Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[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.

[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

[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! ...)

[Stargazer86]

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

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

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.