Drugs!

[AndrewH]

I think that all drugs should be legalized.

With restrictions of course (i.e. minimum age for purchase/posession, "open container" laws, DUI laws, public intoxication, etc).

Taxed but not excessively (otherwise the black market has reason to exist).

Government licensing of pharmaceutical firms to produce and distribute- being assured of purity and potency to prevent accidental overdose.

Similar to the tobacco industry, force drug companies to invest some of their profits into drug education- none of that DARE stuff though, more like honest education of drug effects & side effects, the dangers that exist and encourage responsible use (like alcohol commercials).

The reasons for doing such a thing?
-increase government revenue through taxes -> maybe make a dent in our enourmous defecits
-increase income to pharmaceutical companies -> more money for r&d for cancer/AIDS/etc drugs
-regulated purity & potency plus honest factual based education -> less emergency rooms visits/deaths from drug users
-drug dealers become obsolete -> less gang/street crime; puts a dent in the income of organized crime
-no more mandatory minimum sentences for possesion/distribution -> free up jail space for violent offenders

Intelligent responses only please. No knee jerking allowed in this thread.

[TrainingDummy]

Yes. I am with you. As a former stoner who quit for legal reasons and remained so once I got into fencing, I am in 100% agreement. Though I would order the list a little bit differently.

[keropie]

This does, of course, ignore that fact that many drugs (many heroin derivatives, crack, and some other 'hard' drugs) can indeed kill you the first time you use them. I'm having a hard time legalizing a substance that has a mortality rate on the first 'reasonable' dose. So then the question becomes 'what drugs are "too" hard to legalize?" And the answer becomes that all of your benefits have been marginalized, and the point in legalizing any drugs is now suspect. Though even if you do decide to legalize some (clearly marijuana is the 'safe' drug), many of these drugs are well correlated as 'gateway' drugs to other, 'harder' drugs.

I'd be more inclined to legalize drug use and possession, but not allow any sort of distribution of finished product. No barter, no giving, no selling. I mean, if you really wanna do something that may well end up killing you, and you want to do it enough to grow it yourself, process it yourself, whatever, then hey, your world. But when you give people with relatively little knowledge access to the same chemicals for nothing more than money, then you have a large potential for significant societal harm.

Even ignoring the issue of immediate health concerns (such as death), there is the significant issue of addiction. Many/most of the illicit drugs in question are addictive and cause emotional/physical damage on a significant scale. This puts them in a different category than tobacco (which has little if any evidence linking it dimished motor skills/mental abilities, increased risk while performing complex tasks (think driving a car), etc.) or alcohol (which is not addictive to most people).

Oh, in case you weren't sure, I'd vote against legalizing drugs

[AndrewH]

This does, of course, ignore that fact that many drugs (many heroin derivatives, crack, and some other 'hard' drugs) can indeed kill you the first time you use them. I'm having a hard time legalizing a substance that has a mortality rate on the first 'reasonable' dose.

I remember learning that in DARE. Any substance, drug or not, can indeed kill you the first time you use it. The idea being that you have a low tolerance and can overdose easily. If the first time you ever drink, you finish off a fifth of vodka, you probably will die. Hence the need for
a) Factual education. How much is a safe dose of heroin for someone with no tolerance? What's a lethal dose for an experienced user?
b) Purity control. Batches of heroin have turned up around the country recently mixed with Fentanyl, an extremely potent opiate derivitive. Many people are overdosing and dying because they have no idea what's in their heroin. Legal standards would prevent that situation.

Though even if you do decide to legalize some (clearly marijuana is the 'safe' drug), many of these drugs are well correlated as 'gateway' drugs to other, 'harder' drugs.

Is gateway theory proven? Some evidence says yes, some says no. I'm inclined to say that it does exist, though correllation doesn't = causation in most circumstances. Of course, if it does exist, the "true" gateway drugs are things like caffeine. I'd say that 99% of current drug users used caffeine before marijuana.

I'd be more inclined to legalize drug use and possession, but not allow any sort of distribution of finished product. No barter, no giving, no selling. I mean, if you really wanna do something that may well end up killing you, and you want to do it enough to grow it yourself, process it yourself, whatever, then hey, your world. But when you give people with relatively little knowledge access to the same chemicals for nothing more than money, then you have a large potential for significant societal harm.

The problem with allowing home manufacture is the risks involved in the process. How often do we hear about meth labs that exploded and leaked toxic chemicals because the operator didn't know the first thing about chemistry? Making many drugs is dangerous business because of the chemicals involved. Other drugs are simply far too complicated to synthesize, hence leading to their purchase on the street from drug dealers, which fuels the black market and now we're back where we started.

Even ignoring the issue of immediate health concerns (such as death), there is the significant issue of addiction. Many/most of the illicit drugs in question are addictive and cause emotional/physical damage on a significant scale.

They certainly can. I think this is a valid argument against legalization and it comes down to your societal views. I believe that we have a personal responsibility to protect our bodies and lives. Cigarettes are clearly labeled as addictive- yet every day people start smoking. The resources exist to help them quit. It's hard, yes- but the choice is there every step of the way. Legalized drugs would be similar. They would be clearly marked as addictive (when applicable). "Quit hotlines" and similar support networks would be made available. With all the facts up front, if you still choose to purchase and use a drug, it's your personal responsiblity to manage your addiction.

[Monash_Armourer]

I see three immediate problems with the legalisation of drugs.

If a drug is now legally available you will create new market demand, via people who were previously unable or too afraid to obtain the drug. You will see a general increase in drug use, it may not be large, but you would definetely be more exposed to it. The possible consequences aren't too pleasant. I don't think I'd like to see more people high on the roads, more people intoxicated or coming down from an intoxicated state at work or in class. Drug affected people aren't pleasant to be around.

There is the issue of the welfare. If you make a drug easier and legal to obtain, you increase the possible deaths, on-going health issues of users (more strain on pulbic health systems) and the impact that users will have one the ones close to them. Users not only harm themselves, but those around them can suffer immensely as well.

Regulation and legalisation of drug use does not neccesarily mean that all drug related crime will cease. While the obvious such as drug dealing and gang related crime will no longer serve a function, smaller petty crimes by the drug users themselves who after aftermoney for their next fix, will likely remian at the same level, unless you charge a pittance for the drugs themselves, which only serves to make them more available.

Self medication for illness could become are serious issue, especially when relating to pain releif. It could quite potentially mask a more serious underlying condition that could go without treatment to a point where it becomes to late to do anything. It could also create addictions in new sets of people. How many migraine sufferers do you think would look at legalised opiate derivatives as a solution for their pain?

The issue of people overdosing on a drug, has more to do with whether they've had the drug before, how much is needed to acheive the desired effect in the user and how much they actually use or consume. I've seen countless students who have never had alcohol before, attend uni events and get completely slaughtered. They'll either have no tolerance and be vomitting after 4-5 beers, or look at somebody like me who will down 3/4th's of a bottle of Rum or Vodka, and then attempt to do the same. I'm not a big guy, but I know my limits, many people do not.

In addiction to hard drugs, the setting in which the drug has taken plays a major role as well. Most overdoses are either caused by an increase in the purity of the drug, or the user doing the drug in a setting they are not familiar or comfortable with.

Personally I think decriminalisation of drug use and possesion is the best avenue to go down. It allows you to focus on the source of the drugs themselves far more, and the crimes related to them. This is a far more effective way of combatting something, attack the source, not the end result.
Once you get to a point where the drug trade is no longer profitable, because so much of the drug itself is being taken and destroyed, and the potential consrqunces outweigh the monetary benefits for the dealers and suppliers, the drug trade will go into significant decline.It is foolish to think that it will ever be eliminated however, there will always be a buyer, there will always be somebody will nolthing to loose to attempt to meet that demand.

[Have At You]

Many drugs are against the law, not merely because of any harmful effect they may have on the individual user, but also because of the harmful effects on society from addiction. Addictive drugs like heroin and crack, for example, are extremely cheap ($3 to $10 per hit), yet addicts often go broke from their addictions to them, and often commit crimes sometimese violent to feed their addictions. Not to mention to extreme -- and I mean extreme -- damage done to the lives of those around them. People who use PCP are also often a danger to anyone they may come in contact with.

Many drugs are against the law because people only intend to use them recreationally, and wind up injured or in the hospital or dead. Society has an interest in protecting people from that happening. Just as we outlaw other poisons, we similarly outlaw club drugs like x, k and g, for example. There is no predictable safe dose, a kid can take a bunch one night with few ill effects, and die from a single pill a month later. Heroin falls in this category as well, it is too easy to overdose and die.

Hallucinogens are against the law because people with an altered perception of reality are an inherent danger to themselves and to others. Their behavior cannot be predicted, either by themselves or by others.

Almost every controlled substance is controlled because it is likely enough to cause serious injury to the user or to others that the government had to step in an control its use.

I find that the "legalize everything" people tend to be those few who have had enjoyable experiences with drugs and want to be able to get more without hassle. Most people in addict-ridden communities, treatment centers, emergency rooms, law enforcement, and in families dashed by drug use, tend to be on the other side of the debate. Guess whose arguments I find more persuasive?

[AndrewH]

If a drug is now legally available you will create new market demand, via people who were previously unable or too afraid to obtain the drug. You will see a general increase in drug use, it may not be large, but you would definetely be more exposed to it. The possible consequences aren't too pleasant. I don't think I'd like to see more people high on the roads, more people intoxicated or coming down from an intoxicated state at work or in class. Drug affected people aren't pleasant to be around.

That's the reason for laws intended to discourage DUI, public intoxication, etc. Not everyone will get caught, but enough to send the message that there are penalties for public use.

There is the issue of the welfare. If you make a drug easier and legal to obtain, you increase the possible deaths, on-going health issues of users (more strain on pulbic health systems) and the impact that users will have one the ones close to them. Users not only harm themselves, but those around them can suffer immensely as well.

You're assuming that drugs aren't easy to obtain currently. Users have their connections and are able to buy drugs just as easily as driving down to the liquor store. The issue of new users who take drugs because they become legal is certainly there, but I stress personal responsibility. The people that won't use drugs responsibly despite causing harm? Fewer than you suspect, judging by the number of alcoholics vs. number of drinkers. Those people can either help themselves or continue as they are, and I don't think the government has any duty to protect them from themselves.

Regulation and legalisation of drug use does not neccesarily mean that all drug related crime will cease. While the obvious such as drug dealing and gang related crime will no longer serve a function, smaller petty crimes by the drug users themselves who after aftermoney for their next fix, will likely remian at the same level, unless you charge a pittance for the drugs themselves, which only serves to make them more available.

Obviously no, we can never eradicate all drug related crimes. But getting rid of the gang violence and drug dealers is a huge step in crime reduction. It also frees up jail space for more serious offenders.

Self medication for illness could become are serious issue, especially when relating to pain releif. It could quite potentially mask a more serious underlying condition that could go without treatment to a point where it becomes to late to do anything. It could also create addictions in new sets of people. How many migraine sufferers do you think would look at legalised opiate derivatives as a solution for their pain?

Heaven forbid we aren't paying 50 bucks a pill to the pharmaceutical companies for drugs that have more side effects than benefits... As for self medication masking underlying conditions? Personal responsiblity time again. If you notice something's wrong with you, get yourself to the doctor. Hell, we face the same problem today with OTC medecines. It might take a couple weeks of taking Nyquil and advil before going to the doctor and discovering you have mono.

Also, as far as the migraine sufferers go? Opiate derivitives are in fact a solution to the pain. In Canada (where I lived previously) pain relievers containing codeine were marketed OTC and endorsed by doctors as helpful for migraine patients.

In addiction to hard drugs, the setting in which the drug has taken plays a major role as well. Most overdoses are either caused by an increase in the purity of the drug, or the user doing the drug in a setting they are not familiar or comfortable with.

Honestly, I really don't see how the setting can change overdose potential. Setting will have a large impact on the experience of the person who takes the drug, but the LD50 will remain the same no matter what. As for the increase in purity problem, that's why drug production would be government regulated.

Personally I think decriminalisation of drug use and possesion is the best avenue to go down. It allows you to focus on the source of the drugs themselves far more, and the crimes related to them. This is a far more effective way of combatting something, attack the source, not the end result.
Once you get to a point where the drug trade is no longer profitable, because so much of the drug itself is being taken and destroyed, and the potential consrqunces outweigh the monetary benefits for the dealers and suppliers, the drug trade will go into significant decline.It is foolish to think that it will ever be eliminated however, there will always be a buyer, there will always be somebody will nolthing to loose to attempt to meet that demand.

It's also foolish to think that going after the source will yield any long term benefits. I'll give you an example. Recently the US has gone on a crusade against meth production. Now we have laws that limit the amount of PSE-containing cold medecine you can buy, and local police are cracking down on covert labs. The result? Meth got more expensive because of reduced supply. What happens then? Producers in Mexico stepped in and filled in the gaps in supply. The meth was more expensive because of transportation costs, but still cheaper than the domestically produced kind. Supply and demand equal out again, except with a higher price- incentive for more producers to enter the market until the price comes down to its original level.

[AndrewH]

Many drugs are against the law, not merely because of any harmful effect they may have on the individual user, but also because of the harmful effects on society from addiction.

Whether or not drugs are illegal, doesn't change their availability and potential for addiction. Will addicts commit crimes to get money to buy more drugs? Sometimes, yes. Is it the job of the police to prevent crimes and arrest those who commit them? Yes. Will they have more time and resources to prevent violent crimes when they aren't arresting people for simple possession? I certainly think so.

Many drugs are against the law because people only intend to use them recreationally, and wind up injured or in the hospital or dead. Society has an interest in protecting people from that happening. Just as we outlaw other poisons, we similarly outlaw club drugs like x, k and g, for example. There is no predictable safe dose, a kid can take a bunch one night with few ill effects, and die from a single pill a month later. Heroin falls in this category as well, it is too easy to overdose and die.

That's why legally produced drugs will have a standard purity. A chart would be included on every package detailing maximum doses for high and low tolerance individuals at various body weights. Want to take more and possibly die? That's your responsibility.

Hallucinogens are against the law because people with an altered perception of reality are an inherent danger to themselves and to others. Their behavior cannot be predicted, either by themselves or by others.

Honestly? No. Most hallucinogens remove any motivation for violence whatsoever. The user is too busy reflecting to bother with hurting themselves or others. Nonetheless, all hallucinogen users know that it's foolish to take them without a sober person present to watch over them.

In fact, that sounds very similar to alcohol- always have a designated driver. The difference being, drunk people often start fights or hurt themselves because of their increased pain threshold. When was the last time you heard of someone on LSD starting a fight?

Almost every controlled substance is controlled because it is likely enough to cause serious injury to the user or to others that the government had to step in an control its use.

Thank you for adding in the "almost every" clause. Lots of drugs are incapable of causing serious injury. Marijuana for example. Some are. This brings us to the question of how much should the government be regulating our everyday lives? Do we need to outlaw things because someone might cause harm to themselves? Personally, I believe that would be overstepping the government's bounds. They are there to protect our rights- not to protect us from ourselves. If a drug user is harming someone else, then it's the government's duty to step in and protect your rights- by administering the appropriate penalty (jail time, fines, etc).

[Morion]

Without going into a long explanation I will say I favor the legalization of "recreational" drugs. Simply to eliminate the black market. The drugs are there anyway and I seriously doubt that laws against their use really keep that many people away from them.

The "Gateway Drug" is an interesting concept. I think that the gateway is that using illegal marijuana introduces the user to the underground where they then come into contact with those who deal in other substances.

BTW I am a Libertarian and beleive in the elimination of all "victimless" crimes so that is where I am coming from. True initially there would be a rash of deaths but they chose that course all by themselves. There, I got that in in three paragraphs!

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I find that the "legalize everything" people tend to be those few who have had enjoyable experiences with drugs and want to be able to get more without hassle. Most people in addict-ridden communities, treatment centers, emergency rooms, law enforcement, and in families dashed by drug use, tend to be on the other side of the debate. Guess whose arguments I find more persuasive?

I will most more fully on this topic at another point....... but for now:

A Counterpoint

There are more people in my family that have been addicted to something to the point of needing rehab than not. On my father's side, I'm the only female who hasn't already been in rehab. My family has actually been fairly lucky in the addictions business--- all the arrests that happened aren't on a permanent record. Most of the people who needed to go to rehab did, with some notable exceptions.

My father is a liscensed drug treatment person (i'm not exactly sure who does the liscensure thing)-- his father and brother were/are alcoholics, two of his daughters were/are addicts, and he used to be addicted to pot.

I'm rather uninterested in following in the family footsteps, and so I have never taken an illegal drug, and the sip of champagne I had on New Years Eve this past year was the only alcohol I've had since i was 10 and last served at church. (and that's blood anyway, right? )


I am not an addict, and my life has been heavily affected by drug and alcohol abuse. I am the child of someone who has done a huge amount of research, counseling, and other stuff in this field.

Both my father and I support the (controled) legalization of pot, and (slowly, after that) the legalization of some substances.

I'm not exactly sure that putting everything on the market with no controls is a viable option at all........... but neither is what we have.

(more at some point)

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Obviously no, we can never eradicate all drug related crimes. But getting rid of the gang violence and drug dealers is a huge step in crime reduction. It also frees up jail space for more serious offenders.

I consider gang violence and drug dealing some of the most serious offences, if anything jail space should be freed up to make place for them.

That said, I do not agree with the concept of freeing up jail space, unless as a stopgap measure in exceptional circumstances. The correct response to a lack of jail cells is IMO to build more jails. Some of the work - but by no means all - could be done by the safer convicts. Keep on building until there is a jail cell surplus!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

If you legalize drugs, you will put tens of thousands of police, corrections workers, rehab center personnel, clinicians and DEA bureaucrats out of work! You heartless bastards, plotting to cause increased unemployment! What are you, Republicans?

[lindajdunn]

Personally, I'd like to see the government dispense what is now illegal drugs to anyone who declared themselves to be an addict and that these be dispensed free of charge with certain stipulations attached:

(1) Permanent but reversible birth control required for the recipient. Yes, this includes men. If you are an addict, you should not be parenting.

(2) Waiver of parental rights for all children. See (1).

(3) Agree to attend one hour of counseling per week when picking up the drugs.

(4) All addicts be offered free programs to learn to live drug free.

The black market would still exist, but the free government drugs would keep the prices low. There would be an initial surge in need for services for children but this would drop dramatically as addicts stopped reproducing. Counseling might reach some of the addicts and help them attempt to rebuild their lives.

[AndrewH]

I consider gang violence and drug dealing some of the most serious offences, if anything jail space should be freed up to make place for them.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be putting violent offenders in jail. Just that if we eliminate nonviolent drug crimes, there will be MORE space in jail for those violent offenders, plus it would cut down on the overall amount of violent crime on the streets.

That said, I do not agree with the concept of freeing up jail space, unless as a stopgap measure in exceptional circumstances. The correct response to a lack of jail cells is IMO to build more jails. Some of the work - but by no means all - could be done by the safer convicts. Keep on building until there is a jail cell surplus!

The US has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. Out of every 100,000 people, 700 are currently in jail. And we're constantly building more jails. Why? Jails bring revenue to everyone involved. Private prisons are a huge (but controversial) business in the US.

I agree with you that we must have enough jail cells to accomodate the criminals who need to be there. But locking up nonviolent drug users for a mandatory minimum sentence? The choice now is to parole the rapist who's only been there 5 years in order to make space for the pothead, or to keep on building prisons until EVERYONE gets put away. About 80 million Americans have admitted to trying marijuana at least once- if every one of them got caught, and sentenced to the mandatory minimum, the prison population would balloon from 2 million to 82 million. At that point we have to ask ourselves: should all these people really be in jail?

[AndrewH]

If you legalize drugs, you will put tens of thousands of police, corrections workers, rehab center personnel, clinicians and DEA bureaucrats out of work! You heartless bastards, plotting to cause increased unemployment! What are you, Republicans?

Thanks for the laugh but your post is sadly realistic...

[D.O.A.R.]

I think lindajdunn is onto something. I would take it a step further though. Hows about creating a handfull of "Drug Friendly zones" throughout the country. Within this facility all types of drugs would be available by various vendors. Although they might have the appearance of prison (walls and such), they of course would not be. People would be free to check themselves in (see lindajdunn suggestions), and given a variety of choices: type of room (padded or unpadded), social arrangement (solitary or general populace), and a whole selection of munchies to choose from. So that people do not feel inhibited in their recreation, the only security would be those manning the entrance/exit of the facility. No guards or police allowed within the fun zone (and why would they be needed anyway?), so party on dude! Of course, in order to leave the facility there will be a medical and psychological exam (to prove you are not a risk to the public). Detox rooms will be available. Cash only please.

[lindajdunn]

[QUOTE=D.O.A.No guards or police allowed within the fun zone (and why would they be needed anyway?), so party on dude! Of course, in order to leave the facility there will be a medical and psychological exam (to prove you are not a risk to the public). Detox rooms will be available. Cash only please.[/QUOTE]

I think a weapons check at the door would be insufficient to prevent violence if/when someone took a bad trip. Thus, I'd opt for constant monitoring (webcameras?) and if anyone gets sick or commits a violent act against another person, then everything shuts down until the threat (and/or injured person) is removed. Once safety is retored, they can party on.

[PalmFrond]

If you legalize drugs, you will put tens of thousands of police, corrections workers, rehab center personnel, clinicians and DEA bureaucrats out of work! You heartless bastards, plotting to cause increased unemployment! What are you, Republicans?

Ha ha ha! I'm sure that some other activities will be criminalised to make up the shortfall.

I find that most of the arguments against legalising drugs (drug-induced violence, addicts becoming parents, DUI etc.) ignore the fact that alcohol enables violence, perpetuates poverty and destroys the lives of drunks and those around them. We are already well able to deal with problems caused by drugs. The question is whether legalisation would bring about a qualitative change that society as it is would be able to deal with.

[Inquartata]

I think lindajdunn is onto something. I would take it a step further though. Hows about creating a handfull of "Drug Friendly zones" throughout the country. Within this facility all types of drugs would be available by various vendors. Although they might have the appearance of prison (walls and such), they of course would not be. People would be free to check themselves in (see lindajdunn suggestions), and given a variety of choices: type of room (padded or unpadded), social arrangement (solitary or general populace), and a whole selection of munchies to choose from. So that people do not feel inhibited in their recreation, the only security would be those manning the entrance/exit of the facility. No guards or police allowed within the fun zone (and why would they be needed anyway?), so party on dude! Of course, in order to leave the facility there will be a medical and psychological exam (to prove you are not a risk to the public). Detox rooms will be available. Cash only please.

"I suggest Manhattan as the first site for this." - Snake Pliskin

[sabreur]

I think legalizing recreational drugs would have the immediate effect of stopping a large flow of dollars into a murderous and destructive criminal underground, which would be a very good thing. I think decoupling use of recreational drugs from the other illegal activities often associated with it would also be a good thing. And as Quart points out, legalizing recreational drugs would result in a large number of law enforcement personnel, judges, etc., being able to focus on other, perhaps more destructive criminal behaviors.

On the addiction front, I believe, but don't have the data, so I don't really know, that standard distributions apply to addiction, as they do to most other aspects of a population with a large enough number of members. That is to say, there is a certain part of the population with tendencies toward addiction--to tobacco, alcohol, gambling, illegal drugs, etc. This size of this segment of the population is probably relatively fixed, so legalizing recreational drugs would not increase the total number of addicts that much--it would probably result in increased numbers of addicts to formerly illegal substances, but you'd probably see a corresponding decrease in the number of addicts to ostensibly legal substances.

However, it is also possible that the population with a predeliction toward addiction to heroin or cocaine does not wholly overlap with the population with a predeliction toward addiction to alcohol. In that case, you would see an increase in the number of addicts. It would be an interesting experiment.