Legalize Drugs, Why?

[westwall]

How many people were killed in Chicago when Prohibition was in effect? How many were killed when it was lifted? The numbers are astounding. I will let you look them up so they have a stronger impact.

Again; the explosion of violent crime as a result of prohibition was a different circumstance for reasons I've already listed (previously legal substance that a lot of people used (thus had a high demand) being made illegal).

While some facets of the current "prohibition" apply, it's not the same thing.

No, legalization won't end it, but it will significantly reduce the pain and suffering of complete innocents by a huge amount.

I disagree. Enabling addiction isn't going to do any favors for the innocent people who are in the span of destruction of an addict.

So riddle me this. Almost all drugs were legal up till the 1960's..did this country fall apart from that? What was the level of violent crime that was solely drug related? What was the incarceration rate of non-violent offendors? Criminologists know that 80% of all violent crime is committed by 7% of the criminal population, we have to let those animals out of jail to keep no-violent drug offendors in.

Does that make any kind of logical sense to you?

Society changed. What doesn't make logical sense to me is changing to laws to try and undercut crime.

I understand where you guys are going with your argument. I just disagree with your conclusions.

You are more focused on the criminal aspect of the matter and I am more focused on what the substances do to their users.

Almost all drugs were legal till the 1960's so it applies to them as well.

 

[westwall]

It won't end all crime, obviously, however it will take a sizable chunk out of it. If people can purchase whatever drug they wish without legal repercussions, what incentive do they have to purchase it from some seedy character in a back alley?

None. However, I am not at all convinced that making heroin as available as coors light will do us any favors.

Again, I agree it will reduce crime. It will also make a lot of addicts out of people who would have otherwise never have touched the stuff.

As it stands, criminal violence will always be with us. The money is in the crime side of the equation. The product is just what is being sold.

Our prime point exactly.

 

[kwc57]

absolutely, but there is no choice involved in either scenario.

Good point.

i think decriminalization would eliminate a lot, perhaps most, of the violence that surrounds illegal drug use. there is also the "forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some kids to drugs. keeping addicts in the medical system and out of the penal system would also benefit society, imo.

I agree that treatment is much more desirable than incarceration. I wish we would try that approach first.

My issue with the ordeal is this: heroin is highly addictive. It's potential to create addicts is much higher than everything else but cigarettes. Now, if you legalize it and remove the societal stigma around the matter, we are going to have a lot of people who are addicted to heroin then would have otherwise been.

In other words, I agree with the forbidden fruit theory. I think it works both ways. I think plenty of people will never try heroin simply because it is illegal and the consequences outweigh the risk.

I see no benefit to our society in making it legal.

I understand the larger libertarian argument being made by that crowd, I just don't buy into that particular line of logic. As I am consistent, I also support public schools.

I also understand the people who are arguing that it will reduce crime. I agree it will reduce violent crime. But at what cost?

i don't think that legalizing/decriminalizing it would remove the societal stigma. cigarette smoking is legal and has been stigmatized nonetheless.

And so heavily regulated that they are prohibited from advertising their product. They ran the smokers out of the office building years ago and they would go outside the door to smoke. They dicided it didn't look good to have all those people standing outside the door, so they prohibited employees from smoking there. So the employees next door come over in front of our building and our employees go over in front of their building. So the companies hang no smoking signs outside the door. So the smokers go to the alley between the buildings. Now the mayor wants to make the whole downtown area smoke free. Drug use would still have much the same stigma as tobacco.

 

[kwc57]

How many people were killed in Chicago when Prohibition was in effect? How many were killed when it was lifted? The numbers are astounding. I will let you look them up so they have a stronger impact.

Again; the explosion of violent crime as a result of prohibition was a different circumstance for reasons I've already listed (previously legal substance that a lot of people used (thus had a high demand) being made illegal).

While some facets of the current "prohibition" apply, it's not the same thing.

No, legalization won't end it, but it will significantly reduce the pain and suffering of complete innocents by a huge amount.

I disagree. Enabling addiction isn't going to do any favors for the innocent people who are in the span of destruction of an addict.

So riddle me this. Almost all drugs were legal up till the 1960's..did this country fall apart from that? What was the level of violent crime that was solely drug related? What was the incarceration rate of non-violent offendors? Criminologists know that 80% of all violent crime is committed by 7% of the criminal population, we have to let those animals out of jail to keep no-violent drug offendors in.

Does that make any kind of logical sense to you?

Society changed. What doesn't make logical sense to me is changing to laws to try and undercut crime.

I understand where you guys are going with your argument. I just disagree with your conclusions.

You are more focused on the criminal aspect of the matter and I am more focused on what the substances do to their users.

Society changed.......or did the government decide that drug use was an element of society they needed to control?

 

[geauxtohell]

Now you're just being silly. Drunk driving is illegal in every state of the union and yet over 25,000 per year are killed so those laws are real effective aren't they? Don't resort to silliness to try and prove a bad point.

I admit I was being facetious. I deny I was the first person on the thread to do so to try and make my point.

My larger point is that the law does act as a deterrent. How many people would be killed while DUI/DWI if there were no laws against it?

Then, back to my original point, how many more people would be impaired and on the road if we expanded the amount of legal mind-altering substances the public had available to it?

As it stands, a person metabolizes a beer an hour. If you go out and get intoxicated with alcohol, you will generally be okay to drive seven hours after you stop drinking (unless you had a real bender).

Seven hours is close to the half life of methamphetamine. Peak concentration is around 10 to 24 hours for a single use. That's scary.

Informa Healthcare - Clinical Toxicology - 48(7):675 - Summary

 

[Oddball]

absolutely, but there is no choice involved in either scenario.

Good point.

i think decriminalization would eliminate a lot, perhaps most, of the violence that surrounds illegal drug use. there is also the "forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some kids to drugs. keeping addicts in the medical system and out of the penal system would also benefit society, imo.

I agree that treatment is much more desirable than incarceration. I wish we would try that approach first.

My issue with the ordeal is this: heroin is highly addictive. It's potential to create addicts is much higher than everything else but cigarettes. Now, if you legalize it and remove the societal stigma around the matter, we are going to have a lot of people who are addicted to heroin then would have otherwise been.

In other words, I agree with the forbidden fruit theory. I think it works both ways. I think plenty of people will never try heroin simply because it is illegal and the consequences outweigh the risk.

I see no benefit to our society in making it legal.

I understand the larger libertarian argument being made by that crowd, I just don't buy into that particular line of logic. As I am consistent, I also support public schools.

I also understand the people who are arguing that it will reduce crime. I agree it will reduce violent crime. But at what cost?

Funny nobody seems to factor in the costs of lost freedom, when making excuses for the nanny state.

Are turning lower income neighborhoods into shooting galleries and places like Juarez defacto death camps worthy prices to pay, for your moral superiority?

 

[geauxtohell]

It won't end all crime, obviously, however it will take a sizable chunk out of it. If people can purchase whatever drug they wish without legal repercussions, what incentive do they have to purchase it from some seedy character in a back alley?

None. However, I am not at all convinced that making heroin as available as coors light will do us any favors.

Again, I agree it will reduce crime. It will also make a lot of addicts out of people who would have otherwise never have touched the stuff.

As it stands, criminal violence will always be with us. The money is in the crime side of the equation. The product is just what is being sold.

Our prime point exactly.

So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?

 

[Sheldon]

there is also the "forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some kids to drugs.

definitely

look at teenage binge drinking


by 23, the novelty generally wears off

much of the marijuana culture seems likewise to me

Pretty much. At 19 you drink to get blitzed at basement keggers as much as possible before the cops come... to being in the mid-twenties and doing it just to casually kick it around friends.

But I'm not always comfortable with the alcohol-to-hard-drugs comparison that's made in these threads sometimes. They're fundamentally different. A person can enjoy a little bit of alcohol and not be at serious risk of addiction; there's no such thing as 'a little bit of heroin'.

Ultimately people have to make decision for themselves about this. There's enough stigma and information about the hard drugs like meth and heroin, that you know what you're getting yourself into. It's a waste of resources for cops to babysit adults like what's seen in the War on Some Drugs, imo.

 

[geauxtohell]

And so heavily regulated that they are prohibited from advertising their product. They ran the smokers out of the office building years ago and they would go outside the door to smoke. They dicided it didn't look good to have all those people standing outside the door, so they prohibited employees from smoking there. So the employees next door come over in front of our building and our employees go over in front of their building. So the companies hang no smoking signs outside the door. So the smokers go to the alley between the buildings. Now the mayor wants to make the whole downtown area smoke free. Drug use would still have much the same stigma as tobacco.

Maybe, maybe not. Why go through what our society has gone through with tobacco to address a problem?

Society changed.......or did the government decide that drug use was an element of society they needed to control?

Both. Barring the goofyness that is our current MJ drug policy (and maybe LSD and mushrooms), these substances are dangerous for consumption. That is why they were made illegal. As society became more permissive and the people started using dangerous substances, the government made laws.

 

[Oddball]

So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?

Nicotine is as addictive a substance as there is....Why not make it illegal in that basis as well?

And to further the point, could you imagine how many people would be getting killed, from both criminal activity and from bad product, if crooks were cooking down tobacco the way the do for cocaine and heroin?

 

[Bones]

So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?

You could say the same for television or the internet. Both have the great potential to create large number of addicts after a few uses.

The social consequences may differ, however if we're strictly talking about addiction here...

 

[geauxtohell]

Funny nobody seems to factor in the costs of lost freedom, when making excuses for the nanny state.

Are turning lower income neighborhoods into shooting galleries and places like Juarez defacto death camps worthy prices to pay, for your moral superiority?

I have. As I said, I don't buy into the Libertarian mentality. Apparently, as evidenced by the polls, neither do most Americans.

This has nothing to do with my "moral superiority". Nowhere on this thread have I castigated addicts. I've stated that I see addiction as a medical problem and think it should be treated as such.

My problem is removing barriers to highly addictive substances is going to create a lot of addicts who would have otherwise not been an addict.

In other words, lives are going to be ruined. That is my problem with the matter.

 

[Oddball]

But, bathtub gin was taken away because people could now go into a store and buy real gin. Are you saying if we legalized things like marijuana and other lesser drugs, people wouldn't want heroin or crack anymore? I doubt very much that would be the case.

Well, I can see where you'd think that ...After all, I only have the facts of history and the reality of actual liquor store sales on my side, while you do have your doubts based upon......?

 

[geauxtohell]

So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?

You could say the same for television or the internet. Both have the great potential to create large number of addicts after a few uses.

The social consequences may differ, however if we're strictly talking about addiction here...

Yeah, but that can turn into a silly argument too. Anything can be addictive. Agreed.

However, few things are physiologically addictive meaning that using them alters your brain chemistry and physiology to the point where you experience withdrawal.

The "Cocaine Crash" isn't an imagined thing. It's the result of the brain overcompensating for the neurotransmitters it could reabsorb. That's why people are euphoric on cocaine and depressed when they come down.

And when it comes to substances that are physiologically addictive, the "hard drugs" that we are talking about are the worst of the worst.

 

[Oddball]

Funny nobody seems to factor in the costs of lost freedom, when making excuses for the nanny state.

Are turning lower income neighborhoods into shooting galleries and places like Juarez defacto death camps worthy prices to pay, for your moral superiority?

I have. As I said, I don't buy into the Libertarian mentality. Apparently, as evidenced by the polls, neither do most Americans.

This has nothing to do with my "moral superiority". Nowhere on this thread have I castigated addicts. I've stated that I see addiction as a medical problem and think it should be treated as such.

My problem is removing barriers to highly addictive substances is going to create a lot of addicts who would have otherwise not been an addict.

In other words, lives are going to be ruined. That is my problem with the matter.

I couldn't care less which philosophy you or anyone else buys or not.

And you ARE peddling a moral superiorist train of rationale here, whether you choose to accept it or not.

And lives are already being ruined and snuffed out, your moral relativism notwithstanding.

 

[geauxtohell]

there is also the "forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some kids to drugs.

definitely

look at teenage binge drinking


by 23, the novelty generally wears off

much of the marijuana culture seems likewise to me

Pretty much. At 19 you drink to get blitzed at basement keggers as much as possible before the cops come... to being in the mid-twenties and doing it just to casually kick it around friends.

But I'm not always comfortable with the alcohol-to-hard-drugs comparison that's made in these threads sometimes. They're fundamentally different. A person can enjoy a little bit of alcohol and not be at serious risk of addiction; there's no such thing as 'a little bit of heroin'.

Ultimately people have to make decision for themselves about this. There's enough stigma and information about the hard drugs like meth and heroin, that you know what you're getting yourself into. It's a waste of resources for cops to babysit adults like what's seen in the War on Some Drugs, imo.

Your middle paragraph is my basic point.

I disagree with your last paragraph in regards to amphetamines, cocaine, and narcotics. I agree MJ should be legal.

 

[westwall]

Now you're just being silly. Drunk driving is illegal in every state of the union and yet over 25,000 per year are killed so those laws are real effective aren't they? Don't resort to silliness to try and prove a bad point.

I admit I was being facetious. I deny I was the first person on the thread to do so to try and make my point.

My larger point is that the law does act as a deterrent. How many people would be killed while DUI/DWI if there were no laws against it?

Then, back to my original point, how many more people would be impaired and on the road if we expanded the amount of legal mind-altering substances the public had available to it?

As it stands, a person metabolizes a beer an hour. If you go out and get intoxicated with alcohol, you will generally be okay to drive seven hours after you stop drinking (unless you had a real bender).

Seven hours is close to the half life of methamphetamine. Peak concentration is around 10 to 24 hours for a single use. That's scary.

Informa Healthcare - Clinical Toxicology - 48(7):675 - Summary

The numbers will be the same. I am all in favour of extremely harsh penalties for the criminal misuse of drugs just as I am all for it for some nimrod driving drunk. We have idiots with 8! DUI arrests still driving illegaly and getting caught yet again.

I would bring back chain gangs and place those assholes on them and make them pay particular attention to every place where a drunk driver killed someone. Make people pay for doing bad things. Not for enjoying themselves in the privacy of their own homes.

 

[geauxtohell]

So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?

Nicotine is as addictive a substance as there is....Why not make it illegal in that basis as well?

And to further the point, could you imagine how many people would be getting killed, from both criminal activity and from bad product, if crooks were cooking down tobacco the way the do for cocaine and heroin?

A person can overdose on nicotine, but to do so would require an amount far beyond what anyone could smoke in a cigarette.

It is certainly addictive. As I said earlier, the genie is out of the bottle with regards to alcohol and nicotine. There is no going back.

Considering the problems that these substances impart on our society (to include health care dollars), I see little point in letting three more genies out of the bottle.

Again, I concede that legalization would reduce criminality. I don't think the degree to which that would happen would outweigh the added burden of having more people who are addicted to drugs.

 

[westwall]

None. However, I am not at all convinced that making heroin as available as coors light will do us any favors.

Again, I agree it will reduce crime. It will also make a lot of addicts out of people who would have otherwise never have touched the stuff.

As it stands, criminal violence will always be with us. The money is in the crime side of the equation. The product is just what is being sold.

Our prime point exactly.

So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?

Sure, why not. What possibly can be so bad from that as opposed to the thousands killed in drug violence every years?

 

[Oddball]

So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?

Nicotine is as addictive a substance as there is....Why not make it illegal in that basis as well?

And to further the point, could you imagine how many people would be getting killed, from both criminal activity and from bad product, if crooks were cooking down tobacco the way the do for cocaine and heroin?

A person can overdose on nicotine, but to do so would require an amount far beyond what anyone could smoke in a cigarette.

It is certainly addictive. As I said earlier, the genie is out of the bottle with regards to alcohol and nicotine. There is no going back.

Considering the problems that these substances impart on our society (to include health care dollars), I see little point in letting three more genies out of the bottle.

Again, I concede that legalization would reduce criminality. I don't think the degree to which that would happen would outweigh the added burden of having more people who are addicted to drugs.

The genie is already out of the bottle for everything, dude.

So, are you saying that the only thing keeping you from doing coke or heroin are the laws against them, hmmmmm?