The case for legalizing drugs

Post Reply New Topic

Briefly: The question of liabilities-cases in the USA is different matter. There is a widespread conviction within the legal discussion in the US that the current system is ineffective, time consuming and expensive. There also a lot of discussion regarding this issue and possible reforms in the academic sphere. But this is a general problem of the legal system of US should separated from the drug problem.



The employer has the right that his employee has a "clear head" when he appears at the workplace. But drug testing does not test the current mental state, but the use of drugs in the recent days, weeks even months. This has nothing to do with the current mental state of a person. The effect of the most drugs do disappear within a few hours, latest 48 hours (in rare cases and depending on the drug). This current state can be tested much easier without an infringement into the private behaviour.

Last edited by Dussel on 20 Apr 2009, 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

...

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

I do doubt that the (US-)government is keen on getting money into the public purse. The politics of the recent 30 or 40 years do contradict this idea. Otherwise there would be much higher taxes and military spending would be significant lower.

The politicians (at least the big majority) are interested in one thing: To get re-elected. It's their "opium" - the power, the headlines etc. The public purse is a mean, not a goal. We have a lot of Henry-VIII-types on the throne and Elizabeth-I-types are a rare breath in the political realm.

i agree that its all about getting re-elected these days, and maybe your right. and since the government can just borrow forever it seems like, and print worthless money i guess it wouldnt be a priority for them to look for ways to making bank. i still dont care though, hardcore drugs should still remain illegal. because they serve no purpose other than to addict to destroy

Are we even reading the same thread here? All you've offered up so far is an oozing miasma of analogies that don't work, unwarranted condescension and accusations/paranoia, and half the time you don't even make sense. That sentence of yours that I bolded, what does that even mean? I'm serious. How do expect to be taken seriously when ironically enough many of your posts seem to have been written by someone on drugs?



*Sigh*, you did read that logical fallacies list, didn't you? You're just working your way through all of them... I'll pretend you haven't read the list however, and explain (again) that an appeal to authority, in this case the governments of the world, is not a valid argument. Further, it has already been explained to you some of the many reasons that it may benefit a government to keep drugs illegal, but for the sake of argument I'll pretend it's the first time.

You see, there's a lot of money to be made in the illegal drugs field, and not just by producing and retailing them. So long as they remain illegal, whole branches of the respective governments of the world can draw budgets, pay salaries and build little private bureaucratic empires to fight trafficking in them, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. Then, a whole other branch of the government does the same thing when it comes to prosecuting and imprisoning those "drug offenders", and depending upon the local setup, a private prison industry might get to wet their beak in the drug money as well.

Marijuana was made illegal in the 30's not because of any perceived danger, but because alcohol prohibition was coming to an end and thousands of prohibition agents were about to be out of work, along with the bureaucrats supporting them. All those people were simply rolled into the new DEA to combat a new "scourge", the devil weed that was about to become public enemy #1. Why do you think they made those goofy films like Reefer Madness? It wasn't for the entertainment value, it was because they had to sell the public on why something new needed to be made illegal, and a federal agency formed to fight it.

"But, I'm in favor of legalizing pot!" you say, "it's just the hard stuff like PCP that I want to keep illegal (think of the children!)". If you accept that the government exaggerated the dangers of marijuana in order to preserve a bureaucratic empire, why would you then put it past them to do the same with other drugs? Ecstasy perhaps? Aside from the occasional raver dancing themselves into some heatstroke because they forgot to drink water, what harm comes from X? Cocaine? Overrated. Heroin? Yup, feels pretty good, but if it was pure and didn't cost an arm and a leg would junkies be stealing to support their habit? Not one person here has said "drugs are great, what we need are more drugs and more drug users" despite your best efforts at putting those words in our mouths, but what has been said is that the worst effect of drugs is the legal system, and you've yet to come up with anything convincing to rebut that.

So, to concisely answer your question (again!), the reason that other governments have not legalized drugs is that it's too damned lucrative for them not to.




Oh, I see the "point" that you're trying to make, it's just wrong and I wont waste my time with it. The gun thing is another thread by the way, though I'll give you fair warning that many people here have made the mistake you're making of trying to drag me off on that particular tangent, and it never turns out well.

Also, I'm way beyond "assault weapons", I'm more about the sterile non-metallic disposable handguns with integral silencers suitable for vending machine sales, I got the prototypes out in the garage, I'll have them in 7-11 next to the Swishers by this time next year.

Dude you just invented a new logical fallacy, ad fluffikins

well guess what? untill i see a country successfully end the war on drugs with anything you guys are proposing it will forever in my mind remain a logical truth

Let's turn this around - do you consider the war on drugs to be, in any way shape or form, to have been successful? By what standard?


M.

not really, but as i've already said just because something doesnt work doesnt mean you should make smoking crack legal. in a perfect world you could go on down to everything legal distributed by the government to sit down to ingest your clean dope. in a perfect world you could leave, go home and not feen for more to look for it, constintley. quitting your job, leaving your family for it. and god knows what else people will do. behave irrationally and on a whim, especially when an addction is involved, have you guys ever watched that show called intervention? on A&E? imagine that everywhere going on at once

Before opium became illegal back in the 1800s many people used it legally and otherwise lived perfectly normal lives. It's the deprivation and the problems of paying exorbitant prices for something your body demands that causes the problems.

because enviroment plays a huge role in drug use. indians are a perfect example of this, you cant legalize crack in modern sociatys because everyone has already grown up with the notion that it's bad and once they get there hands on it will become addicted, beyond belief not being able to handle it because there unfamilar with it

rb, the racial stereotyping is really getting old. What basis do you have to say that 'racial familiarity' with a substance has the effect you describe in dealing with addiction?

And just because something is the status quo doesn't mean it's ok for it to continue without question. I've seen Intervention, and I am fully aware that the issues on that show have -nothing- to with the legal status of the drug but solely with the decisions made by the person choosing to take them.


M.

im not trying to be racist here, but its the truth. i mean how do you think we stole this country from them? we got them drunk. they were unfamiliar with alcohol, and very familar with hullicinagenic plants. same thing applys here, your enviroment determines what you will be abe to handle, and control

No, RB. You're posting your observations as truth, when that is not the case. And I am asking for some sort of proof of the presumption you make on ancestral exposure to psychoactive substances, not an assertion you are right. Native Americans were displaced through any and all means possible... doesn't make it right, doesn't make those actions indicative of another more than the events that took place.


M.

You really need to inform yourself about how the white settlers tricked and massacred the Indians. Your ignorance is appalling.

tricked them using alcohol. and yes i know the indians were brutally massacerd&scatterd. i went to school