn't work is the same as those for why banning harmless little drugs like marijuana don't work now. It WILL get snuck into the country, via crime if not legally. Gangs will control what people put into their body. People WILL smoke it anyway. At least if it was legal, we could monitor it for safety/quality and we could even tax it like we do cigarettes in an effort to boost our economy. Where I come from EVERYONE smokes weed, it's treated exactly like drinking. I've smoked weed at hockey parties with my teachers. It's not a big deal, and if you have less than five grams on you the cops can't legally take it unless you're on probation or something.

Marijuana is totally fine. Smoking a joint on the weekends is the same as having a glass of wine, except you don't get a headache.

[Delta40]

No, but you see, the reasons why prohibition didn't work is the same as those for why banning harmless little drugs like marijuana don't work now. It WILL get snuck into the country, via crime if not legally. Gangs will control what people put into their body. People WILL smoke it anyway. At least if it was legal, we could monitor it for safety/quality and we could even tax it like we do cigarettes in an effort to boost our economy. Where I come from EVERYONE smokes weed, it's treated exactly like drinking. I've smoked weed at hockey parties with my teachers. It's not a big deal, and if you have less than five grams on you the cops can't legally take it unless you're on probation or something.

Marijuana is totally fine. Smoking a joint on the weekends is the same as having a glass of wine, except you don't get a headache.

That is an ideological perspective. You trust that just because the government will control it rather than crime syndicates that it won't ruin people's lives. It will and the only difference will be that the government will be making money out of it instead of other bodies - just like legalised alcohol, which kills, maims and devastates the lives of so many. Drug use is already a social problem and putting it in the hands of the government under the guise of legality will do absolutely nothing to change it.

[Alexander III]

That is an ideological perspective. You trust that just because the government will control it rather than crime syndicates that it won't ruin people's lives. It will and the only difference will be that the government will be making money out of it instead of other bodies - just like legalised alcohol, which kills, maims and devastates the lives of so many. Drug use is already a social problem and putting it in the hands of the government under the guise of legality will do absolutely nothing to change it.

Buts that the problem. The failure with Prohibition in america was not because people kept drinking anyways. But because millions and billions of dollars were made by the mafia and crime syndicates instead of bussnisees. And those crime syndicates in turn used the money to strengthen their positions which leads to an increase in crime and corruption.

You may not overtly trust the goverment and bussineses - but for me I would rather that the billions made from Marrijuana every year ended up with legal busineses and goverments rather than the mafia and Gangs.

[Delta40]

I don't have enough faith in mankind to be convinced that government control would in any way lessen the power of crime syndicates. I do however, believe that mankind is innovative and necessity is the mother of invention so despite legalisation, I doubt it will make a difference. As stated before, who gets the money doesn't change the reality of substance abuse being an ongoing social problem and that is my chief concern.

[JuniperWoolf]

That is an ideological perspective.

I've described how things actually are in my country. Canada is one tiny baby step away from the legalization of marijuana, and it is already legal in some countries. If it already IS that way, then how could it be called "ideological?"

Also, there are a hundred reasons why weed isn't as harmful as cigarettes or alchohol. I could describe them for you if you wish, but I'd rather not waste my time and hope that it is sufficient to ask you to just google it. I wouldn't exactly tremble at the thought of "substance abuse" in this case. The worst social impact that I can think of is a drastic increase in potato chip and chocolate sales.

[Delta40]

You're missing my point. If we are to aspire toward a healthy society then substance abuse (including alcohol) do absolutely nothing to take it there. I know enough about pot to know that it doesn't enhance or enrich the lives of a) the user and b) the families that are subject to it. You're welcome to disagree with me of course but the children of pot users and other subtance users have never benefitted from parents who use drugs either recreationally or to excess, which is more often the case btw. Since little kids who need stable well balanced homes don't post on Lit-Net, I'm happy to be their voice.

[JuniperWoolf]

You're missing my point. If we are to aspire toward a healthy society then substance abuse (including alcohol) do absolutely nothing to take it there.

You're missing my point. Much like drinking, smoking pot will happen anyway whether it's legal or not. Making it illegal just means that the methods that make it accessible to the (numerous) people who want it are potentially very harmful. With legalization comes legislation, and it takes money out of the pockets of criminals and puts it into roads, hospitals, ect.

Your point is, essentially, "well people just shouldn't smoke in the first place!" The people who pushed for the prohibition of alchohol thought "well people just shouldn't drink in the first place!" Guess what? It doesn't work like that.

[Delta40]

We're obviously on different pages. the assumption that an existing evil will be made better through legalization is a popular view. I don't happen to subscribe to it.

[Alexander III]

We're obviously on different pages. the assumption that an existing evil will be made better through legalization is a popular view. I don't happen to subscribe to it.


Evil to alchohlism might apply well enough - but to weed? No matter how much you smoke the results are always the same hungry, happy, sleepy - I hardly see the evil.

But these are things which are human nature -liscnetioness drinking debauchery and revelry has always been there and will always be there especilay when one is young. You can't take that away - the victorians tried and all it resulted in was a massivley hypocritical society rather than a more "moral" one.

[JuniperWoolf]

No matter how much you smoke the results are always the same hungry, happy, sleepy - I hardly see the evil.

Amen.

[MarkBastable]

You're welcome to disagree with me of course but the children of pot users and other subtance users have never benefitted from parents who use drugs either recreationally or to excess, which is more often the case btw. Since little kids who need stable well balanced homes don't post on Lit-Net, I'm happy to be their voice.


Can I be the voice of the little Dutch children? I mean, they're growing up in a country where marijuana is decriminalised, and so I expect that they're all deprived of stable well-balanced homes, although they do seem to grow up into stable well-balanced people, which is a bit odd.

More to the point, how come you get to be the voice of kids who need stable well-balanced homes? Why can't I be? I have very strong views on the need for stable well balanced homes, and I think I'd make a pretty good advocate for the kids who, I agree, need such an environment.

When are you up for re-election?

[Delta40]

Can I be the voice of the little Dutch children? I mean, they're growing up in a country where marijuana is decriminalised, and so I expect that they're all deprived of stable well-balanced homes, although they do seem to grow up into stable well-balanced people, which is a bit odd.

More to the point, how come you get to be the voice of kids who need stable well-balanced homes? Why can't I be? I have very strong views on the need for stable well balanced homes, and I think I'd make a pretty good advocate for the kids who, I agree, need such an environment.

When are you up for re-election?


there is enough room in the world for you to be the voice of little children too. I have no objection other than the fact that we might disagree. The dilemma is whether to speak in broad general terms about the impact of harmful drugs and alcohol on families or in micro terms. I freely confess that I am subjective in the matter but am not ashamed of it.

[Phocion]

There is simply not a single remotely valid reason for continuing the farce that is prohibition. So much suffering, misery, and death is caused by this war on the inanimate. So much money needlessly wasted. So many lives robbed of their potential through incarceration and persecution.

Anyone that knows anything knows this, including many of the politicians that openly oppose it.

[OrphanPip]

I think it is genuinely good social policy to limit and dissuade the distribution of certain substances. However, the relevant question should be what is the most effective way to achieve the goal of reducing the negative impact of drug use. I tend to agree that criminalizing drugs does not seem to be the best way. More could be done with a monitored, government regulated industry. Although, part of the problem when we get away from marijuana and certain pills is that the primary source of these drugs is not available in the West. Opium poppies and Coca are not grown here, and I think an attempt to grow such crops in the US, along with a local legalization of those products would drive drug prices down internationally which would then create a number of social issues in the current source countries. The matter of legalizing the "hard" drugs is not an easy one. Although, I think moving more towards a treatment, medical based, model of fighting drug use is better than a judicial based model.

[togre]

More could be done with a monitored, government regulated industry.


Just a specific point: Are you aware of the massive and growing problem of prescription drug misuse/abuse? Are you aware of the criminal syndicates involved in this trade?

Further, are you aware of the rampant fraud and rule-evading that occurs in states that allow medical marijuana?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'd just be curious to see what would happen if we legalized everything.

I recently had my class read the following essay by Gore Vidal which is quite apropos for this discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/vidal-drugs.html?_r=1

[Volya]

In an ideal world I would say we should make all drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, weed, cocaine, the lot) illegal. But obviously this doesn't stop people from taking them. Trying to stop the drug industry is pretty much impossible, it will always be there as long as drugs are illegal. By legalizing the use of weed, etc, although it may mean people can access it easier, the government can gain from it too. The money they made through taxing it could also be used to help addicts and the like. It would also mean less crime on the streets, and probably less gang violence.

[OrphanPip]

Just a specific point: Are you aware of the massive and growing problem of prescription drug misuse/abuse? Are you aware of the criminal syndicates involved in this trade?

Further, are you aware of the rampant fraud and rule-evading that occurs in states that allow medical marijuana?

Yes, but that's not really relevant to my point, as I was arguing for a gradual decriminalization and an increase of availability. The scarcity and unavailability of prescription narcotics creates a black market in the same way the outlawing of cocaine does. How do you think this is relevant to what I was saying? Vague questions are not rebuttals or possible problems for my point. My point was never that drugs are not bad for individual or society, but that it is better to treat addiction and discourage reckless drug use rather than criminalize it.

However, the kind of regulated distribution I was advocating is in the sense of state owned distributors (like how liquor stores are run in Canada). Does anyone buy from bootleggers rather than from the liquor store? If the government continues to prosecute illegal distributors while mediating the sale of drugs, they will drive up the price of the competition and people will gradually turn to the state authorized distribution.

And poorly executed American legislation should not be taken as a model. Medical marijuana is effectively distributed by the government in Canada. However, this would be irrelevant if legal marijuana were less "scarce", in which case the only concern people would have for medical marijuana would have to do with insurance claims.

[tonywalt]

In an ideal world I would say we should make all drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, weed, cocaine, the lot) illegal. But obviously this doesn't stop people from taking them. Trying to stop the drug industry is pretty much impossible, it will always be there as long as drugs are illegal. By legalizing the use of weed, etc, although it may mean people can access it easier, the government can gain from it too. The money they made through taxing it could also be used to help addicts and the like. It would also mean less crime on the streets, and probably less gang violence.

If decriminalizing drugs means a Further increase in the size of government (thru additional tax revenue), then many that's not a good thing.

[Phocion]

In an ideal world I would say we should make all drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, weed, cocaine, the lot) illegal. But obviously this doesn't stop people from taking them. Trying to stop the drug industry is pretty much impossible, it will always be there as long as drugs are illegal. By legalizing the use of weed, etc, although it may mean people can access it easier, the government can gain from it too. The money they made through taxing it could also be used to help addicts and the like. It would also mean less crime on the streets, and probably less gang violence.What is this nonsense? What right do you have to tell people what they should or should not be taking? Who are you to deny the billions of people that feel they get something from using these substances? When will people learn that drugs have nothing to do with morality?

I can tell you that most rational beings would rather live in a world with drugs. They bring many very important benefits, and you can't simple label one group of drugs 'bad' and another 'good': these substances just don't work like that, and neither does the world.

[Volya]

What is this nonsense? What right do you have to tell people what they should or should not be taking? Who are you to deny the billions of people that feel they get something from using these substances? When will people learn that drugs have nothing to do with morality?

I can tell you that most rational beings would rather live in a world with drugs. They bring many very important benefits, and you can't simple label one group of drugs 'bad' and another 'good': these substances just don't work like that, and neither does the world.

If an idiot wants to take drugs then thats fine by me, but destroying peoples lives should not be endorsed by the state. Because that's what drugs do, they destroy lives.

[Delta40]

Alcohol destroys lives but I don't see the government outlawing that in the future....

[Phocion]

If an idiot wants to take drugs then thats fine by me, but destroying peoples lives should not be endorsed by the state. Because that's what drugs do, they destroy lives.
No it isn't, people destroy their lives with drugs. If you want to blame the inanimate for the problems in peoples lives then fine, but don't present it as fact. By the way, the majority of lives that are destroyed, are destroyed because of the dangers that come when a substance is illegal, expensive, and unregulated. Some people get a lot out of the use of drugs, who are you to deny it simply because you hold paternalistic misconceptions?

Paracetamol: now there's a dangerous drug.