Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

No matter how much you smoke the results are always the same hungry, happy, sleepy - I hardly see the evil.

---

Amen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

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?