Legalize all drugs

[9sublime]

When you can walk to your drug store and buy pure, standardised cocaine at a cheap price, why would you go to some dodgy methhead and buy something cooked under someones basement?

Maybe the hardcore meth heads currently around would still take it, but new drug users wouldn't, because it becomes even less appealing than it is now.

 

[cannabis]

When you can walk to your drug store and buy pure, standardised cocaine at a cheap price, why would you go to some dodgy methhead and buy something cooked under someones basement?

Maybe the hardcore meth heads currently around would still take it, but new drug users wouldn't, because it becomes even less appealing than it is now.

That's a good point, and I think you're probably right. My rationale for the opposite is that since there would be less drugs on the illegal market, production would increase for select drugs, i.e. meth, which would cause a price drop.

Also, meth has much different effects from any other drug.

 

[AugustineJurnior]

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!

But as I read this you make the case to NOT legalize.

I see at least 3 drop-dead reasons from your statements to NOT legalize

If drug use increases with legalization, so will such forms of related violent crime as assaults, drugged driving, child abuse, and domestic violence.

Great Britain's experiment with legalizing heroin did not work, primarily because of increased addiction. The current crack problem is far worse than the heroin problem. Those addicted to crack and its effects virtually exclude almost all other considerations such as job, sleep, food, family and children.

Even the Brookings Institute puts it in terms opposed to yours:
This fundamental point can be illustrated with respect to the two central questions most likely to sway public opinion. What would happen to drug consumption under more permissive regulatory regimes? And what would happen to crime?

Mandatory drug testing shows your state of mind. I can hardly think of a more hate-filled tool of Big Government to ruin lives than 'official government statements about a person's use of drugs" What is going on now with Hunter Biden. He is a major creep but with your view on things we would have a nation of such and the closer to money and power the more like Hunter



So the bottom line is you have not given this any thought, real thought

 

[AugustineJurnior]

That's a good point, and I think you're probably right. My rationale for the opposite is that since there would be less drugs on the illegal market, production would increase for select drugs, i.e. meth, which would cause a price drop.

Also, meth has much different effects from any other drug.

I saw this in real life but I will test you on it: What would be the effect of opening a porn shop next door to the HQ of a major company?
Nobody forces you to go there, and freedom is guaranteed but would you be shocked to konw that the great middle between those who consider it immoral and those who buy porn all the time --- that they would 'succumb' , that word you never use.

Leave $100 bill on the street and people who would never take someone else's money.....will take someone else's money