NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently I saw one of the more experianced posters lament the fact that NS General has become a place where the same people argue the same tired debates, day in and day out. This post is an attempt to start a real concersation about a serious issue facing the world today: drugs.

I recently read an article by Walter Cronkite in which he argued that prohibition in America has failed(the article can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-cronkite/telling-the-truth-about-t_b_16605.html). The basic thrust of Cronkite's argument is that the war on drugs has become something to expensive, intrusive, and ineffective for Americans to tollerate. Going one step further he makes a plea for donations to the Drug Policy Aliance.

So, here is my question. What do you feel is the proper place of government in the regulation of substances which an individual may consume?

My personal position is that the government has no place in such an arena and that FDA certification of medicine should be a voluntary process rather than a compulsory one.

Libertarian.

But I wouldn't buy a drug that hasn't been vetted.

I believe governments have two options:

1) Complete decriminalisation.

2) Zero tolerance with psychotic penalties.

Anything in between, which is what we usually see, will be ineffective. You have to have the courage to choose one or the other. Both will then work fine in their own way.

as soon as a drug becomes legal it can't be taken back (part of the problem with prohibition) this is the major reason why governments are hesitant to legalise drugs

not to mention the fact that drugs are bad

I believe governments have two options:

1) Complete decriminalisation.

2) Zero tolerance with psychotic penalties.

Anything in between, which is what we usually see, will be ineffective. You have to have the courage to choose one or the other. Both will then work fine in their own way.

I agree with this to an extent, but I don't see #2 as a real option.

You cannot punish crimes in ways that are completely unrelated to the actual crime committed.

Libertarian.

But I wouldn't buy a drug that hasn't been vetted.

agree 101%.

Government control should be aimed at protecting society with as little restriction on freedom as is practical.

I would expect that this would include regulation for instance to ensure that narcotics are are properly labled and come with comprehensive information and complied to standardised quality requirements.

I expect it would also be reasonable for the government to provision for social costs, and to tax narcotics accordingly; any tax levied as a result of the inherent properties of a narcotic should be demonstratably equal (or nearly equal) to actual material costs that arise as a result of the narcotics' use and distribution.

I also believe that like many other privledges, there should be some ability(for the government/state) to place finite restrictions on consumption (with regards to particular people), but only after following a rigorous due-process.

I also believe that since the government/state usually has a particular duty to (and therefore 'interest' in) minors that the government restricts all minors from taking narcotics.

safety is a concern of the govt. "recreational" drugs should be legal but tightly regulated like alcohol and tobacco are. that way adults using them can make informed decisions about risk and dosages.

age requirements (which should start at age 18 for public consumption, 16 for home consumption under parental supervision), public intoxication laws, operating <whatever> under the influence, licensing of sellers, etc should all apply.

I believe governments have two options:

1) Complete decriminalisation.

2) Zero tolerance with psychotic penalties.

Anything in between, which is what we usually see, will be ineffective. You have to have the courage to choose one or the other. Both will then work fine in their own way.

What do you mean by psycotic penalties, do you mean psychotically horrible, or psychotic as in the penalties involve psychology as punishment? :/

What do you mean by psycotic penalties, do you mean psychotically horrible, or psychotic as in the penalties involve psychology as punishment? :/
I mean very harsh, provoking real fear. Sufficiently harsh that even knowing an illegal drug user would make people nervous.

I mean very harsh, provoking real fear. Sufficiently harsh that even knowing an illegal drug user would make people nervous.
:eek: Like being locked up in a cupboard with a Hambeast for a week?:eek: