The case for legalizing drugs

Post Reply New Topic

It often seems like this breaks down into two camps; legalize pot or legalize it all. Pot I can see but legalizing everything?

So we just open up pharmacies and take what you want? crack at walmart? morphine in aisle 3? Some street drugs are so harmful that you couldnt have any meaningful FDA regulations on them. It would be silly to try. And would you really want major pharmacutical companies developing the most addictive substances they could possibly generate? Would you want commercials on tv for super-crack, now with extra viagra? lol Would the FDA even look at that or just stamp it with , "you're insane to use this".

It depends on the nature of the profession and company: I think that drug testing is very reasonable for jobs like train drivers, pilots, policemen etc. I also see a point in other security related professions (secret service, top range of civil servants, etc.), but I really don't see point in other areas, if the employee does his job, it is not of the employer's business to care about the private live of the employee.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

bravo. pot should be legalized, and taxed like alcohol and cigs, not only would you get some money, but you would release the most harmless people, and save money. the government wouldnt be able to regulate it, so many people would be intrested, most would probably take to much crank and die the first time they did it, or kill something else or seriously harm a small cat. wannabe gangsters would set up shop and try to say they have better stuff than the government has, and people would be all ooh oh give me some of that hot sauce!! the warning labels on the product would completley cover what the product was, and im shure most people would be so turned off at this point that the government actually starts to lose money on there investment

This is an unrelated problem of the US-Legislation. Imposing a system among the lines of the German "Statutory Accident Insurance" (Berufsgenossenschaft) with public insurance companies, not for profit, which deal according to statute with all such claim and also have the statutory right to control working conditions in a form of collective self-administration, but within a statutory frame work would be here a reasonable solution.

But this has nothing to do in the first place infringement of the private lives of employees.

In a wholly principled manner, the Libertarian standard actually falls with the business owner here. You are right, no one is forced to pee in a cup, they have the option not to apply for that job, or to quit as opposed to taking a random test.

In a pragmatic manner, it's incredibly useless. Most hard drugs taken on Friday night will be out of your system by Monday morning. The one drug that is widely used, that stays in your system for some time, is marijuana. Smoking a joint Friday night after work should be viewed the same way having a couple beers is looked at. But if you have a random UA Monday morning, the person who had a few drinks will pass, the person who smoked a joint will fail (and the person that smoked meth will pass).

So all you're really doing is persecuting pot smokers, which seems at the same time to be a waste of money, an unnecessary affront to privacy, and just plain wrong.

Dussel, can I come to this imaganary US you live in? There is a royal s**t storm right now due to the mildest HINT of nationalizing a bank, do you srsly and honestly expect such a measure to pass in a real life Congress? I am realist, Pot I can see getting legalized, PCP, not so much.

We've already gone over some of the possible regulatory measures. Of course you won't be able to buy crack at Wal-Mart. We'd be looking at facilities designated solely for the purpose of distribution and use.

If the FDA was meaningful, we could have meaningful FDA regulations.

Ideally, Big-Pharma would be kept out of the picture.

This is why we need multi-tiered regulation (government level, private level, public level).

....

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If there was an effective way to test for actually harmful drugs, I would not take issue with it.

Someone who smoked pot over the weekend should have no problems operating a forklift.

I would say employers should be much more concerned with alcoholics and prescription pain med abusers.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Richard, I just don't understand how you reading comprehension can be so weak. This last post regurgitates arguments I've countered time and again. Please actually read this post.

Opinion.



Misguided opinion.



In these designated using facilities, you would have trained medical personnel working with a reliable product. You would know the purity of the drug, and the medical personnel would be able to administer a proper dose.



But they wouldn't have better stuff, and it would cost more. And of course, once there were designated providers, you could make the laws against individuals dealing much stiffer.



Misguided opinion.



Is this really a concern? I guess you could make pamphlets.



So let me get this straight, you start off by saying that legalizing drugs would increase use, and you conclude by saying that legalization would not create massive tax revenue?

This is not a legislative committee. This is a theoretical discussion. Not a single person has stated that drugs could be easily legalized.

vt is correct; most drugs will pass through the system and be clear of the urinary system within 48 hours. Some will show in blood metabolite tests or hair samples much longer, but those are less traditional methods of testing.

There are countries that do support addicts, although rarely with the actual drug (due to 'public outcry') but using a replacement that is often as bad as the original if not worse. Drugs are not bad, inherently. The drive to make everything stronger, faster, better... isn't always a good thing. Anything in the world can be abused; just because someone can jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon doesn't make it a good idea, but if you make it illegal you are only going to end up imprisoning those who survive the fall. Does make much sense to me. Use and abuse are two different things... and there are many things I choose not to use. That doesn't mean I think they have to be made illegal - and that doesn't mean I think they should be made easily obtainable. But through prohibition, all it does is create criminals to my eye.


M.

Source

Alcohol - Max 24 hours
Cannabinoids (THC) - Min 2 hours, Max Infrequent up to 10 days, Max Frequent up to 6 weeks
Cocaine Metabolite (COC) - Min 1.25-4 hours, Max 2-3 days
Methamphetamine (MAMP) - Min 2-7 hours, Max 2-4 days
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) (Ecstacy) - Min 2-4 hours, Max 1-3 days

i read your entire post, if you would actually go back and read mine in its entirety you will see that i am for legalizing bob marley. sorry i didnt specify, (and the government would save money, and the harmless of people would be released) in those posts, but i just did. i tend to formulate my opinion over times anyways, and arnt really as hard headed as you think. your idea sounds fanfuckingtastic on paper, and in theory vibratetogether. but in the real world, i seriously doubt it would work so smoothly as you have sugjested. if the government would be making mad money, im shure they'd get there act together and legalize every drug on the planet as fast as possible. and my reading comprehension is awful dude, sorry. thanks for chatting with a ret*d though, i kindly and humbly thank you.