NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading the "Mexico to legalize [Insert name of drug here]" OP, I thought of something. Would legalizing drugs actually help the economy? Here's a short essay for you.

Many would say that by legalizing drugs, people would just blow all thier money on drugs, which are very expensive. The only reason they are so expensive is because of the simple fact that they ARE illegal. When prohibition struck in the 20's, the price of alcohal went up considerably, as it was now a risky business to manufacture and sell it. When it was legalized again, the price went down as it could now be sold freely again. The same will happen with drugs.

Concerning the fact that drugs are a hot commodity, they would sell by the hundreds. There would be absolutely NO problem in trying to sell the drugs. So there will be little or no marketing cost.

The process of making drugs is actually very cheap. To make marjiuana, all you have to do is grow the stalk, take off the leaves, grind it, and roll it up. Not that costly is it? So there would be little production cost as well.

We are spending so much money fighting the war on drugs, it is only taxing the federal reserve more. Also, we cannot tax drugs if they are illegal. We can if they are. And finally (for this paragraph), making drugs illegal increases the crime rate.

'Nuff said.

Yeap. Quite simple, really. We spend vast amounts of tax dollars on fighting the 'war on drugs.' Strike 1. Currently, all the money being made in illegal drugs is (by definition) in the black market, which is not taxed. Strike 2. And of course, drugs being illegal means they have a higher price and incourages criminals to commit more crimes to gain/defend their share of that market. Strike 3.

Agreed.

Problem is, few people are anti-drug for reasons to do with the economy. They're anti-drug because they tend towards moral authoritarianism and don't want anyone else doing drugs or having fun. ;)

If you support keeping drugs illegal (http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html):

You support robberies and assaults on innocent people.
The high prices of drugs caused by prohibition force many drug addicts to turn to robbery in order to pay for their drugs. Legalization would drop drug prices. Drug users would no longer need to rob/assault innocent people in order to support their drug habit. This violence against innocent people would end if drugs were legalized.

You support clogging our prisons and jails with nonviolent people.
Nearly 50% of all people in prison and jail are serving time for nonviolent drug charges. There are thousands of people in prisons for 5, 10, 50 years--even life--for possessing marijuana or cocaine! The average rapist is set free after serving only 3 years in prison, the average murderer is set free after serving only 9 years in prison! To house just one prisoner for one year costs the taxpayer $40,000! The result of these harsh penalties? Drug use has increased! (Tough laws have not stopped me from using marijuana--nor will they ever!)

You support organized crime and drug cartels.
Huge drug cartels and criminal organizations thrive off the enormous profits caused by drug prohibition. These organizations are responsible for thousands of murders! Many of people killed or hurt are innocent people who get in the way! These violent organizations will never be put out of business--unless drugs are legalized.

You support environmental destruction.
Underground cocaine and methamphetamine labs use toxic chemicals to produce those drugs--the wastes are recklessly dumped in forests and streams. These highly toxic chemicals are causing major environmental damage in South American rainforests and now in the U.S. This environmental destruction will stop only if drugs are legalized.

You support drug dealers and street gangs.
Drug dealers and street gangs fight over drug territories. Thousands of people are murdered and assaulted because of this fighting--many are innocent people who get in the way. This violence is another result of the huge profits caused by drug prohibition.

You lure thousands of young people into quitting school.
It is a fact that thousands of inner-city youths drop out of school to make enormous profits by selling drugs. The incentive to drop out of school would end if drugs were legalized.

You do nothing to keep drugs away from kids or out of schools.
In spite of what you may believe, keeping drugs illegal does not keep drugs away from children! Drugs are easily obtainable in almost every high school in America. Legalizing drugs would put schoolyard drug dealers out of business! There would be less drugs in our schools if drugs were legalized. Drugs would still be illegal for minors!

You subsidize criminals by letting them reap huge drug profits without paying taxes.
Since drugs are sold anyway, wouldn’t you rather have them heavily taxed so it would reduce your tax burden? You are giving criminals a free ride and it’s coming out of your own pocket. Working people pay 100% of all taxes for the drug dealers! Why do you want to pay taxes for drug dealers?

You advocate punishing millions of harmless drug users (like me) at an enormous cost to society.
If you believe drugs should be illegal, then you advocate spending your tax dollars to arrest/jail/punish millions of productive, honest, and harmless working people (like myself). Why? We hurt nobody! Who benefits from this policy? Nobody! Who loses from this policy? Everybody!

Drug users can only hurt themselves. But the drug war harms/kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and burdens you--the taxpayer. The drug war costs you hundreds of dollars every year! The drug war has not reduced drug use!

Prohibitionists claim drugs must be illegal because they harm people. Why are prohibitionists so concerned about what other people do to themselves? Why do they feel it is their responsibility and right to control the lifestyles of other adults? The prohibitionists tell stories of people who hurt themselves with illegal drugs. So what? For every one person who has been harmed with illegal drugs, there are dozens of people who have used illegal drugs and were not harmed. For every one person who has been harmed by illegal drugs, there are 1,000 people who harm/kill themselves by deliberately choosing these harmful lifestyles...

* Being overweight
* Smoking cigarettes
* Watching too much TV
* Eating high-fat/high-cholesterol diets
* Eating too much meat
* Participating in dangerous sports/activities
* Drinking alcohol
* Eating too much sugar
* Eating too few fruits/vegetables
* Drinking too much coffee
* Getting little/no exercise

Why don’t the prohibitionists advocate banning all of the above harmful lifestyles? The prohibitionists tolerate people who hurt/kill themselves with tobacco, alcohol, poor diet, or no exercise, but they refuse to tolerate people who harm themselves with cocaine. Why? Inconsistent! Illogical! Irrational!

We now come to the real reason why marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and other drugs are illegal: Lifestyle control! Prohibitionists fear that if drugs are legalized, the “drug culture” will spread to the rest of society. Nobody can force others to use drugs! Adults must take responsibility for their own health! Because the prohibitionists have decided that drugs are wrong for them does not give them the right to force their lifestyle on others. Prohibitionists want government to play the role of parent. Prohibitionists believe they must babysit adults. Prohibitionists are the lifestyle police!

In the last 25 years, per capita alcohol and tobacco consumption has decreased significantly. This was accomplished by education and treatment, not by threat of punishment! Drug use/abuse would drop significantly if we spent our resources on education and treatment instead of law enforcement. No rational person would call for imprisonment of smokers and drinkers in order to reduce tobacco and alcohol use. But that method is exactly how we try to reduce drug use. The savings to be had in ending the drug war could easily pay for all the drug treatment and education programs we need. The drug war is a failure! Education and treatment work!

If you don’t like a culture or a lifestyle, don’t live it! If you don’t like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or other drugs, don’t use them! But don’t ban my personal lifestyle for fear it will poison your lifestyle. Adults must take responsibility for their own actions! It is a flagrant violation of individual freedom to threaten others with punishment just because they choose a lifestyle that is not right for you.

I will continue to smoke marijuana and enjoy it! I hurt nobody! If others do not approve of what I do to myself in my own home, too bad! I may not care for the music you listen to, the food you eat, or the culture you have adopted, but I would never advocate punishing you because I don’t like your lifestyle. If someone violates the rights of others, the violater should be punished; otherwise, people should mind their own business. Adults who use drugs responsibly--whether they be tobacco, alcohol, LSD, or marijuana--cause no harm to others! Leave us alone!

If you still believe drugs should be illegal, answer this question... Why do you believe it is good policy to punish me--and 20 million adult Americans like me--because I choose to use marijuana in the privacy of my own home? Who benefits from this policy and how do they benefit?

Total cost of drug prohibition

* Over 300,000 nonviolent people lose their freedom to prison/jail.
* Thousands of murders, assaults, and robberies caused by drug crimes.
* $20 billion/year in law enforcement costs.
* $10 billion/year in lost tax revenue (similar to alcohol tax).
* $5 billion/year in property losses due to drug-related crimes.
* $50 billion/year and 500,000 jobs lost because of no hemp industry.

Total cost = $85 billion/year = $500 per taxpayer every year!

mmk... yes the cost of drugs would go down,,,but they would tax the crap out of them,..and ppl who are addicted and cant help themselfs would go and blow all there money on buying a shitload of drugs, just b/c it is ok to do so now....also..by legalizing drugs you are going to have a bunch of stoned/high ppl walking down the street,,,,and thirdly and my final point... anyone who argues "well alcohals legal,, why shouldnt drugs be" heres why,,, you can drink alcohol in moderation..when you drink it is not always to get drunk, people have wine with there meals..because they like it,,, it is not to get drunk. What is the only reason behind smoking a joint?...to get high,,,mmk im done

$85,000,000,000 a year is a SMALL price to pay to ensure that drugs are purchased at SCHOOLS, not MARKETS!

mmk... yes the cost of drugs would go down,,,but they would tax the crap out of them

I expect them to tax them - that is a good thing.

,..and ppl who are addicted and cant help themselfs would go and blow all there money on buying a shitload of drugs, just b/c it is ok to do so now....

Just like alcoholics cant help themselves and spend all their money on a shitload of alcohol just because drinking is ok?

also..by legalizing drugs you are going to have a bunch of stoned/high ppl walking down the street

Just like how we have a bunch of drunk people walkign down the street?

btw, what if we did have a bunch of high people walking down the street? chaos? no, more like people smiling at each other as they giggle with reddened eyes.

,,,,and thirdly and my final point... anyone who argues "well alcohals legal,, why shouldnt drugs be" heres why,,, you can drink alcohol in moderation..when you drink it is not always to get drunk, people have wine with there meals..because they like it,,, it is not to get drunk. What is the only reason behind smoking a joint?...to get high,,,mmk im done

You can smoke pot in moderation too. There are different levels of highness liek there are different levels of drunkenness. You can catch a small buzz or get stoned/drunk out of your mind. Whats wrong with getting high?

$85,000,000,000 a year is a SMALL price to pay to ensure that drugs are purchased at SCHOOLS, not MARKETS!


Hmm, you make a good point. it is nice to have illegal drugs so readily available at the local school. Plus dealers are often likely to make deliveries.

mmk... yes the cost of drugs would go down,,,but they would tax the crap out of them,..and ppl who are addicted and cant help themselfs would go and blow all there money on buying a shitload of drugs, just b/c it is ok to do so now....also..by legalizing drugs you are going to have a bunch of stoned/high ppl walking down the street,,,,and thirdly and my final point... anyone who argues "well alcohals legal,, why shouldnt drugs be" heres why,,, you can drink alcohol in moderation..when you drink it is not always to get drunk, people have wine with there meals..because they like it,,, it is not to get drunk. What is the only reason behind smoking a joint?...to get high,,,mmk im done
Go away n00b. You don't have the ability to debate well. Why? For one, you are inexperienced (Fuck I think I actually spelt that wrong...) as a poster. Hang out in the silly threads. Then come to the serious debating. For two (wtf?), you have bad grammar, spelling, and l33t issues. We cannot understand you if you have grammar, spelling, and l33t issues. Therefore we ignore you, destroying your original purpose.

Go away n00b. You don't have the ability to debate well. Why? For one, you are inexperienced (Fuck I think I actually spelt that wrong...) as a poster. Hang out in the silly threads. Then come to the serious debating. For two (wtf?), you have bad grammar, spelling, and l33t issues. We cannot understand you if you have grammar, spelling, and l33t issues. Therefore we ignore you, destroying your original purpose.

This post amuses me greatly.

While I agree that drugs should be legalized, I am not entirely alright with the idea. Although I think that drugs are more harmful than other pro-legalization people say they are, I think that there is more benefit in breaking up the organized crime than there is in continuing to fight them. Plus, it's not my business what you do to yourself, just as long as you don't violate the principles of life, liberty and the product of life and liberty, property. Statistically speaking, alcohol use went down during prohibition- its just that crime spiralled out of control. I am worried mainly about A.) the burden on healthcare (though I suppose it's already there what with the crime and addiction, so the increase might not be too severe), B.) an increase in drug use (supply creates its own demand, after all- especially when prices drop significantly), and C.) the effects of a drug lobby (we have enough bullshit with tobacco taxes and subsidies and tax burdens and corporate welfare and all that crap- I don't want more of it.)

Let's give the newbie a chance.
mmk... yes the cost of drugs would go down,,,but they would tax the crap out of them,..and ppl who are addicted and cant help themselfs would go and blow all there money on buying a shitload of drugs, just b/c it is ok to do so now....also..by legalizing drugs you are going to have a bunch of stoned/high ppl walking down the street,,,,and thirdly and my final point... anyone who argues "well alcohals legal,, why shouldnt drugs be" heres why,,, you can drink alcohol in moderation..when you drink it is not always to get drunk, people have wine with there meals..because they like it,,, it is not to get drunk. What is the only reason behind smoking a joint?...to get high,,,mmk im done

I am in favour of decriminalizing drugs, not legalizing them. That is they can't be advertised and sold like coffee. They would be available if people really wanted them, but their use would not be encouraged so we are unlikely to end up with a great deal more drug use than we have now. Quite possibly less. And although alcohol is legal here, being drunk and disorderly is not legal and so being stoned and disorderly would also be illegal. Since being stoned and orderly is not a problem that would not be punished.

Go away n00b. You don't have the ability to debate well. Why? For one, you are inexperienced (Fuck I think I actually spelt that wrong...) as a poster. Hang out in the silly threads. Then come to the serious debating. For two (wtf?), you have bad grammar, spelling, and l33t issues. We cannot understand you if you have grammar, spelling, and l33t issues. Therefore we ignore you, destroying your original purpose.

Bwahaha! Someone's made his ranking "High and Mighty" hasn't he?

It would be a help to the economy, especially if the government imposed a SINtax on them (like they do on ciggys up here). It would, however, still have to remain illegal for drugs to be peddled on the black market-tax free. And the government I'm sure would put age restrictions on it.

It would be a help to the economy, especially if the government imposed a SINtax on them (like they do on ciggys up here). It would, however, still have to remain illegal for drugs to be peddled on the black market-tax free. And the government I'm sure would put age restrictions on it.

If the sin tax wasn't too high then drugs wouldn't be peddled on the black market as it wouldn't be worth it. (In Australia at least there is a high tax on cigarettes but extremely little black market trading) Age restrictions just creates a black market for kids. I guess you'd have to weigh the cost and benefits of that. Personally I'm all for discouraging kids from taking drugs, I'm just not sure what's the best way to go about it. Maybe make them take a test on the health effects of drugs before they are allowed to buy some? Or they are only allowed to buy dope if they finish all their homework. Yeah, that might be the way to go. If you stuff up in school, no dope for you.

Crack down on the domestic part of it and the cartels instead of the growers. The best thing would be to show the growers more economical, fair, and eco-friendly things to grow such as those tagua nut things.

Well, my general belief is that you should do whatever the hell you want to yourself, just don't expect me to pay for it. Get rid of all welfare, foodstamps, etc., then it may be a good idea.

Of course, don't quote me on this, as I am no expert on this subject.

I was considering this topic for my dissertation. A tad bit risky and controversial in my professors opinion, so will probably go with something relating to oil.

Ideally, all drugs should be banned. But it's too late for tobacco, and FAR too late for alcohol. Why introduce new ones? People have the right to harm themselves, but why would you WANT to?

Ideally, all drugs should be banned. But it's too late for tobacco, and FAR too late for alcohol. Why introduce new ones? People have the right to harm themselves, but why would you WANT to?

Does it matter why I want to? If I want to hurt myself with a particular drug, why can't I? What sense does it make to allow certain people to poison themselves in their preferred manner, but not others?

Does it matter why I want to? If I want to hurt myself with a particular drug, why can't I? What sense does it make to allow certain people to poison themselves in their preferred manner, but not others?

I just don't want drugs legalised. If you want to kill yourself, either drink 50 shots of vodka, smoke 100 packs of cigarettes, or drink paint thinner. Those are your options. Why expand them?

I just don't want drugs legalised. If you want to kill yourself, either drink 50 shots of vodka, smoke 100 packs of cigarettes, or drink paint thinner. Those are your options. Why expand them?

Because I want to. What you want is irrelevant to me. Unless you can come up with an objective reason why my options should be limited to the above three, keep your nose out of my preferred manner of death.

No. Why let people suffer because you want to take drugs? If you want to die, we'll gladly put a bullet in your head.

No. Why let people suffer because you want to take drugs? If you want to die, we'll gladly put a bullet in your head.

Who is suffering because I want to take drugs besides me, myself, and I?

Who is suffering because I want to take drugs besides me, myself, and I?

We don't make laws for one person. Either we let you have your drugs, and lots of other people can have sucky lives too, or we keep them banned.

We don't make laws for one person. Either we let you have your drugs, and lots of other people can have sucky lives too, or we keep them banned.

Who is forcing them to take drugs? If they don't want to take drugs, they don't have to. If they want to take drugs and have sucky lives, who are you to say they can't do that?

would employ thousands and give the US a better position in Latin American foreign policy.

And, if both the receivers (US) and producers (Colombia, Bolivia, etc) legalized it, it could help those countries escape heir economic slump.

Who is forcing them to take drugs? If they don't want to take drugs, they don't have to. If they want to take drugs and have sucky lives, who are you to say they can't do that?

Well, people are idiots. It's the same reason we have speed limits and gun registration.

Well, people are idiots. It's the same reason we have speed limits and gun registration.

No, it's not. We have those things because irresponsibly driving or using a gun can have an adverse effect on another person's health besides the person acting like an idiot. Using drugs irresponsibly only harms the one making the dumb choice.

No, it's not. We have those things because irresponsibly driving or using a gun can have an adverse effect on another person's health besides the person acting like an idiot. Using drugs irresponsibly only harms the one making the dumb choice.

There is such thing as peer pressure, you know. Idiots will spread drugs to other idiots.

There is such thing as peer pressure, you know. Idiots will spread drugs to other idiots.

Then we should outright ban alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.

Then we should outright ban alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.

Well, we'd like to, but they're just too damn ingrained. It'd be like banning cars, or television.

Well, we'd like to, but they're just too damn ingrained. It'd be like banning cars, or television.

That's an excuse, not a reason. If you're going to ban people from using things on this whole "public health" ego-trip, then you have to apply it universally to everything, or admit you're a giant hypocrite.

That's an excuse, not a reason. If you're going to ban people from using things on this whole "public health" ego-trip, then you have to apply it universally to everything, or admit you're a giant hypocrite.

Well, unfortunately for you, I'd say most people are hypocrites, just like me.

There is such thing as peer pressure, you know. Idiots will spread drugs to other idiots.

How is that not their fault?

In any case, drugs can be used without being abused, and many drugs have negligible health effects. Forget the propaganda you've learned in school. People can abuse drugs, but it is completely dependent on their personal situation. I know someone who has used cocaine, amphetamines, tobacco, alchohol, marijuana, salvia, caffine, valium, LSD, and many other drugs and he is probably the most ambitious, competent, and responsible individual I know. I know another person who has tried probably half those drugs, probably consumes about a quarter as much of them, and has completely ruined his life through them. That's his fault and his responsibility. Why should we deny responsible people the use of drugs for pleasure and experiment just because foolish people have abused them? And that's not even considering the terrible costs of the War on Drugs, which are themselves enough reason to end the whole affair.

This isn't a matter of saving people from drugs, it's a matter of protecting stupid people from the consequences of their failures. That is the surest way of creating more failure.

I guess people who want to ban all drugs do not believe in personal responsibility

If you support keeping drugs illegal (http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html):

Bull.
I could just as easily come up with a list of crap like, "If you support the legalization of drugs, then you support automobile fatalities, overdoses, crack babies, blah, blah, blah, all of which costs 150 gazillion dollars."
But that doesn't make it so.

Bull.
I could just as easily come up with a list of crap like, "If you support the legalization of drugs, then you support automobile fatalities, overdoses, crack babies, blah, blah, blah, all of which costs 150 gazillion dollars."
But that doesn't make it so.


Not bull - it's a fact that keeping drugs illegal creates a highly profitable, highly violent black-market for these products... and the war against them has proven to be ineffective against it, as can be easily demonstrated by the fact that it's so easy to get whatever drug you want practically wherever you are.

I remember in high school it was so much easier to get weed, speed, lsd and the like, than it was to get alcohol.

And if you can come up with a list so easily do it... or at least try to refute the points presented as false. Otherwise your "bull" is worthless.

After reading the "Mexico to legalize [Insert name of drug here]" OP, I thought of something. Would legalizing drugs actually help the economy? Here's a short essay for you.

Many would say that by legalizing drugs, people would just blow all thier money on drugs, which are very expensive. The only reason they are so expensive is because of the simple fact that they ARE illegal.

Actually, the reason that drugs are so expensive is because people are willing to pay that much for them. A good part of this may be due to the illegal nature of the business diminishing supply, but it's not like there aren't plenty of expensive legal drugs.

When prohibition struck in the 20's, the price of alcohal went up considerably, as it was now a risky business to manufacture and sell it. When it was legalized again, the price went down as it could now be sold freely again. The same will happen with drugs.

And drugs will become just as popular as alcohol.
Seeing the problems caused by alcohol, this doesn't make me too entheusiastic about the notion.

Concerning the fact that drugs are a hot commodity, they would sell by the hundreds. There would be absolutely NO problem in trying to sell the drugs. So there will be little or no marketing cost.

You'd think. Yet tobacco and alcohol companies could make the same claim, yet they spend considerable money advertising.

The process of making drugs is actually very cheap. To make marjiuana, all you have to do is grow the stalk, take off the leaves, grind it, and roll it up. Not that costly is it? So there would be little production cost as well.

Agreed. Although filters would be nice.

We are spending so much money fighting the war on drugs, it is only taxing the federal reserve more. Also, we cannot tax drugs if they are illegal. We can if they are. And finally (for this paragraph), making drugs illegal increases the crime rate.

'Nuff said.

You can't tax illegal drugs*, but you can make money off of fines and tickets. All the benefits of taxing, without having to legalize it.


(*actually, you CAN, but that's another issue)

Bull.
I could just as easily come up with a list of crap like, "If you support the legalization of drugs, then you support automobile fatalities, overdoses, crack babies, blah, blah, blah, all of which costs 150 gazillion dollars."
But that doesn't make it so.

Compare the Netherlands to the U.S.A. There definitely seems to be advantages.

Then we should outright ban alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.

When's the last time that you saw caffeine cause any serious problems for anybody?

Not bull - it's a fact that keeping drugs illegal creates a highly profitable, highly violent black-market for these products... and the war against them has proven to be ineffective against it, as can be easily demonstrated by the fact that it's so easy to get whatever drug you want practically wherever you are.

And you expect the black market to dissappear if we legalize drugs?
They'd just shift to something else, like they did when prohibition ended.

I remember in high school it was so much easier to get weed, speed, lsd and the like, than it was to get alcohol.

And if you can come up with a list so easily do it... or at least try to refute the points presented as false. Otherwise your "bull" is worthless.

I did refute it. I pointed out that it was bull, and why.

Compare the Netherlands to the U.S.A. There definitely seems to be advantages.

Such as?

When's the last time that you saw caffeine cause any serious problems for anybody?

http://www.teeccino.com/weightloss.aspx

and personally I was having issues with my circulation after having something with caffine in it so I had to give it up.

And you expect the black market to dissappear if we legalize drugs?
They'd just shift to something else, like they did when prohibition ended.



I did refute it. I pointed out that it was bull, and why.

the black market for illegal drugs will dissapear. yes. why wouldnt it if there is no longer money to be made on the black market with it? I guess you didnt read the long list of facts that I posted.

You didnt refute shit. you said something about crack babies beign the fault of drugs (I guess you dont believe in personal responsibility - do you also blame guns for killing people?) and how it costs an amount of money that doesnt exist. maybe you could post some facts?

In my experience, caffeine is addicting, and a large part of the population uses it. A stoned driver may be dumber (possibly) but he will also be more cautious. A guy pumped up on coffee is more likely to get pissed off (higher irritability) in traffic and probably more likely to speed. As a stimulant, it will contribute to factors of heart disease, currently the #1 killer in the country. Most people do not even consider it a "drug," however, and there is no anti-caffeine lobby, so no one gives a shit.

the black market for illegal drugs will dissapear. yes. why wouldnt it if there is no longer money to be made on the black market with it? I guess you didnt read the long list of facts that I posted.

For the same reason why it didn't disappear when alcohol was legalized again.
Unless you legalize EVERYTHING, then there will always be a black market. The same people who have been pushing drugs aren't suddenly going to decide to flip burgers at McDonalds; they're simply going to find the next illegal thing that people are willing to pay for.

You didnt refute shit. you said something about crack babies beign the fault of drugs (I guess you dont believe in personal responsibility - do you also blame guns for killing people?) and how it costs an amount of money that doesnt exist. maybe you could post some facts?

Fact: Your post was a load of bull.

You are trying to pull the "personal responsibility" gag now, after trying to say that supporting the illegalization of drugs means that you support all the violent crime associated with it? That's a laugh.
I'm all for personal responsibility, which is why I think that criminals should be held responsible for their own actions, and that the responsibility shouldn't be shoved off onto other people's shoulders.

Fact: You're being hypocritical.

In my experience, caffeine is addicting, and a large part of the population uses it. A stoned driver may be dumber (possibly) but he will also be more cautious. A guy pumped up on coffee is more likely to get pissed off (higher irritability) in traffic and probably more likely to speed. As a stimulant, it will contribute to factors of heart disease, currently the #1 killer in the country. Most people do not even consider it a "drug," however, and there is no anti-caffeine lobby, so no one gives a shit.

Okay. I'll buy that, to an extent.

http://www.teeccino.com/weightloss.aspx

and personally I was having issues with my circulation after having something with caffine in it so I had to give it up.

I hadn't even thought of the weight-loss angle. I'll agree that taking caffine to lose weight is a bad, bad plan.

Okay. I'll buy that, to an extent.

So you could see how it would be consistent to ban caffeine (and tobacco and alcohol, since they're obviously even worse), if you're gonna support a ban on other drugs based on health/safety reasons?

So you could see how it would be consistent to ban caffeine (and tobacco and alcohol, since they're obviously even worse), if you're gonna support a ban on other drugs based on health/safety reasons?

I don't think that caffeine needs to be banned, just regulated more.
But overall, hell yes I support a ban on other drugs based on health/safety reasons.
Just because one harmful thing is legal (or a few harmful things) doesn't mean that all harmful things need to be legal.

I guess you didnt read the long list of facts that I posted.

From the article?
I already summed up my response. Here's the long version, if you like.

You support robberies and assaults on innocent people.
The high prices of drugs caused by prohibition force many drug addicts to turn to robbery in order to pay for their drugs. Legalization would drop drug prices. Drug users would no longer need to rob/assault innocent people in order to support their drug habit. This violence against innocent people would end if drugs were legalized.

Nobody's ever stolen money to buy booze, or food, or clothing, or smokes, or anything else that's relatively cheap and legal?
I don't buy it.

Another way to end the violence would be if everybody opposed drugs and didn't sell them or take them or encourage other people to. If everybody united against drugs, then the violence would also end.
So, by the same logic used above, if you have ever used an illegal drug, or sold them, or seen somebody use them and not reported it, then you're "supporting robberies and assaults on innocent people."

You support clogging our prisons and jails with nonviolent people.
Nearly 50% of all people in prison and jail are serving time for nonviolent drug charges.

Source on that statistic?

There are thousands of people in prisons for 5, 10, 50 years--even life--for possessing marijuana or cocaine!

Source?

The average rapist is set free after serving only 3 years in prison, the average murderer is set free after serving only 9 years in prison!

Source?

To house just one prisoner for one year costs the taxpayer $40,000!

Source?

The result of these harsh penalties? Drug use has increased!

Source?

(Tough laws have not stopped me from using marijuana--nor will they ever!)

Obviously.

You support organized crime and drug cartels.
Huge drug cartels and criminal organizations thrive off the enormous profits caused by drug prohibition. These organizations are responsible for thousands of murders! Many of people killed or hurt are innocent people who get in the way! These violent organizations will never be put out of business--unless drugs are legalized.

1. Uh, no. Large criminal organizations won't simply retire if drugs are legalized. They'll either turn to other illegal activities to pay the bills, or they'll stay in the same business legally (with a strong illegal side to things).
2. It's just as valid to argue that anybody who buys illegal drugs supports organized crime and drug cartels. More valid, really, since you're directly paying them money to support them.

You support environmental destruction.
Underground cocaine and methamphetamine labs use toxic chemicals to produce those drugs--the wastes are recklessly dumped in forests and streams. These highly toxic chemicals are causing major environmental damage in South American rainforests and now in the U.S. This environmental destruction will stop only if drugs are legalized.

'Cause legal comanies never cause pollution?
That's laughable.

You support drug dealers and street gangs.
Drug dealers and street gangs fight over drug territories. Thousands of people are murdered and assaulted because of this fighting--many are innocent people who get in the way. This violence is another result of the huge profits caused by drug prohibition.

See above response on organized crime.

You lure thousands of young people into quitting school.
It is a fact that thousands of inner-city youths drop out of school to make enormous profits by selling drugs. The incentive to drop out of school would end if drugs were legalized.

And hey, if theft were legalized then we'd all get free stuff!!

Seriously, once again the argument applies to drug users. Nobody buys drugs, then nobody gets paid to sell them, and nobody drops out to sell drugs.

You do nothing to keep drugs away from kids or out of schools.
In spite of what you may believe, keeping drugs illegal does not keep drugs away from children! Drugs are easily obtainable in almost every high school in America. Legalizing drugs would put schoolyard drug dealers out of business! There would be less drugs in our schools if drugs were legalized. Drugs would still be illegal for minors!

Like cigarettes.
Yeah, that's effective. No cigarettes floating around schools. I remember when I was in high school (and grade school), all the kids that wanted smokes couldn't get them. 'Cause they were legal, and everything. :rolleyes:

You subsidize criminals by letting them reap huge drug profits without paying taxes.
Since drugs are sold anyway, wouldn’t you rather have them heavily taxed so it would reduce your tax burden? You are giving criminals a free ride and it’s coming out of your own pocket. Working people pay 100% of all taxes for the drug dealers! Why do you want to pay taxes for drug dealers?

Nope.
Fines and tickets bring in money too.

You advocate punishing millions of harmless drug users (like me) at an enormous cost to society.

You're already costing society enormously as it is.
By supporting gangs, organized crime, and drug cartels, for example.

If you believe drugs should be illegal, then you advocate spending your tax dollars to arrest/jail/punish millions of productive, honest, and harmless working people (like myself).

Millions? What's your source on that?

Why? We hurt nobody!

Actually, drugs do hurt people. People who use them, people who know users, and society as a whole.

Who benefits from this policy? Nobody! Who loses from this policy? Everybody!

Drug users can only hurt themselves.

Or people who get in the way of the druggies' cars.
Or who get otherwise injured or killed by the carelessness and impaired abilities of people who are on drugs.
Or babies whose mothers smoked too much crack (or, for that matter, nicotine) and who suffer genetic damage.
Or people who get injured from some freak on a PCP rampage, or a coke-head with a gun, or any of the other ways that drugs can screw up your mind enough to make you dangerous.

But the drug war harms/kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and burdens you--the taxpayer. The drug war costs you hundreds of dollars every year! The drug war has not reduced drug use!

Good thought. Now let's solve the war on terrorism by giving in to every terrorist demand. That way, they won't kill or harm anybody anymore, and we'll all live happily ever after.

Prohibitionists claim drugs must be illegal because they harm people. Why are prohibitionists so concerned about what other people do to themselves?

Because burnouts are a drain on society.
And, of course, because druggies don't just hurt themselves.

Why do they feel it is their responsibility and right to control the lifestyles of other adults?

For the same reason that we feel it is our responsibility to see that thieves and murderers have to go to jail, even though it might hamper their lifestyle.
Some lifestyles are harmful, and since we're some of the people being harmed, we get to have a say in it.

The prohibitionists tell stories of people who hurt themselves with illegal drugs. So what? For every one person who has been harmed with illegal drugs, there are dozens of people who have used illegal drugs and were not harmed.

Source?

For every one person who has been harmed by illegal drugs, there are 1,000 people who harm/kill themselves by deliberately choosing these harmful lifestyles...

Source?

* Being overweight
Yup. But they're not too much of a drain on society.
Still, it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

* Smoking cigarettes

Nicotine is a drug. It just slipped through.
I'd just as soon it was illegal.

* Watching too much TV

This is fatal?
Or even harmful?

Too much of anything can be, I suppose. But television provides society with a lot of good, more than enough to outweigh the harm.
Recreational drugs do not.

* Eating high-fat/high-cholesterol diets

Same as "overweight" above.

* Eating too much meat

How many times are you going to try to list "poor diet" as seperate categories?

* Participating in dangerous sports/activities

Most sports provide more good than harm.
Russian Roulette, on the other hand, is illegal most places.

* Drinking alcohol

See smoking.

* Eating too much sugar
* Eating too few fruits/vegetables

Both of these are "diet" again.

* Drinking too much coffee

I agree that caffine needs more monitoring and warning lables.

* Getting little/no exercise

I don't know of anybody who's died from this.
As for harm, it would do more harm to try to force everybody to exercise than to leave them to their own choice in the matter.

Why don’t the prohibitionists advocate banning all of the above harmful lifestyles? The prohibitionists tolerate people who hurt/kill themselves with tobacco, alcohol, poor diet, or no exercise, but they refuse to tolerate people who harm themselves with cocaine. Why? Inconsistent! Illogical! Irrational!

Not really. Look at each as a case-by-case basis. All of the above are currently more practical to have legal than to have illegal.

We now come to the real reason why marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and other drugs are illegal: Lifestyle control! Prohibitionists fear that if drugs are legalized, the “drug culture” will spread to the rest of society.

That's one fear, yes.

Nobody can force others to use drugs!

Uh, actually they can. It already happens with illegal drugs sometimes. Shoot somebody up with something, or slip it in their drink (or food), or mix something unexpected into their cigarette, etc.
And with a lot of drugs, you can get addicted pretty quickly.

Adults must take responsibility for their own health!

Agred. And because your hobbie can adversely affect my health, and the health of many other people, then I'll take responsibility for doing what I can to curtail it.

Because the prohibitionists have decided that drugs are wrong for them does not give them the right to force their lifestyle on others. Prohibitionists want government to play the role of parent. Prohibitionists believe they must babysit adults. Prohibitionists are the lifestyle police!

All police are "lifestyle police". Crime is a lifestyle.

In the last 25 years, per capita alcohol and tobacco consumption has decreased significantly. This was accomplished by education and treatment, not by threat of punishment!

And it was accomplished by making those substances illegal in more and more places.

Drug use/abuse would drop significantly if we spent our resources on education and treatment instead of law enforcement.

Not really.
"In addition to law enforcement", sure.
But not "instead of".

No rational person would call for imprisonment of smokers and drinkers in order to reduce tobacco and alcohol use.

That depends on how much they smoke and drink.
And you might discover, if you look, that public drunkeness is illegal many places and can result in going to jail (although admittedly not prison).

But in general, I'm not for imprisoning casual drug users (for most drugs).
Fines work just fine, and should be applied more places.

But that method is exactly how we try to reduce drug use. The savings to be had in ending the drug war could easily pay for all the drug treatment and education programs we need. The drug war is a failure! Education and treatment work!

They're not enough by themselves, but I am all for education and treatment.

If you don’t like a culture or a lifestyle, don’t live it! If you don’t like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or other drugs, don’t use them! But don’t ban my personal lifestyle for fear it will poison your lifestyle.

My lifestyle is as an arsonist. Glad to know you support my hobby. :)

Adults must take responsibility for their own actions! It is a flagrant violation of individual freedom to threaten others with punishment just because they choose a lifestyle that is not right for you.

I, and my can of gasoline, agree with you!

I will continue to smoke marijuana and enjoy it! I hurt nobody!

Actually, it hurt me a bit to read through all this crap.

If others do not approve of what I do to myself in my own home, too bad! I may not care for the music you listen to, the food you eat, or the culture you have adopted, but I would never advocate punishing you because I don’t like your lifestyle. If someone violates the rights of others, the violater should be punished; otherwise, people should mind their own business. Adults who use drugs responsibly--whether they be tobacco, alcohol, LSD, or marijuana--cause no harm to others! Leave us alone!

Actually, DUI fatalities are significant. And that's not just for alcohol.
As for tobacco, there's second-hand smoke.
LSD and pot have their problems too, we just haven't seen as many since they're harder to get than nicotine and booze.

If you still believe drugs should be illegal, answer this question... Why do you believe it is good policy to punish me--and 20 million adult Americans like me--because I choose to use marijuana in the privacy of my own home?

I don't, really. And I've never heard of any cops breaking down the doors of casual drug users who are smoking in their own home.

Who benefits from this policy and how do they benefit?

Society benefits by helping keep people out of trouble, and from causing trouble, and from being a burden on society.

Total cost of drug prohibition

* Over 300,000 nonviolent people lose their freedom to prison/jail.

Source?

* Thousands of murders, assaults, and robberies caused by drug crimes.

That's more the fault of people who pay the salaries of the drug dealers.
Which would be you.

* $20 billion/year in law enforcement costs.

Source?

* $10 billion/year in lost tax revenue (similar to alcohol tax).

Source?
(and invalid anyway. Replace jail time with fines, and this wouldn't be an issue. No need to legalize it)

* $5 billion/year in property losses due to drug-related crimes.

Source?
And since I'm a believe in personal responsibility, I tend to blame the criminals themselves.

* $50 billion/year and 500,000 jobs lost because of no hemp industry.

Source?

Total cost = $85 billion/year = $500 per taxpayer every year!

Nope. Don't buy it.

Legalize, tax, and regulate drugs like we do alcohol and tobacco, and all our problems would be solved... Simple economics. Give the people what they want..:D

Legalize, tax, and regulate drugs like we do alcohol and tobacco, and all our problems would be solved... Simple economics. Give the people what they want..:D

You are somehow assuming that alcohol and tobacco don't cause any problems...?

Unless you legalize EVERYTHING, then there will always be a black market. The same people who have been pushing drugs aren't suddenly going to decide to flip burgers at McDonalds; they're simply going to find the next illegal thing that people are willing to pay for.

If drugs are decriminalized then what are they going to sell? Boot leg CDs? Somehow I don't see that as a huge problem. Or do you think they are going to go into something more exotic like illegal arms sales? Instead of a guy say, "Hey, you wanna buy a dime bag?" there will be a guy saying, "Hey, you wanna buy some weaponized anthrax? The cipro costs extra."

I don't think you appreciate the economics of the situation. A drug dealer is someone who is skilled in selling drugs. When drugs are no longer profitable he doesn't suddenly become magically skilled at selling illegal encryption software. Nor does the market for the aforementioned software suddenly become larger.

Ideally, all drugs should be banned. But it's too late for tobacco, and FAR too late for alcohol. Why introduce new ones? People have the right to harm themselves, but why would you WANT to?

Marijuana use predates the use of alcohol or tobacco, it's far too late for to ban it. :D

Drugs are bad, hmmmkay. Don't do drugs.

Actually, the reason that drugs are so expensive is because people are willing to pay that much for them. A good part of this may be due to the illegal nature of the business diminishing supply, but it's not like there aren't plenty of expensive legal drugs.


If you're talking about alcohol and tobacco as examples of expensive legal drugs, this is entirely the doing of the government. Here in the UK, about 75% of the cost of an average packet of cigarettes is tax. It's a similar story with alcohol. Without government intervention these substances would cost peanuts.

For the same reason why it didn't disappear when alcohol was legalized again.
Unless you legalize EVERYTHING, then there will always be a black market. The same people who have been pushing drugs aren't suddenly going to decide to flip burgers at McDonalds; they're simply going to find the next illegal thing that people are willing to pay for.

In my experience, most small-time pot dealers (middlemen between users and higher tier retailers and smugglers) make very little money from their sales and are only really in the business because they're drug users themselves. Sure, the big drug lords and the smuggling component might turn to other forms of crime, but I think most of those involved in the marijuana industry would have no problem continuing their work (selling pot) in the event of legalisation.

For the same reason why it didn't disappear when alcohol was legalized again.
Unless you legalize EVERYTHING, then there will always be a black market. The same people who have been pushing drugs aren't suddenly going to decide to flip burgers at McDonalds; they're simply going to find the next illegal thing that people are willing to pay for.



Fact: Your post was a load of bull.

You are trying to pull the "personal responsibility" gag now, after trying to say that supporting the illegalization of drugs means that you support all the violent crime associated with it? That's a laugh.
I'm all for personal responsibility, which is why I think that criminals should be held responsible for their own actions, and that the responsibility shouldn't be shoved off onto other people's shoulders.

Fact: You're being hypocritical.

Nice way to not even pay attention to what I am saying.

One last time (because you probably won't even understand it):

When you legalize drugs, you take away the black market FOR DRUGS! Where did I say the black market as a whole will dissapear? I didn't - get some reading comprehension skills will ya?

The black market for alcohol appeared when it was made illegal (and criminamls made huge money from it and did a lot of violence to keep their profits flowing) and dissapeared when it was re-legalized (where legitimate businesses then made a lot of money from it and the economy benefitted). It's common sense.

Personal responsibility means that a person should be responsible for themselves. If they hurt themselves (by injesting drugs, fatty foods, arsenic) then they pay for it with their health - giving jail time to someone for wanting to ruin their own life is absurd and costly to taxpayers, if they hurt someone else THEN they should pay for it thru legal means.

I don't care if someone wants to kill themselves, that is their life and their right. Do you think the govt. should also force people to exercise and put them in jail if they don't maintain a healthy diet? how much of ones life shoudl the govt control? Should they punish people with jail time and fines because they have promiscuous sex, and push the penalties higher if they don't use condoms? What if someone is always stressed out? Thats pretty unhealthy.. .perhaps we shoudl punish people for that as well. What about companies that pollute cities? They are causing health damage to other people, not just themselves... electric chair for them?

How will demand not increase? According to Say's Law, supply creates its own demand. If drugs are not illegal, then the production costs are lowered, thus shifting the supply curve to the right. As more is readily available and without any of the usual punishments to get along with it, the demand curve will almost invariably head to the right to follow the supply curve.

I am sitting on the fence on the drug issue, and I don't think anyone has really answered this question. I do think it would be a major blow to organized crime if illegal drugs were decriminalized, but I do not think that illegal drugs are as harmless as some say, and if the demand curve rises it will either be because A.) more drug users are using more drugs and/or B.) more people are using drugs. As another poster mentioned, there is the risk for DUI increases etc. if people do drugs.

I just want an answer to the demand question, it's really the last one I have before I decide which way to go on this issue.

I just want an answer to the demand question, it's really the last one I have before I decide which way to go on this issue.

I hope this gives you an answer, if not just ignore me.

As far as I can see, demand would not increase because, in theory, supply would not increase either. It would just move out the hands of one source to another.

Where I live, it is easier to get drugs than for me to get under-age drink. I think that shows that there is already an adequate supply, one that would not neccessairily (pardon the spelling) increase. It would also be fair to assume that demand would be controlled by a ban on advertising and through taxation, as in cigarettes.

It could also be said that prohibition increases demand through the 'forbidden fruit' temptation, although this would be more long term. When I studied the twenties in History, and write coursework on prohibition of alcohol, Alcohol consumption actually rose while alcohol was illegal.

I've never seen or studied Say's Law, but I hope that's OK.

I hope this gives you an answer, if not just ignore me.

As far as I can see, demand would not increase because, in theory, supply would not increase either. It would just move out the hands of one source to another.

Where I live, it is easier to get drugs than for me to get under-age drink. I think that shows that there is already an adequate supply, one that would not neccessairily (pardon the spelling) increase. It would also be fair to assume that demand would be controlled by a ban on advertising and through taxation, as in cigarettes.

It could also be said that prohibition increases demand through the 'forbidden fruit' temptation, although this would be more long term. When I studied the twenties in History, and write coursework on prohibition of alcohol, Alcohol consumption actually rose while alcohol was illegal.

I've never seen or studied Say's Law, but I hope that's OK.

By supply, I don't mean quantity. I mean the ease by which government can make more of a product. If supply shifts to the right, that means that it is less costly for a company to make a drug. Seeing as how much of the cost of drugs is from government interventions, i.e. criminalization, it is expected that supply will shift to the right. In Say's law, demand would follow.

By supply, I don't mean quantity. I mean the ease by which government can make more of a product. If supply shifts to the right, that means that it is less costly for a company to make a drug. Seeing as how much of the cost of drugs is from government interventions, i.e. criminalization, it is expected that supply will shift to the right. In Say's law, demand would follow.


Well then look at Amsterdam. The only people that really want to smoke pot there are tourists. Locals don't give a crap about it on average, legalization hasn't made it a town full of druggies.

If drugs are decriminalized then what are they going to sell? Boot leg CDs? Somehow I don't see that as a huge problem. Or do you think they are going to go into something more exotic like illegal arms sales? Instead of a guy say, "Hey, you wanna buy a dime bag?" there will be a guy saying, "Hey, you wanna buy some weaponized anthrax? The cipro costs extra."

Prostitution, gambling, guns, whatever they can.

I don't think you appreciate the economics of the situation. A drug dealer is someone who is skilled in selling drugs. When drugs are no longer profitable he doesn't suddenly become magically skilled at selling illegal encryption software. Nor does the market for the aforementioned software suddenly become larger.

'Cause drug dealers are too stupid to adapt to the times? :rolleyes:

And yes, the market woudl become suddenly larger (not necessarily for software). People are always willing to pay money for illegal thrills. When drugs are mainstream, then the counterculture will find something new to shock the straights with.

In my experience, most small-time pot dealers (middlemen between users and higher tier retailers and smugglers) make very little money from their sales and are only really in the business because they're drug users themselves. Sure, the big drug lords and the smuggling component might turn to other forms of crime, but I think most of those involved in the marijuana industry would have no problem continuing their work (selling pot) in the event of legalisation.

Small-time pot dealers are typically not the violent criminals that the poster was referring to. Drug cartels and gangs were.

Nice way to not even pay attention to what I am saying.

One last time (because you probably won't even understand it):

When you legalize drugs, you take away the black market FOR DRUGS! Where did I say the black market as a whole will dissapear? I didn't - get some reading comprehension skills will ya?

I can comprehend your line of thought, but that doesn't make that line of thought less stupid. It basically goes like this:
"If you're for keeping drugs illegal, then you are responsible for all of the violent crime caused by the drug trade, even though this crime would still occur over other merchandise/trades if drugs were legalized."

The black market for alcohol appeared when it was made illegal (and criminamls made huge money from it and did a lot of violence to keep their profits flowing) and dissapeared when it was re-legalized (where legitimate businesses then made a lot of money from it and the economy benefitted). It's common sense.

And that's where we got the mafia from.
What's your point?

Personal responsibility means that a person should be responsible for themselves. If they hurt themselves (by injesting drugs, fatty foods, arsenic) then they pay for it with their health - giving jail time to someone for wanting to ruin their own life is absurd and costly to taxpayers, if they hurt someone else THEN they should pay for it thru legal means.

So where does the "You are responsible for the actions of criminals if you support keeping drugs illegal" fit into that?
Wouldn't the criminals be the ones personally responsible for the crimes that they commit?

I don't care if someone wants to kill themselves, that is their life and their right.

I could agree with that.

Do you think the govt. should also force people to exercise and put them in jail if they don't maintain a healthy diet?

Not really. For one thing, people can't seem to agree on what a truly healthy diet is. For another thing, many people cannot afford to eat healthy food all the time. For yet another thing, food is a necessity, even sub-par quality food. Recreational drugs are not a necessity.

how much of ones life shoudl the govt control? Should they punish people with jail time and fines because they have promiscuous sex, and push the penalties higher if they don't use condoms?

Nope. There would be no practical way to institute such a policy.

What if someone is always stressed out? Thats pretty unhealthy.. .perhaps we shoudl punish people for that as well.

That would tend to cause them more stress.

What about companies that pollute cities? They are causing health damage to other people, not just themselves... electric chair for them?

Okay.

How will demand not increase? According to Say's Law, supply creates its own demand. If drugs are not illegal, then the production costs are lowered, thus shifting the supply curve to the right. As more is readily available and without any of the usual punishments to get along with it, the demand curve will almost invariably head to the right to follow the supply curve.

Good point, and well put.

I think the Mexicans are (obviously) sampling a little too much of their own cash-crop, if they're seriously contimplating going down this road...

I don't think that caffeine needs to be banned, just regulated more.
But overall, hell yes I support a ban on other drugs based on health/safety reasons.
Just because one harmful thing is legal (or a few harmful things) doesn't mean that all harmful things need to be legal.

Why not legalize those things which (you consider) are harmful but which are quite clearly less harmful than things which are legal? For example, marijuana.

It seems to me that if all drugs were legal then there would probably be more drug related crime. mainly committed by chavs trying to fund their habits. But since the kind of people who would get hooked on legalised drugs probably do illegal ones anyway, it would just be a good way to filter out the dregs of society. If heroin was sold with a big label saying "This drug is addictive and will probably kill you or fuck up your life" then the people who buy it deserve what they get.

People should be able to smoke/inject/eat whatever the hell they want. as long as they hurt no one I dont care.

Prostitution, gambling, guns, whatever they can.

Prostituion and gambling are already legal here. And there isn't much demand for illegal guns. An influx of ex smack dealers into the illegal firearms market isn't likely to increase demand by much. All it it likely to do is lower profits and the bikie gangs that do most of the illegal weapons trade will solve this problem by shooting the ex-smack dealers who are moving in on their territory. Problem solved.

'Cause drug dealers are too stupid to adapt to the times?

Crime will go down precisely because they are able to adapt. Drug dealers will generally try to make money the easiest way they can. If drugs are decriminalized then the easiest way for many of them to make money will be honest work. Drug dealing is much less risky and profitable than break and enter or mugging. If it wasn't drug dealers would already be doing it instead of leaving it up to their junkies. Sure an ex-drug dealer is more likely to commit crime than the average citizen, but they will be committing much less crime on average than they used to.

When's the last time that you saw caffeine cause any serious problems for anybody?

I have a good friend who's addicted to caffine pills, and they make him act angrily and strangely. They're nowhere near as serious as alchohol or tobacco problems, but they're still significant.

Why not legalize those things which (you consider) are harmful but which are quite clearly less harmful than things which are legal? For example, marijuana.

Just because one harmful thing is legal (or a few harmful things) doesn't mean that all harmful things need to be legal.

Prostituion and gambling are already legal here. And there isn't much demand for illegal guns. An influx of ex smack dealers into the illegal firearms market isn't likely to increase demand by much. All it it likely to do is lower profits and the bikie gangs that do most of the illegal weapons trade will solve this problem by shooting the ex-smack dealers who are moving in on their territory. Problem solved.

Protection rackets, muggings, theft, stolen goods, stolen cars, etc. etc.

Crime will go down precisely because they are able to adapt. Drug dealers will generally try to make money the easiest way they can. If drugs are decriminalized then the easiest way for many of them to make money will be honest work. Drug dealing is much less risky and profitable than break and enter or mugging. If it wasn't drug dealers would already be doing it instead of leaving it up to their junkies. Sure an ex-drug dealer is more likely to commit crime than the average citizen, but they will be committing much less crime on average than they used to.

I don't buy it, not for any of the important dealers. Sure, some guy pulling in an extra few thousand from selling pot on the side might give it up, but the actual hardcore dealers are used to making big buck and they're not qualified for any legal job that could pull in an equivilant income.

I have a good friend who's addicted to caffine pills, and they make him act angrily and strangely. They're nowhere near as serious as alchohol or tobacco problems, but they're still significant.

I would certainly back some more restrictions on the access of caffeine pills.

Protection rackets, muggings, theft, stolen goods, stolen cars, etc. etc.



I don't buy it, not for any of the important dealers. Sure, some guy pulling in an extra few thousand from selling pot on the side might give it up, but the actual hardcore dealers are used to making big buck and they're not qualified for any legal job that could pull in an equivilant income.

Drugs are especially profitable, it's unlikely whatever the next big black market thing is will be able to support as many people making money on it. Nothing drives a market like addiction.

Just because one harmful thing is legal (or a few harmful things) doesn't mean that all harmful things need to be legal.

You've said that before. But that's a strawman. I didn't propose that every harmful thing be made legal.

But while we're on the subject, maybe you could tell me WHY it is okay for the law - and yourself - to be a hypocrite on the matter?

Not all drugs .ut certainly any & all hemp products.

Although there are valid points for legalization there are afew problems.

When it comes to drug violence, it is usually associated with cocaine, meth etc. not marajuana.

Weed is considered a "Gateway Drug" because it causes some people to go to the higher stuff when they no longer feel the high from marajuana. Thus that means a higher market for other, more dangerous blackmarket drugs, thus increasing crime and spending into stopping that black market.

Not alot of money is spent Federally in terms of stopping marajuana because anyone can just grow it in there back yards.

Cocaine or other heavy drugs would NEVER be legalised by any first world county because of the dangers they represent, simply there is no way in looking around it.