Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[Mr Endon]

(Discussion started in http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.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.

[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!!



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!!



I shall return!!

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)