Legalize all drugs

cannabis

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
27
Location
Reno, NV
That caught your attention, didn't it? I'll keep it as short as possible, although I doubt it will end up very brief.

Legalizing drugs is also ending the war on drugs. Around $45.5 billion was spent in 2005 to enforce the drug war and to keep drug offenders locked up. The problem with prison is that most people who get out end up back on drugs.

Most drug users aren't a threat to society, and the only reason they are is because they have to steal and commit crime to afford the inflated price of drugs. This high price is caused by the prohibition because, in the underground market, drug dealers can charge outrageous prices. The Economist estimates that the street price of drugs is 20,000% the pharmaceutical price. Cops now dealing with drug issues would be free for other things.

And, we could tax legal drugs and get a huge amount of money, since marijuana is the biggest cash crop by far in the United States (surprising, I know).

By legalizing drugs, we ensure that they are as safe as possible and that warnings and overdose amounts are all put on the label. This of course would be strictly regulated.

Drug traffickers, dealers, corrupt cops, corrupt lawyers, and similar scum would be eliminated because there would be no need for them. British Columbia now has the most organized crime syndicates in the world because such a large quantity of Canadian drugs are smuggled into the US.

We need to treat the drug problem the same way we treat the AIDS problem: as a health concern, not a criminal one. We don’t prosecute people for having unprotected sex and getting AIDS; it’s their personal decision to do so. Society and the government’s job is to educate everyone on the dangers of drug use, meaning much more that what we offer today. The individual person’s duty is to take that education and decide for themselves whether or not they want to take the drug.

Most people who use drugs don’t become addicted, and though it might sound harsh, it’s the person’s fault if they do become addicted since the warning would be printed right there in front of them, along with an extensive education in drug use.

Regarding children, I only believe drug legalization should apply to those under 21 for “hard” (addictive) drugs like cocaine, heroin, and tobacco, and 18 for “soft” (non-addictive) drugs like marijuana, LSD, and psilocybin. The way to enforce this would be mandatory drug tests in schools every month, and funding from the new tax revenue could be allotted to it.

Blanket prohibition ultimately fails, as show by alcohol prohibition in the 20s and 30s and our current drug war. I admit there are drawbacks to legalization, and I hope we can discuss those. But overall the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Thanks for reading my post all the way to the end!
 
Werbung:

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
That caught your attention, didn't it? I'll keep it as short as possible, although I doubt it will end up very brief.

Legalizing drugs is also ending the war on drugs. Around $45.5 billion was spent in 2005 to enforce the drug war and to keep drug offenders locked up. The problem with prison is that most people who get out end up back on drugs.

Most drug users aren't a threat to society, and the only reason they are is because they have to steal and commit crime to afford the inflated price of drugs. This high price is caused by the prohibition because, in the underground market, drug dealers can charge outrageous prices. The Economist estimates that the street price of drugs is 20,000% the pharmaceutical price. Cops now dealing with drug issues would be free for other things.

And, we could tax legal drugs and get a huge amount of money, since marijuana is the biggest cash crop by far in the United States (surprising, I know).

By legalizing drugs, we ensure that they are as safe as possible and that warnings and overdose amounts are all put on the label. This of course would be strictly regulated.

Drug traffickers, dealers, corrupt cops, corrupt lawyers, and similar scum would be eliminated because there would be no need for them. British Columbia now has the most organized crime syndicates in the world because such a large quantity of Canadian drugs are smuggled into the US.

We need to treat the drug problem the same way we treat the AIDS problem: as a health concern, not a criminal one. We don’t prosecute people for having unprotected sex and getting AIDS; it’s their personal decision to do so. Society and the government’s job is to educate everyone on the dangers of drug use, meaning much more that what we offer today. The individual person’s duty is to take that education and decide for themselves whether or not they want to take the drug.

Most people who use drugs don’t become addicted, and though it might sound harsh, it’s the person’s fault if they do become addicted since the warning would be printed right there in front of them, along with an extensive education in drug use.

Regarding children, I only believe drug legalization should apply to those under 21 for “hard” (addictive) drugs like cocaine, heroin, and tobacco, and 18 for “soft” (non-addictive) drugs like marijuana, LSD, and psilocybin. The way to enforce this would be mandatory drug tests in schools every month, and funding from the new tax revenue could be allotted to it.

Blanket prohibition ultimately fails, as show by alcohol prohibition in the 20s and 30s and our current drug war. I admit there are drawbacks to legalization, and I hope we can discuss those. But overall the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Thanks for reading my post all the way to the end!
What about meth? I've had the unfortunate experience of being up close and personal with several meth addicts, the stuff is extremely addictive. After the meth user has been up a couple of days, extreme paranoia almost universally sets in, meth users are dangerous to other people.
 

cannabis

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
27
Location
Reno, NV
What about meth? I've had the unfortunate experience of being up close and personal with several meth addicts, the stuff is extremely addictive. After the meth user has been up a couple of days, extreme paranoia almost universally sets in, meth users are dangerous to other people.

This is the the biggest dilemma and I'm glad you brought it up. Meth is a terrible, terrible substance, but its illegality doesn't prevent people from using it. Extensive education including risks and effects of every drug, rather than the all too common 'just say no' method, is what keeps people from using it. I'm sure everyone agrees that better education would help. So would legalization. If we print on the label "WARNING: EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE AND LIFE-THREATENING" and provide comprehensive education, I believe it would decrease use.
 

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
This is the the biggest dilemma and I'm glad you brought it up. Meth is a terrible, terrible substance, but its illegality doesn't prevent people from using it. Extensive education including risks and effects of every drug, rather than the all too common 'just say no' method, is what keeps people from using it. I'm sure everyone agrees that better education would help. So would legalization. If we print on the label "WARNING: EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE AND LIFE-THREATENING" and provide comprehensive education, I believe it would decrease use.

Obviously pot should be legal, the fact that it is listed as a schedule one drug is all economics and politics.

In fact, I agree with the legalization, possibly excluding meth, with one caveat, a person gets busted for a violent crime while under the influence, he's down for good. I have no use for people who can't handle their drugs and harm others.
 

saggyjones

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
215
Location
Reno NV
Obviously pot should be legal, the fact that it is listed as a schedule one drug is all economics and politics.

In fact, I agree with the legalization, possibly excluding meth, with one caveat, a person gets busted for a violent crime while under the influence, he's down for good. I have no use for people who can't handle their drugs and harm others.

Excluding meth from legalization causes gangs that now deal with heroin, cocaine, etc. to move toward meth only, and we would see an increase in its use. But it being legal is very dangerous since it's by far the most destructive drug out there. Hmmm, for now I'm stuck on this. I'll have to think about it more.

I agree with the violent crime part btw

Edit: This was supposed to be posted as cannabis, but I still have my old account info saved and I logged in as saggyjones
 

bewitched

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
678
Location
Location, Location
Chinese consider tiger penis a drug... that would be a depletion of natural resources if "all" drugs were legal.
and then who would regulate Cocaine and poppies.... the drug lords were certainly protest to their profits going elsewhere.
 

cannabis

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
27
Location
Reno, NV
We need to legalise drugs one at a time, trial them, see how it works.

Of course it wouldn't be all at once, that would never fly. First marijuana, then non-addictive hallucinogenics (pretty much every one excluding ketamine), and move on from there to addictive drugs.
 

cannabis

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
27
Location
Reno, NV
Chinese consider tiger penis a drug... that would be a depletion of natural resources if "all" drugs were legal.
and then who would regulate Cocaine and poppies.... the drug lords were certainly protest to their profits going elsewhere.

I'm not really following you... can you explain it again?
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
I have always had mixed feelings on this issue. I think marijuana would be best if decriminalized. Way to many resources are put into piss poor efforts to stop its use.
As for the others, Meth, heroin,"tiger penis", cocaine, I would have to see more medical and scientific evidence on those.

Concerning meth, on the simple grounds of the potential dangers involved with cooking it would make me probably never support such a measure. I got no problem with someone having a small pot growing operation, even my neighbors. But the potential fire and explosions in the meth cooking process and the dangers to nearby otherwise innocent people is a grave concern to me.
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
When other drugs are legalised except meth, I really don't think the demand for meth would increase, but infact do quite the opposite.
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
When other drugs are legalised except meth, I really don't think the demand for meth would increase, but infact do quite the opposite.

I am not convinced the demand would go down for meth. It might, but looking at the current situation, where in my high school if I talked to the right person I have little doubt I could get my hands on any drug I wanted. This was while in high school. From everything I have come to realise about substances is that there is certainly plenty of "brand loyalty" those who like meth would not necesarily switch to cocaine because it was legal. Legality seems to make little difference in whether somone injests something or not.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,601
Location
The Golden State
Maybe it's time to make the so called "hard", ie most addictive, drugs prescription only. Once a person is addicted to meth, crack or whatever, he could get his fix legally and cheaply, along with an offer to enter rehab if he wants to. That way, there wouldn't be an incentive to get people addicted, it would be easier to get off if an addict wanted to, we'd save a ton of money by not having addicts in jail, and yet, there would be some controls. Most of the gangs would starve economically and become far less powerful, and the police could concentrate on other crimes.

Maybe people addicted to things like crack and meth would have to be institutionalized, but it would still be cheaper than keeping them in jail.

As for pot, what justification could there possibly be for having pot illegal, while tobacco is not? Tobacco is beyond a doubt the worst drug of all in terms of the death and human misery it causes. The reason tobacco is not outlawed is simple: It would simply go underground and become another illegal drug.
 

cannabis

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
27
Location
Reno, NV
Maybe it's time to make the so called "hard", ie most addictive, drugs prescription only. Once a person is addicted to meth, crack or whatever, he could get his fix legally and cheaply, along with an offer to enter rehab if he wants to. That way, there wouldn't be an incentive to get people addicted, it would be easier to get off if an addict wanted to, we'd save a ton of money by not having addicts in jail, and yet, there would be some controls. Most of the gangs would starve economically and become far less powerful, and the police could concentrate on other crimes.

That idea is actually used in Switzerland. The government started giving out pure, cheap heroin at a low price to addicts only, which basically eliminated the Swiss heroin mafia.

Maybe people addicted to things like crack and meth would have to be institutionalized, but it would still be cheaper than keeping them in jail.

Exactly. Treatment is cheaper and more effective than jail, yet we still put drug addicts in jail. Crazy, isn't it?

As for pot, what justification could there possibly be for having pot illegal, while tobacco is not? Tobacco is beyond a doubt the worst drug of all in terms of the death and human misery it causes.

It's madness!

The reason tobacco is not outlawed is simple: It would simply go underground and become another illegal drug.

And tobacco companies lobby to keep it legal. If there were widespread heroin companies in place when it was still legal, heroin sure as hell would be legal too.
 
Werbung:
Top