The case for legalizing drugs

Post Reply New Topic

well that seems illogical, the current cat and mouse system is more effective. people are not going to behave a certain way just because something is made legal. example, i have to take classes and only buy my crank at a certain times on the weekend.

First of all, what? How am I a conspiracy theorist? I asked you to point to one time when drugs were legal and crime was higher than today, and this was your response. So no, I don't think the government invented it, I think your point was irrelevant because crack was never legal. Like I said.
Nice ad hominem to avoid all of my points though.


At the very least, would you admit that, by your own logic, people aren't going to act responsibly whether they get their drugs from a dealer or the government? Because I sure would like the tax break that comes with ending a multi billion dollar a year sham, coupled with revenue from a regulated recreational activity. Drugs are rampant in this country now, and educational programs and regulations would certainly improve the chances of avoidance, or at least as reasonably safe use as is possible, over the current heavy handed, lock 'em all up policy we have now, which I assure you is not working either.

This are Act of Congress and Congress could amend those if Congress would introduce such a system or would allow the state to set-up such a system. That's not a matter of law, but of the political will.[/quote]

wow, you know jack s**t about the US law making system. Supreme court ruled that such is highly UNconstional and it IS a matter of law by its very nature. I don't know what fairy land you live in but here in reality, things are quite different. Like communism, is PERFECT on paper but every, and I mean EVERY time its been used as a form of goverment, it has failed. and I have yet to hear any advantages of allowing all harmful drugs to be sold. Dude, think, if this was such an excellent idea, how come NO country has adopted your ludicrous idea?!

so what you are saying, since its already happening, we should just legalize it? Okay, using that logic, since people rape children all over the world, we should legalize it because its gonna happen anyway?

so what you are saying, since its already happening, we should just legalize it? Okay, using that logic, since people rape children all over the world, we should legalize it because its gonna happen anyway?

Raping children automatically implies the harm of another person, and in this especially heinous example, a child. Drug use does not. Especially when the source of the drug is either the government directly or a regulated & authorized retailer and not a gang or drug cartel, who are the cause of most of the violence & crime associated with drug use.

Our current system also offers little help in the way of rehabilitation for harder drugs, other than maybe getting hooked on the legally sanctioned drugs, like methadone. Prison is clearly also not a reliable deterrent to repeated drug use.

Despite my propensity toward liberty, however, there is a great scourge on this nation, that unbelievably IS still legal. It is estimated that 478 out of every 1000 Americans is a user of this great plague,even while it kills 40,000 Americans a year, and people still choose to use it despite there being other means that are widely considered safer. It's use is heavily regulated by the government, requiring you to pass several tests to be considered educated on it's safe usage, and despite a minimum age for usage, many young teens use it anyway, often comitting theft in order to do so, and there are some sensational stories of children as young as TWO using this vile pestilence. It's use is also often associated with the abuse of other legal and illegal drugs, and it's production and use not only consumes vast amounts of resources, but also creates a great deal of pollution every year. Additionally, it is often produced so as to enhance the most fearsome aspects of this affliction for use as a weapon of war! One intermittently popular version was even created by Hitler, and this Nazi creation has recently enjoyed a renewed popularity! And to top it all off, Obama paid for the fiscal mistakes and indiscretions of the biggests producers of this scourge with the most recent round of bailouts! We must ban this terror from our country and we must do it now! BAN THE AUTOMOBILE!

Hope I got my point across. Who says we don't have a sense of humor?

Your choice of wording shows excellence manners.

Anyway: I don't see a reason, why the Supreme Court would declare such a law unconstitutional, or at least an act of congress allowing the states to impose such legislation, as they do in the case of alcohol, which legal, but under certain restrictions.

Further: Even if the USA would have legal difficulties to impose such a law, I do not see such difficulties in other countries. Neither the Canadian constitution or the EU-treaties would forbid such a legislation.



You have such restricted systems for alcohol in different countries those system work quite well - I provided the example of Sweden as the most prominent one.I do not see the point why a system which has a proven records over decades in controlling alcohol should not work with an other drug too.

Last edited by Dussel on 20 Apr 2009, 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

All these drugs mentioned should be completely legalized, and the money currently allocated to the prison system for this "war on drugs" should be diverted to rehabilitation efforts...

So what if more people start taking heroin or cocaine? If they're discreet about it, I couldn't care less... what you do in your own home is your own business and not mine... As for the rest, that means I get their job when they get fired on conduct issues...

My thoughts...

Libertarianism 101 - You have the right to do ANYTHING, so long as it does not directly affect the rights of others. There is a place to draw the line, and that is precisely it.



They are illegal for economic reasons. If this was the reason, tobacco and alcohol would be illegal.



There are no exceptions. Legalize everything.



No. We've already shown it's emotional for you. Common sense supports my conclusion, not yours.



Maybe more people would try marijuana, and that's a big maybe, but that would be negligible imo. It's not like you're gonna have some doctor or lawyer suddenly say "hey, crack is legal! finally I can smoke crack!". Please.



I'm comfortable saying that I have a better grip on the realities of this than you.



You're losing this argument because your position has no feet to stand on. The "you guys are dumb, I'm right, later" tactic shows how weak your argument is.



Seattle? I lived there when they made marijuana their lowest priority. You can see the police chief in one of the LEAP videos.



Then stop stating it as a fact. I thought you were done with this argument...



Yah. I agree they're not the best at regulation, but them regulating and taxing drugs would be infinitely preferable to the current situation.



If you look at the number of people disagreeing with you, and the number of people agreeing with you, I think you'll find where your place is on the reality spectrum.



I would be fine with decriminalization (for a time) because that would be a step in the right direction. However, the goal should be legalization and taxation because we're in economic trouble and this would be a huge bump.



It should be illegal for any employer to drug test an employee. I would be ok with a test for hard drugs, but those generally don't stay in your system very long, so it ends up that you're mostly catching marijuana users. Furthermore, there are a number of ways around the test, so it ends up merely being an affront to the rights of employees that don't use.



It is him being irrational, but assured of his rightness, which is a sure-fire combination for not getting anywhere. At this point in the thread I see him changing his tone somewhat, perhaps realizing no one seems to agree with him.



It's not, but like you said, it's a step in the right direction, regardless of how it came about. While my position is the legalization of all drugs, my reasoning tends to be a step away from punitive measures and toward preventative/educational measures.



Neither do I, however, people already act irresponsibly, and will do so regardless of the legal standing of drugs. You seem to think that legalizing drugs will create more irresponsible people, but I feel that's just plain wrong, in fact I feel the opposite may be true. Legalizing drugs will not suddenly make everyone responsible, but it will allow those that are responsible to engage in the activity of their choosing without fear of legal repercussions.



This is incredibly ignorant. Drugs were totally legal in the past, and they will be in the future. It's only a matter of time (although I agree it will likely be a long time).



This is the regulation bit. There would be age restrictions just as there are with alcohol and tobacco. If the government is the only one selling this product, it will actually be harder for underage kids to get their hands on it.



I never said that. If your arguments are going to revolve around misquoting me, that's fine, I'll correct every single one. I said that treating users with respect and dignity will be more likely to get them on the path of self-respect and self-worth than punishing them will.



You assume that prohibition cut the number of people imbibing alcohol, which is just false.



I suppose the same could (more correctly) be said of you...



I guarantee you don't. Pot is not physically addicting, hence there are no withdrawal symptoms. I should know, I quit smoking a little over a week ago (multi-daily smoker for years).



You first.



You can post the most gruesome photos you like and it's COMPLETELY irrelevant. The reason for this is that legalization will not increase use. It will likely LOWER it. So if you are against the harmful effects of drugs, you should be for legalization.



Big-pharma would have no place in the distribution of drugs. Imo, it should be handled on the federal level by the FDA, and then there should be state-level organizations as well. In tandem with this, there should be private and public consumer-advocacy groups keeping an eye on the regulation process (which would require actual transparency). Transparency is the biggest problem with regulation as it occurs now.



You're not funny. Obviously crack has no medical purpose.



You're right, but as usual, this has no connection to your argument and actually strengthens mine.



No they won't, because it will not be cost-effective. Their product will cost more to produce and will be more expensive to the consumer than the government regulated product.



I have, and that is precisely why I am so vehemently in favor of legalization.



You seem to forget they already CAN go buy PCP.



Your statement is offensive. You are the ignorant person in this thread, not the rest of us rational "ret*d" people.



And trust me that this reason is not because making them illegal reduces harm or use. They are illegal for ECONOMIC reasons.



This is just so weak. You're resorting to blatant lies to try and strengthen your (clearly emotional) position. The more people show you that you are wrong, the more emotional and irrational you become.



Yah, pretty much. I figured posting the video content would be more entertaining for folks reading than just a block of text I wrote. That episode of Penn & Teller BS is awesome, you should watch it. In fact, everyone should watch every episode of that show, it's just so awesome.



Having quit weed, I only dabble in wine occasionally. I am a proponent of civil liberties, so I would be for legalizing drugs even if it increased harm. However, I think the reality of the situation is that it would reduce harm, so I hold this position for pragmatic reasons as well as principled reasons.



If you read all of this, I commend you.



You fail to recognize the reason for that crime. The users needed money because their habit was expensive, so you have property crime. The sellers were making ridiculous money, and naturally, competition arose. Most of the bodies were due to dealers fighting amongst themselves (along with the innocent victims).



I only see two fools in this thread. Everyone else is pretty much awesome.



Probably, yea. You do know about LSD right?



That's because you haven't been listening.



Going back to Libertarianism 101 - Raping children directly violates the child's right to not be raped.


Ok..........In conclusion...There are a lot of smart people on this forum. I'd like to thank those that took the time to repel the weak arguments raised. I have no ill will towards Richard or Cognito, and appreciate them voicing their opinions, even if I think they are ridiculous. Not to be mean, but I did find it humorous how Richard kind of spiraled into an incoherent mess, concluded by a double-post. Well done sir.

*FLEX*

so treating people with dignity and respect when there hooked on drugs will make them quit? amazing thought process, or maybe you need to educate them before they pick the pipe up! jesus. i mean yeah, where's my bigass laugh out loud emoticon here.

you might aswell have said "if all drugs were legal, nobody would become addicted" so my origional statement stands because rehab has been a smashing success i tell you! in prison or out, punishing them makes them use.

most people dont know where to draw the line. especially with addiction and yes i do know people who withdraw from pot. congrats on quitting for a week. hopefully you'll be able to never toke again. if you so choose? i see the bases of most of your argument is on the fact that most people in jail right now are in there for petty marijuana charges. you took one or two things i said and snipped them. not only is it a chore to scroll a long ass way down to read two things you said it hurts my eyes. i never changed my tune, next time quote the whole thing before you accuse me of changing my tune. i think marijuanna should be legal, wich if you go back and read, you will find. what i said was most drugs should remain illegal, especially the hardcore ones. and if you wanted to do them fine, its only a problem if you get caught

and i have news for you,



drug use is not right garenteed by the constitution, and guess what? you can still do them. you just wanna get all mellodramatic about it, much like these people having thier tea partys.

just because you have a majority in this thread doesnt mean your right. infact your theory is untested in any real world scenerio so i hope the beach sand feels great inbetween your thoughts, because thats about as far into reality you really are or have anything you want to happen actually take place

It's more likely than treating them like discarded trash. I am not of the opinion that many users will quit, regardless of the action we take. If you look at hard drug use over an extended time period, you'll see that the % of users doesn't change very much. There are some people we cannot help, no matter the tactic.

There are many elements that result in someone becoming an addict. I would seek to address as many elements as possible. I would encourage honest educational efforts starting at a young age (D.A.R.E. is not honest). I would encourage reforms that provide for social mobility, so those on the bottom rungs of our economic ladder do not feel hopeless. I would encourage prison reforms that remove our current punitive measures (prisons now are basically just training you how to be career criminals). And yes, I would encourage a different approach to dealing with those who are currently addicts.

You seem to think that I am making a simple statement like that which I quoted, but I recognize the complexity of the issue. The simple fact is that our current tactics are not working. Throughout the war on drugs, purity has gone up, price has gone down, and use has remained constant. I hope we can agree that the war on drugs has not been a success. Considering that it has been almost 40 years, I think we should look at other options.

You need to remove your reactionary nature when dealing with this topic. Your family's drug use is of course a tragedy, and I understand why you would want to fight against the concept of hard drug use. You feel that legalizing drugs is the equivalent of giving up, but it's not. We both want to see less hard drug use, I'm sure you can agree with that, but we see different ways of accomplishing that goal. Unfortunately, you are not looking at this with an open mind, and we need an open mind when dealing with these social maladies. Falling back on the same ole-same ole will not work. So what is your suggestion?



I don't understand. Are you saying education regarding hard drug use is a joke? Or are you saying that I am not recognizing the need for education? Neither makes sense to me. Of course we need education, but it must be honest education. If it's just the police coming to schools to tell children blatant lies, the kids are gonna see right through that nonsense. I remember D.A.R.E. as the first place I started resenting police. I actually think D.A.R.E. might encourage kids to rebel against what this police officer is telling them.



I have no idea where you get this.



Your original statement was intellectually dishonest, and it stands as intellectually dishonest. You're not listening, you're just yelling.



I see you're gonna be stubborn about this, but I assure you, you don't. Maybe your friends have told you they experienced withdrawal, but they did not. What is possible is that they had cravings for weed after quitting. But that is mental, not physical.



Thank you for making my statement, which was in response to someone else, seem petty. I just decided I didn't like it anymore, and stopped. It's not some amazing feat, and I was not stating it with any pride, it was just a matter of fact response to someone else's question.



If that is what you see as the basis of my argument, then that demonstrates very poor comprehension skills. The core of my reasoning is personal liberty, I apply the pragmatic bit because I can, as it's a home run.



This is how I reply. I read all of your posts and quoted the bits I wanted to comment on. Unlike what you have done, I never misrepresented anything you said.



No one forced you to read it. Personally, I think my method of reply is much more efficient and effective than your misrepresentation combined with poor spelling and grammatical errors.



It is my opinion that you changed your tone at least twice.



I quote the relevant bits. Anyone can go back and read the entire post. You don't even quote at all, you misquote.



I know you said that, I never stated that you didn't. It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The thread does not refer to the legalization of pot, but of all drugs.



You're right on this. I don't feel I'm right because the majority in this thread agree with me, I feel I'm right because the people making rational and intelligent arguments happen to fall on my side of the fence. Quality over quantity imo. You are of course, free to develop an intelligent argument, but you haven't done so yet.



In looking at recent history, you are correct. If you go farther back in history, there are plenty of cases of civilizations with no equivalent to today's drug laws. However, I agree that a current model is necessary.

But this works both ways. There is not a model to support my position, but there is also not a model for you to disagree with my position.



Is that supposed to be a sentence?

Edit for your edit...



The Constitution is great, but it is not where I derive my sense of personal liberty. It doesn't matter that drug use is not guaranteed in the Constitution, it's still a personal right. If there is a law saying it is not my right, that is an unjust law.



I actually laughed at this. You realize that you're the one being melodramatic right?

your absolutley right dude. i should have stopped talking to you when i said i was finished, but now i am.
and for what its worth i actually think i've improved my spelling and grammical skills since being here

Anyone has under all circumstance the unalienable right to get treated with dignity and respect - at least this is law in within the European Union:



The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2000/C 364/01



Most people know to draw the line - otherwise we would have societies full of alcoholics. This is also the case with hard drugs. The junky in the media is the exception of the drug user. The majority of drug users, and I do include explicit the hard drugs, are relative normal people with jobs, family etc. which use drugs on special occasions. But those do make the big headline in the newspapers and are mostly undisturbed by the police (at least this seems to be case here in the UK) do get into the the common picture of the drug user.

that's all good but I want to hear what Teller has to say on the matter

dude, you are 100% talking out of your ass. Have you ever seen someone addicted to drugs? I doubt it. Come over here and I will gladly show you what happens. You are naive and have no clue about reality! your argument is as follows "If we make it legal, all the bad drug related problems will magically vainish!" As for your argument that tobacco and alcohol are regulated, as I said, kids come into school DRUNK! that means they got around it. And saying that no will make meth labs because they aren't cost effective, you clearly have no idea about human behavior. I promise you people will claim the goverment is putting something in the goverment regulated drugs. And as for suggesting its easy to get drug laws passed in the US, you have no f*****g idea about the USA legal and legislative system! So before you try and fail on lecrturing about the law making process, go to your library and pick up a book on the US legislative and Judicail process. Then go look up the US constitution. To those saying all drugs should be legal, go to child welfare services and ask them what kind of childhood a kid has when he grows up with a crack addicted parent. You have never seen the devastation drugs yield. The arguement that simply passing a law will make everything alright is 100% naive and nonsensical!

I'm not even going to read all this... I've read it all so many times on so many other topics.

To me, it's an incredibly simple question: do you believe in freedom, or do you believe in dictatorship?