The case for legalizing drugs

Post Reply New Topic

It was not indented for this purpose - it was indented as a strong pain killer with few side effects. Here heroin has for the medical use still its stand. It is a prescription drug at least in Switzerland, Austria and the UK.



You can only make money if people are willing to pay; this with drug obviously the case. The market for child pornography seems to be much smaller and is already filled. Please don't understand me wrong, when I use here "neutral" language, you need to understand the market conditions for business - legal or illegal.

The drug market is fuelled by extreme high profit margins and an ongoing demand. If this is the case, you will find always on lowest end of the social ladder people which are willing to take this risk. I can't think about any other product or service which will have this parameters to attract new "entrepreneurs", or if so, to let run those a successful business.

A legal drug market, even highly regulated with high prices, will stop this illegal business model.

Cognito, I'd reply in length if your posts had any relevance (they don't) and actually posited anything besides "you guys are dumb, why won't you accept that I'm right about you being dumb?"

Or they could join together on a hillside and sing I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke. Guessing as to what they might do after the illegal drug trade has no bearing on the validity of legalization. Like you said, who knows what they are going to do? I can certainly tell you what they are doing now though, and it's not good.

Maybe, if you care to try, you should answer these questions clearly and rationally, and we can get a better understanding of what your point is exactly.

1) What are the harms that you associate with drugs?

2) What are the causes of these harms?

3) How has prohibition worked to alleviate these harms?

As for the medicinal use of heroin, it acts as a prodrug when administered orally, and is metabolized into morphine (among other things) when it passes through the digestive tract. It is still used today in this capacity, in the UK and possibly other countries as well, and is considered no more dangerous than morphine when administered this way (it effectively is morphine when administered this way).

Edit:

From the first link you provided to prove that heroin was invented to treat opium addiction. The second link is a collection of (questionable) facts, and the third is an op-ed piece AGAINST prohibition.

Once, after I stopped using drugs, and began a lifestyle of vigorous physical activity I called 'trying,' I immediately encountered a rap song on a day I told someone I was 'trying,' in which I heard the lyrics

STOP TRYIN', n***a
STOP TRYIN', n***a
STOP TRYIN', n***a
...

Just recently, I saw an Above the Influence commercial with an African-American sitting in the middle of a basketball court with a ball in his hands. "If you smoke weed, how much of yourself are you leaving behind?"

I can't help but wonder if the incident was due to Above the Influence's jealousy that I was actually able to kick my habit, and that they later wrote that commercial about me. Perhaps they really need to hurl insults at drug users to support their claim that drugs are bad. Otherwise, it would require a bit more thinking, wouldn't it?

My advice to anti-drug awareness programs is to stop stigmatizing and start educating. People could get shot if you call them dorks for using drugs. Instead, why not tell them, "A study was done and it was found that marijuana users taken from a sample of so-and-so of the population were on average likely to have IQs decreased by X points compared to tests taken between the ages of A and B," or, "The number of cocaine-related deaths was found to be X in the year 2007," or anything else of a purely factual nature. But for the sake of happiness, DO NOT CALL THEM DORKS.

Am I the only one who is so easily annoyed by the "Above the Influence" and DARE programs' heavy focus on marijuana use? Couldn't they pick another drug to focus on, like Ecstasy or Meth?

I think the philosophy is that, by attacking the "gateway drug" there will be fewer who move on. Problem is, by sensationalizing the side effects for the better part of a century and not educating on the real risks of harder drugs, it weakens the ability for such organizations to be taken seriously by their target audience. In effect - if they weren't honest to begin with, why should I trust what they have to say on this subject?


M.

Also, marijuana should not be viewed as a gateway drug. In almost every case of hard drug use, the first drugs used were either tobacco or alcohol.