Legalisation of drugs: yes or no?

[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

[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.

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?

[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.