Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[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/98/03/0...rugs.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.