NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay. I'm not talking about just decriminalizing marijuana here. I'm talking all drugs. Meth, LSD, Heroin, cocaine, and anything else you can think of.

Just to note, we're not talking practicality here, as in whether it will happen or not.

We're talking about whether it should happen or not.

NSG's thoughts? Also, feel free to debate legitimacy, etc.

Should? Yes.

Will? No.

Bringing those economies online, and into the country would be domestic profit, and would enable the trades to be regulated, and the products to be monitored.

There's too much money tied up in the 'pretending-to-fight-it' industry, though.

Not all of them, no. Some are just too harmful to be available to the general public.

Yes, the Government cannot legislate Moratlity...furthermore the "War on Drugs" has only increased Drug usage, the National Debt, as well, it puts millions of Prisoners in the Penal system, taking up space, costing the tax payers money in food, upkeep, and in the courts...

And the people that want to do these things are going to find a way, and with the huge increase in price caused by illegality, there will always be a supply...

the whole thing is a big, loud, package of Phail....

Yes, the Government cannot legislate Moratlity

bullshit they can't. What is our system of laws, other than legislation of morality? You don't think "don't kill people" is a moral judgment?

Not all of them, no. Some are just too harmful to be available to the general public.

But, isn't that the choice of the user?

I'd agree with the concept, if something could be implemented like the old Opium Den idea - somewhere that you would go, and be, while you were using.

Legalize them all, and immediately and unconditionally release all non-violent drug "offenders."

Should? Yes.

Will? No.

Bringing those economies online, and into the country would be domestic profit, and would enable the trades to be regulated, and the products to be monitored.

There's too much money tied up in the 'pretending-to-fight-it' industry, though.

My thoughts exactly, although less so about the "regulated and monitored" thing. By legalizing the use of these drugs, we would cut our prison population by a huge percentage, and we'd cut enforcement costs by a huge percentage.

Prohibition didn't work, and the situation is no different than that. The same shit is happening.

bullshit they can't. What is our system of laws, other than legislation of morality? You don't think "don't kill people" is a moral judgment?

No.

It's pragmatism. You don't want your citizens running round bopping each other on the head.

But, isn't that the choice of the user?

If the choice of the user, in the aggregate, can have direct harmful to society at large, I have no issues with legislating that choice.

bullshit they can't. What is our system of laws, other than legislation of morality? You don't think "don't kill people" is a moral judgment?

You can make a moral argument, but I make a rights argument, which is seperate from "morality" in a metaphysical sense.

N.

However, I do think that certain prescription drugs ought to be made OTC. That would technically be a sort of decriminalization, but for drugs not likely to be taken recreationally.

I don't much like your poll.

bullshit they can't. What is our system of laws, other than legislation of morality? You don't think "don't kill people" is a moral judgment?

no, I dont, Those are inherent and have no basis in anyone's opinions on morality...

And even if you disagree with that point, the aforementioned rest of my post still stands...

No.

It's pragmatism. You don't want your citizens running round bopping each other on the head.

Fine then. It's also pragmatism that we don't want the effects of the more harmful drugs in our society.

My thoughts exactly, although less so about the "regulated and monitored" thing. By legalizing the use of these drugs, we would cut our prison population by a huge percentage, and we'd cut enforcement costs by a huge percentage.

Prohibition didn't work, and the situation is no different than that. The same shit is happening.

I say 'regulated and monitored' because that's one of the good things about the food industry (in theory) - the quality of working environment can be assured, the product isn't full of... like... rat-poison, etc.

Not all of them, no. Some are just too harmful to be available to the general public.

What constitutes "too harmful?" There's no objective way to quantify it, and no consistent and legitimate way to draw a line - it would be totally arbitrary. To say "Legalize them all...oh, except X Y and Z" is logically inconsistent and hypocritical.

I say 'regulated and monitored' because that's one of the good things about the food industry (in theory) - the quality of working environment can be assured, the product isn't full of... like... rat-poison, etc.

Well, I'm a terribly evil selfish libertarian, so I don't like government intervention at all, but that's an argument for another thread.

Fine then. It's also pragmatism that we don't want the effects of the more harmful drugs in our society.

Which is why I suggested holding them somewhat removed.

Fine then. It's also pragmatism that we don't want the effects of the more harmful drugs in our society.

no because the practical concerns and costs of fighting the "war" outweigh the supposed "harm" done to society...

I personally think that the Alcohol Laws should be applied to all drugs, and what is prosecuted are the things you actually do under the influence...

rather than prosecuted for being under the influence at all...

I say 'regulated and monitored' because that's one of the good things about the food industry (in theory) - the quality of working environment can be assured, the product isn't full of... like... rat-poison, etc.

I could totally see myself working for quality control in the cocaine industry.

What constitutes "too harmful?" There's no objective way to quantify it, and no consistent and legitimate way to draw a line - it would be totally arbitrary. To say "Legalize them all...oh, except X Y and Z" is logically inconsistent and hypocritical.

we already do this in deeming some drugs prescription only. Some drugs cannot be safely taken without professional guidance.

To say "Legalize them all...oh, except X Y and Z" is logically inconsistent and hypocritical.

You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

It's not hypocritical in the slightest for me to say that the effects of SOME drugs, being particularly harmful, are better off left illegal, but OTHER drugs, not being so harmful, are acceptable for legalization.

It's only inconsistent and hypocritical if you buy into some nonsensical notion that all drugs are created equal. They're not.

Well, I'm a terribly evil selfish libertarian, so I don't like government intervention at all, but that's an argument for another thread.

But even you and I can probably agree that slave-labour is a bit naughty, that kids shouldn't be manning looms, that exposing your workers to mercury (or the like) is probably not good, and that people should have a right to be reasonably sure there are no feces or dead mice in their cheeseburgers?

no because the practical concerns and costs of fighting the "war" outweigh the supposed "harm" done to society...

says you.

I disagree.

no, I dont, Those are inherent and have no basis in anyone's opinions on morality...

And even if you disagree with that point, the aforementioned rest of my post still stands...

I think what he means is, when the government makes law, a moral statement is stipulated in nearly every case, and that statement becomes a moral fact within the country. Your ability to disobey the law or to interpret your rights differently doesn't really affect that.

I think what he means is, when the government makes law, a moral statement is stipulated in nearly every case, and that statement becomes a moral fact within the country. Your ability to disobey the law or to interpret your rights differently doesn't really affect that.

I know what he means, but I dont care, lol...

I would separate "Inherent Rights" from subjects of Morality, he would not, we are not going to agree on that point, why bother?


Id rather give him a flat, no...

But even you and I can probably agree that slave-labour is a bit naughty, that kids shouldn't be manning looms, that exposing your workers to mercury (or the like) is probably not good, and that people should have a right to be reasonably sure there are no feces or dead mice in their cheeseburgers?

Only lead paint, :p

Well, I'm a terribly evil selfish libertarian, so I don't like government intervention at all, but that's an argument for another thread.

:hail:

You can make a moral argument, but I make a rights argument, which is seperate from "morality" in a metaphysical sense.

how is it separate?

says you.

I disagree.

The disintegration of Mexico, civil war in Colombia, massive violence in Brazilian favelas, a growing police state (ever heard of "no-knock raids"?), declining civil liberties, increasingly militarized law enforcement, rising incidences of drug abuse, and untold billions wasted is all worth it?

The disintegration of Mexico, civil war in Colombia, massive violence in Brazilian favelas, a growing police state (ever heard of "no-knock raids"?), declining civil liberties, increasingly militarized law enforcement, rising incidences of drug abuse, and untold billions wasted is all worth it?

To stop those ebil 'eroyne users....

The disintegration of Mexico, civil war in Colombia, massive violence in Brazilian favelas, a growing police state (ever heard of "no-knock raids"?), declining civil liberties, increasingly militarized law enforcement, rising incidences of drug abuse, and untold billions wasted is all worth it?

those are generally a result of a blanket "war on drugs", rather than the legalization of many or even most drugs, whilst keeping those most dangerous illegal or heavily controlled. Drugs like meth and PCP, where the direct result of use is hugely damaging to the individual and society at large due to the very nature of the drug.

The disintegration of Mexico, civil war in Colombia, massive violence in Brazilian favelas, a growing police state (ever heard of "no-knock raids"?), declining civil liberties, increasingly militarized law enforcement, rising incidences of drug abuse, and untold billions wasted is all worth it?

I would never advocate a government act in an illegal fashion. Any law enforcement efforts must be tempered by our understanding of human rights.

That being said, do I think the costs of (legal) enforcement is less than the cost to our society if some drugs were legalized?

Yes, yes I do.

To stop those ebil 'eroyne users....

when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation, and not spew useless strawmen, let me know.

those are generally a result of a blanket "war on drugs"

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation, and not spew useless strawmen, let me know.

Meh, it was a joke friend, grow some skin...

Im still waitin on them babies btw...

I would never advocate a government act in an illegal fashion. Any law enforcement efforts must be tempered by our understanding of human rights.

I'm sure you wouldn't. But those are just a few of the side effects of our insane "War on Drugs."

Well, I'm a terribly evil selfish libertarian, so I don't like government intervention at all, but that's an argument for another thread.

You'd disagree when Azithromycin, penicilin, and lincomycin all became widely available and people started taking them for every little cough and sniffle. We've already created MRSA by systematic antibiotic abuses.

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Which neither Neo nor myself are arguing for a continuation of.

The basic fact is, SOME drugs, due to the very nature of the drug, are too unpredictable and damaging to allow the general public to have access to.

Things like meth, where suddenly you decide it's a good idea to put a golf club through some guys face, because you think he looked at you funny.

Things like PCP, which suddenly make you decide you're superman, and it'll be fun to stop a train with your fist.

Some drugs are too random, too unpredictable, to capable of producing sudden outburst of violence, too easily warp our perceptions of reality, that large scale legalization would cost our society far more than what it already does.

I'm sure you wouldn't. But those are just a few of the side effects of our insane "War on Drugs."

again, strawman. The options are not limited to "legalize it all" and "change nothing". Just because a system may be flawed doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.

Which neither Neo nor myself are arguing for a continuation of.

My misunderstanding. But prohibition always leads to such situations, and always fails miserably.

again, strawman.

Genuine misunderstanding, not strawman.

The options are not limited to "legalize it all" and "change nothing". Just because a system may be flawed doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.

If a system is too badly flawed, why not throw out both?

If a system is too badly flawed, why not throw out both?

I think it depends on our definition of "too badly flawed". I advocate a middle ground. Legalize some, tax them, use the funds from the taxation to fund (reasonable) law enforcement to prevent widespread distribution of the harder ones.

The basic fact is, SOME drugs, due to the very nature of the drug, are too unpredictable and damaging to allow the general public to have access to.

Things like meth, where suddenly you decide it's a good idea to put a golf club through some guys face, because you think he looked at you funny.

Things like PCP, which suddenly make you decide you're superman, and it'll be fun to stop a train with your fist.

Some drugs are too random, too unpredictable, to capable of producing sudden outburst of violence, too easily warp our perceptions of reality, that large scale legalization would cost our society far more than what it already does.

But, the thing is, I would say that meth and PCP users are going to get them regardless, why make them illegal?

Beyond that, I would also say that they should be prosecuted for putting the golf club through the guy's face, not for doing meth...

And being that if you want PCP, you can get PCP already, and the current status of the drug/fight to keep it that way, wont stop you, you just need to make sure that we continue educating the populace on the effects of said drug, and Id wager youd get a very small increase in the number of users at most, and a HUGE drop in the number of prisoners, and cost to the tax payers...

My misunderstanding. But prohibition always leads to such situations, and always fails miserably.

Prohibition inevitably forces subversive actions to continue behaviors, yes.

However, with legalization of some or many drugs, people will be less driven to sample the few remaining illegal ones. Additionally, resources could more efficiently be directed to battling the two or three illegal ones, rather than all. These resources would also be far less than what it takes to combat rampant meth addiction (meth is inanely addictive) or PCP abuse (PCP eliminates a persons ability to think rationally while simultaneously making them somewhat invincible)

But, the thing is, I would say that meth and PCP users are going to get them regardless, why make them illegal?

To be fair, people will always steal and murder if those are illegal, but that doesn't mean they should be legal.

Of course, I think meth and PCP should be legal, along with everything else. I was just saying.

But, the thing is, I would say that meth and PCP users are going to get them regardless, why make them illegal?

Beyond that, I would also say that they should be prosecuted for putting the golf club through the guy's face, not for doing meth...

And being that if you want PCP, you can get PCP already, and the current status of the drug/fight to keep it that way, wont stop you, you just need to make sure that we continue educating the populace on the effects of said drug, and Id wager youd get a very small increase in the number of users at most, and a HUGE drop in the number of prisoners, and cost to the tax payers...

wait, are you seriously arguing that current illegality functions neither as a deterrent nor an obstacle?

wait, are you seriously arguing that current illegality functions neither as a deterrent nor an obstacle?

A very small obstacle at best...merely in Price...Meth especially, the ingredients anyway, is well known to be easy to get ahold of if you want to do it...

A very small obstacle at best...merely in Price...Meth especially, the ingredients anyway, is well known to be easy to get ahold of if you want to do it...

....yeah, you go ahead and cook meth. Go see what happens.

....yeah, you go ahead and cook meth. Go see what happens.

Thats my point exactly, I could go and cook meth if I wanted to, and nothing would stop me...It would most likely explode, but thats beside the point in the context of keeping meth illegal is supposed to somehow stop the "harmful" effects...


So whats the point of wasting money trying to put these people in jail?
The fact that it might explode alone is probably the best deterrent to people actually using it, that dont already have drug problems...

Thats my point exactly, I could go and cook meth if I wanted to, and nothing would stop me...It would most likely explode

and you don't think that whole KABOOM aspect functions as a deterrent? I mean, isn't that a bit like arguing, "yeah I COULD jump off the empire state building and try to fly. I'd probably die, but I COULD do it!"

and you don't think that whole KABOOM aspect functions as a deterrent? I mean, isn't that a bit like arguing, "yeah I COULD jump off the empire state building and try to fly. I'd probably die, but I COULD do it!"


See rest of Post:

Thats my point exactly, I could go and cook meth if I wanted to, and nothing would stop me...It would most likely explode, but thats beside the point in the context of keeping meth illegal is supposed to somehow stop the "harmful" effects...


So whats the point of wasting money trying to put these people in jail?
The fact that it might explode alone is probably the best deterrent to people actually using it, that dont already have drug problems...


But, yes, thats exactly what Im arguing, what would be the point of making it Illegal to jump off the Empire State Building?

And actively fund a "War" to stop these said people from jumping off said building?

Thats my point exactly, I could go and cook meth if I wanted to, and nothing would stop me...It would most likely explode, but thats beside the point in the context of keeping meth illegal is supposed to somehow stop the "harmful" effects...
a) why exactly is "harmful" in quotes? I would say an exploding house is pretty damn harmful.
b) illegality doesn't stop or eliminate the risk. It reduces it while giving a legal manner in which society can work to reduce it further.

So whats the point of wasting money trying to put these people in jail?
The fact that it might explode alone is probably the best deterrent to people actually using it, that dont already have drug problems...
No, that is the best reason for them to not make it. Using a drug does not require one to make it themselves. And the point of wasting your money to reduce meth use is that the use of meth (highly addictive) drives users to other crimes to feed their addiction, costing society far more in the long run.

See rest of Post:




But, yes, thats exactly what Im arguing, what would be the point of making it Illegal to jump off the Empire State Building?

And actively fund a "War" to stop these said people from jumping off said building?

Jumping off the Empire State Building is a) likely a one time thing and b) likely does not cost society terribly much to clean up after. Possibly a quick investigation and power washing of the sidewalk.

Meth is a long term addiction that leads to further issues.

a) why exactly is "harmful" in quotes? I would say an exploding house is pretty damn harmful.
b) illegality doesn't stop or eliminate the risk. It reduces it while giving a legal manner in which society can work to reduce it further.


No, that is the best reason for them to not make it. Using a drug does not require one to make it themselves. And the point of wasting your money to reduce meth use is that the use of meth (highly addictive) drives users to other crimes to feed their addiction, costing society far more in the long run.

The "harmful" is in quotes because I was not just speaking about the effects on the user, but also the effect on House, surrounding populace, environment, etc...

But, my point is, that being that its easy to get ahold of the ingredients to make Meth, it being illegal isnt stopping those who want to make, and/or sell, and/or use it, from doing said act...

Jumping off the Empire State Building is a) likely a one time thing and b) likely does not cost society terribly much to clean up after. Possibly a quick investigation and power washing of the sidewalk.

Meth is a long term addiction that leads to further issues.

And like jumping off the Empire State Building, no amount of legal issues are going to stop the ones who want to do it, from in fact doing it, especially considering that its not that hard to acquire the necessary items to do said act...

But, yes, thats exactly what Im arguing, what would be the point of making it Illegal to jump off the Empire State Building?

And actively fund a "War" to stop these said people from jumping off said building?

Luckily in cases like these, we have history to learn from. Google the "Great Binge."

....yeah, you go ahead and cook meth. Go see what happens.
You get a critically acclaimed TV show featuring the dude from Clear and Present Danger.

The "harmful" is in quotes because I was not just speaking about the effects on the user, but also the effect on House, surrounding populace, environment, etc...

But, my point is, that being that its easy to get ahold of the ingredients to make Meth, it being illegal isnt stopping those who want to make, and/or sell, and/or use it, from doing said act...

It is incredibly easy for me to purchase a murder weapon and shoot my neighbor. Making it illegal isn't stopping me.

People will always break the law. The law, however, functions as a deterrant for those who have not yet tried it. By making many drugs legal (in effect, giving legal alternatives while keeping only a few illegal), the deterrant effect is magnified.

Meth is cheap, and yet, users frequently must commit theft to afford their addiction. That should be a huge red light.

And like jumping off the Empire State Building, no amount of legal issues are going to stop the ones who want to do it, from in fact doing it, especially considering that its not that hard to acquire the necessary items to do said act...

Yes. Some people will still do it. We know. That does not, however, mean that there is no reduction in incidence by making it illegal.

The ESB example fails on another level: jumping doesn't give pleasure, and almost inevitably ends with instant death.

This is a significant difference in the efficacy if making something illegal. Saying "you can't kill yourself" doesn't work, because the person can't be punished.

It is incredibly easy for me to purchase a murder weapon and shoot my neighbor. Making it illegal isn't stopping me.

For a lot of people the potential punishment will stop them.

It is incredibly easy for me to purchase a murder weapon and shoot my neighbor. Making it illegal isn't stopping me.

People will always break the law. The law, however, functions as a deterrant for those who have not yet tried it. By making many drugs legal (in effect, giving legal alternatives while keeping only a few illegal), the deterrant effect is magnified.

Meth is cheap, and yet, users frequently must commit theft to afford their addiction. That should be a huge red light.

But, again, thats my point exactly, It is not illegal to own the weapon that could potentially kill your neighbor, See: 2nd Amendment...

However, it is illegal for you actually shoot your neighbor...

Therefore, my point would be that they should be prosecuting for the killing, exploding, etc... that they would do while on, and/or making these drugs...

as opposed to waging a war on the drugs themselves...

Its alot like going after Al Queda, as opposed to trying to stop "Terror" in general...

People will always break the law. The law, however, functions as a deterrant for those who have not yet tried it.
Then how do you account for the millions of new illicit drug users who start each year?

Meth is cheap, and yet, users frequently must commit theft to afford their addiction. That should be a huge red light.
For what?

For a lot of people the potential punishment will stop them.

which is actually exactly what my argument is. Thank you.

For a lot of people the potential punishment will stop them.

And I dont dispute that point, but they should be punished for the acts they commit rather than the substance in question...

And I dont dispute that point, but they should be punished for the acts they commit rather than the substance in question...

if your interest is "punish people for doing bad things" then sure. If however your interest is "stopping bad things from happening to people" it doesn't really work too well.

To me, saving a life is more important than punishing the taker of that life.

which is actually exactly what my argument is. Thank you.

Maybe I'm just tired, but that wasn't clear to me at all.

But, again, thats my point exactly, It is not illegal to own the weapon that could potentially kill your neighbor, See: 2nd Amendment...

However, it is illegal for you actually shoot your neighbor...So is the law making murder illegal a deterant or not? Does a law preventing people from killing their neighbors stop a certain portion of the population from doing so?
Because your argument is that current laws serve no funtion as a deterant.

Therefore, my point would be that they should be prosecuting for the killing, exploding, etc... that they would do while on, and/or making these drugs...

as opposed to waging a war on the drugs themselves...
And my point is that there is a definate cost/benefit scale, and that meth and PCP both fall above the point where benefit of legalization outweighs cost.

Have you ever seen a meth addict?

Then how do you account for the millions of new illicit drug users who start each year?that no system is perfect? I'm not saying laws stop all users...


For what?to what, exactly, meth does to addicts. The level that people go to to feed their addictions on a regular basis.

Maybe I'm just tired, but that wasn't clear to me at all.

I was restating his argument using a different crime

if your interest is "punish people for doing bad things" then sure. If however your interest is "stopping bad things from happening to people" it doesn't really work too well.

To me, saving a life is more important than punishing the taker of that life.

And I wouldnt dispute that, but I would say the only real basis for the current system saving people's lives is the Deterrent effect...

And the threat of retribution if you do aforementioned acts while on drugs I think functions as just as good a deterrent as the current system...

however it would decrease the costs of trying wage a "War on Drugs"...

But, I digress, and am getting a little repetitive, as previously stated, I dont think we will agree on this point...Im fixin to go to bed...

So is the law making murder illegal a deterant or not? Does a law preventing people from killing their neighbors stop a certain portion of the population from doing so?
Because your argument is that current laws serve no funtion as a deterant.
Well, the current law for murder actually works very well, and, strangely is very similar to the model I would have for drug offenders...

Its not illegal to own the weapon, its illegal to kill people with it...

Its not illegal to own the Drug, its illegal to kill people(etc.) while on it...


And my point is that there is a definate cost/benefit scale, and that meth and PCP both fall above the point where benefit of legalization outweighs cost.
I disagree


Have you ever seen a meth addict?

Did the current law deter him/her?

I voted against legalization of all drugs. Things like meth and heroine will impact society negatively beyond the individual. As people develop addictions (and they will) to these drugs, it will harm the economy, strain the medical system, and increase crime.

This is quite separate from an argument appealing to morality, which I personally would avoid using. It should be noted the affect this may have on families. People may start out buying these products responsibly, but still develop an addiction down the road. It's happening now. If the drugs become legal and easily accessible in stores, why wouldn't it become more widespread? I don't buy the whole "people only get more curious when it's illegal" argument. You have to be willing to break the law, find out where to get illegal drugs, etc. That's more of a deterrent than some people are willing to admit.

In closing, I think we need to weigh each drug on an individual basis rather than legalize across the board. They are not all the same. They do not all have the same consequences.

And the threat of retribution if you do aforementioned acts while on drugs I think functions as just as good a deterrent as the current system...

If people, while on those drugs, were capable of forming the thought "I better not do anything illegal" than my primary objection to their legalization would be moot.

If people, while on those drugs, were capable of forming the thought "I better not do anything illegal" than my primary objection to their legalization would be moot.

I wouldnt disagree there either, ;)

But, my arguments arent on the actual taking of the drug, its on the situation beforehand...

after they take the drugs, by their very nature, all bets are off, so to speak, anyway, so I would say all points are moot...

I was restating his argument using a different crime

Ah, yeah I'm just tired. Took me a bit, but I think I got it all worked out.

You're on Neo's side of the debate right now, right?

Well, the current law for murder actually works very well, and, strangely is very similar to the model I would have for drug offenders...

Its not illegal to own the weapon, its illegal to kill people with it...

Its not illegal to own the Drug, its illegal to kill people(etc.) while on it...It is more analogous to say "You can own the drug, you just can't use it". Further, drugs specificly impact ones ability to use their judgement. Logical people don't punch through wood fences. Logical people stop when they feel the pain of hitting it. People on PCP don't. Logical people say "Hey, maybe I shouldn't beat the shit out of this kid for stepping five feet too close to me". People on meth don't. your assumption is that a rational mind is functioning. In the case of drugs, it is not.


Did the current law deter him/her?Wouldn't know. Haven't seen her in a few years. Nor am I arguing that the current law is the best system, or even effective. What I am arguing is that most drugs should be legal. Just not meth, PCP, and possibly a few others. Many others should be heavily controlled. I'm not saying our current enforcement is effective or useful.

Ah, yeah I'm just tired. Took me a bit, but I think I got it all worked out.

You're on Neo's side of the debate right now, right?

I prefer to think that Neo is on my side of the debate, but yes.

I prefer to think that Neo is on my side of the debate, but yes.

it's ok, we'll be on each OTHER'S side.

I wouldnt disagree there either, ;)

But, my arguments arent on the actual taking of the drug, its on the situation beforehand...

after they take the drugs, by their very nature, all bets are off, so to speak, anyway, so I would say all points are moot...

Which is the exact reason that we argue that they should remain illegal.

it's ok, we'll be on each OTHER'S side.

Awww...big group hug!

I prefer to think that Neo is on my side of the debate, but yes.

Gotcha. My apologies. As I have alluded to earlier, I'm essentially running on fumes right now.

Gotcha. My apologies. As I have alluded to earlier, I'm essentially running on fumes right now.

No worries. 3 AM here, I know the feeling. But no work tomorrow.:)

It is more analogous to say "You can own the drug, you just can't use it". Further, drugs specificly impact ones ability to use their judgement. Logical people don't punch through wood fences. Logical people stop when they feel the pain of hitting it. People on PCP don't. Logical people say "Hey, maybe I shouldn't beat the shit out of this kid for stepping five feet too close to me". People on meth don't. your assumption is that a rational mind is functioning. In the case of drugs, it is not.


See Post:

I wouldnt disagree there either, ;)

But, my arguments arent on the actual taking of the drug, its on the situation beforehand...

after they take the drugs, by their very nature, all bets are off, so to speak, anyway, so I would say all points are moot...

Beyond that, I guess you could say that, but its largely beside the point....

My deterrent for people to own meth is that you could be prosecuted for the illogical things you do while on it...

Im just taking out the monetary requirement to fight people trying to obtain the ingredients, and/or drug, because its an impossible fight to win...

See Post:



Beyond that, I guess you could say that, but its largely beside the point....

My deterrent for people to own meth is that you could be prosecuted for the illogical things you do while on it...

Im just taking out the monetary requirement to fight people trying to obtain the ingredients, and/or drug, because its an impossible fight to win...
All laws are impossible to win fights. Same as there will still be murderers, theives, rapists, etc. See Neo's post about deterant vs punishment.

All laws are impossible to win fights. Same as there will still be murderers, theives, rapists, etc. See Neo's post about deterant vs punishment.

Exactly, its one of the arguments for not making Guns illegal...

Im just saying its cheaper, and just as effective to fight killers as opposed to gun owners/drug users....

Will there still be crazy fucks on Meth, yes...just as there will still be crazed gun owners...

But, will we have to physically fund an army of people to go in people's houses to take people's guns, no....

and we shouldnt have to fund an army to physically go and take drugs, and the ingredients to make them...

and the myriad other costs inherent in the War on Drugs...

EDIT: And I think Ill make this my final post, I dont think I can restate it much clearer, and its 2AM and I actually do have College tomorrow, and an Identity theft battle to fight, lol...

Exactly, its one of the arguments for not making Guns illegal...

Im just saying its cheaper, and just as effective to fight killers as opposed to gun owners/drug users....

Will there still be crazy fucks on Meth, yes...just as there will still be crazed gun owners...There are two key differences.
1) insane gun owners form a very small percentage of the total gun owning population. This is not the case with meth
2) meth, by its proper use, leads to insane behavior. Guns, by their proper use, do not.

There are two key differences.
1) insane gun owners form a very small percentage of the total gun owning population. This is not the case with meth
2) meth, by its proper use, leads to insane behavior. Guns, by their proper use, do not.

(dammit, I shouldve logged off...)

1) Im not entirely sure that crazed gun owners dont equal the number of meth users (note: I use the word "crazed" not the legal term "insane")


2)So you would say, Shooting someone isnt insane behavior?

(dammit, I shouldve logged off...)

1) Im not entirely sure that crazed gun owners dont equal the number of meth users (note: I use the word "crazed" not the legal term "insane")


2)So you would say, Shooting someone isnt insane behavior?

Guns can also be used for hunting, and while of dubious effectivity, can also be used to defend oneself.

well i think there's two seperate issues here, possession of anything, which you can't really expect there not to be unreasonable searches and seazures as long as anything is unlawful to merely posses and in modest, personal, quantities. that's one. and the other is mass production and sale.

and i think the former, reasonable possession, it needs to be unconstitutional to ban. that no one should be criminalized for merely possessing anything.

manufacture and sale on the other hand, i think if a majority of the general populas should want to ban the sale, mass production or wholesale importation of an article or substance, that i have no problem with.

and i'm not talking just substances, recreationally consumed or otherwise, but also artifacts.

if some hobbiest wants to make something from scratch. has all the skills and tools and equipment, to make say a gun or a car, for themselves as a hobby, as long as it isn't an actual manufacturing bussiness, i would accept the risks of calling that a right. even say preditor drones or icbm's, what have you. as long as they didn't ever produce more then three of such items.

and that's the same rule of thumb i'd use for substances as well.

there's just too much opportunity for political abuse in keeping possession unlawful. but many eamples of good reasons to oppose comercial scale production at the same time.

Some drugs are too harmful to the user and/or innocent bystanders to ever be made legal.

Yes, the Government cannot legislate Moratlity...furthermore the "War on Drugs" has only increased Drug usage, the National Debt, as well, it puts millions of Prisoners in the Penal system, taking up space, costing the tax payers money in food, upkeep, and in the courts...

And the people that want to do these things are going to find a way, and with the huge increase in price caused by illegality, there will always be a supply...

the whole thing is a big, loud, package of Phail....

^this, mostly. However, all legislation is rooted in some concept of morality. That statement is definitely disputed.

IMHO, the proper focus of laws is dealing with situations where one person measurably injures the life, liberty, or property of another. Harming someone while under the influence of drugs and perhaps face an additional penalty. Mere consumption of drugs is not harmful to others under most circumstances. Thus I favor decriminalization of manufacture, possession, and use of drugs by adults.

Some drugs are too harmful to the user and/or innocent bystanders to ever be made legal.

So what if people harm themselves by using a drug? You have to know what the potential effects are when you start. Just don't demand that I or anyone else take care of you because you were an idiot. As I said, there must be liability for actions taken under the influence of a drug, and nothing more is necessary.

I'd say some, like meth, need to remain illegal. I don't know enough to suggest whether any could be made legal. I'm all for the protection of civil liberties, but I guess allowing a product that can be made with battery acid, anhydrous ammonia, fuel, and paint thinner to be sold for the purpose of consumption goes a little too far for me.

Okay. I'm not talking about just decriminalizing marijuana here. I'm talking all drugs. Meth, LSD, Heroin, cocaine, and anything else you can think of.

Just to note, we're not talking practicality here, as in whether it will happen or not.

We're talking about whether it should happen or not.

NSG's thoughts? Also, feel free to debate legitimacy, etc.
I used drugs a lot when I was a teen. Like, a really lot. I used to drop acid during my first period Chem class (the poetry of it was only about 30% of my motivation for doing this).

I also tried coke, hash, mushrooms, pot, 2CB, GHB, several different forms of speed, opium, and something that I now suspect was heroine.

I'm not sharing this list to brag, since frankly it's not an accomplishment when an American teen uses drugs. Rather, my point is that illegality never even entered my mind when I was using any of these substances.

I mean, while I was actively acquiring drugs or seeking a location/method to use the drugs I would generally take into account that I didn't want to be caught. But when I was deciding whether or not I was going to do those drugs, the fact that they were illegal never entered the equation at all.

In the entire time I was doing drugs, I think I met maybe two or three people for whom the legal status of a drug had any impact on their decision to use.

Basically, I think most people who WOULD do drugs are going to do them regardless of whether or not they're legal.

What legalizing those drugs would have done is it would have made the drugs themselves safer and less likely to be contaminated, it would have reduced the criminal element from the dealer population, and it would probably have ended up making it much harder for me to obtain and use drugs as a minor. (Seriously, it was easier for me to get coke than alcohol when I was a minor.)

I'm all for legalization and regulation. The "war on drugs" doesn't work and never has, it just kills people.

Personal stance:
The production and sale of drugs that have a reasonably high chance of harming the user should be illegal. The owning and usage of these drugs doesn't necessarily Have to be.


The production and sale of drugs that have a reasonably high chance of altering the user's perception in such a way that makes them more likely to commit a violent crime should be illegal. The owning and usage of these drugs should also be.

Of course, something that is neither should be legal, and something that is both should be illegal.

Seems to make sense. It's illegal to do something that potentially harms someone else that way.

Will this stop anyone? Probably not. However it would make the general public, and anyone involved in law-scribblin' or enforcing feel better about themselves, then everyone can just get on with whatever.

So what if people harm themselves by using a drug? You have to know what the potential effects are when you start. Just don't demand that I or anyone else take care of you because you were an idiot. As I said, there must be liability for actions taken under the influence of a drug, and nothing more is necessary.

I don't care if they harm themselves, its when they harm others. Preventing them from getting those substances in the first place ends the potential for harm before it starts. Legalize the harmless drugs and now you have billions of dollars and hundreds of man hours to prevent the real problem drugs. Tell me you have no problem with people using real problem drugs like crystal meth after you have seen and heard the things I have.

I don't care if they harm themselves, its when they harm others. Preventing them from getting those substances in the first place ends the potential for harm before it starts. Legalize the harmless drugs and now you have billions of dollars and hundreds of man hours to prevent the real problem drugs. Tell me you have no problem with people using real problem drugs like crystal meth after you have seen and heard the things I have.
"Harmless drugs" made me lol.

"Harmless drugs" made me lol.

It made me cringe to type it.

The "war on drugs" ... just kills people.

Wow... this might be the best terrible generalization in this thread so far.

The war on drugs has done nothing, except kill people.

Nice.

Jumping off the Empire State Building is a) likely a one time thing and b) likely does not cost society terribly much to clean up after. Possibly a quick investigation and power washing of the sidewalk.

Meth is a long term addiction that leads to further issues.

Like tobacco. Or alcohol.

....yeah, you go ahead and cook meth. Go see what happens.

People do. What happens? They sell it, I'd imagine.

if your interest is "punish people for doing bad things" then sure. If however your interest is "stopping bad things from happening to people" it doesn't really work too well.

To me, saving a life is more important than punishing the taker of that life.

You're advocating repeal of the Second Amendment?

Some drugs are too harmful to the user and/or innocent bystanders to ever be made legal.

Why shouldn't the 'harm to the user' be the choice of the user?

In the entire time I was doing drugs, I think I met maybe two or three people for whom the legal status of a drug had any impact on their decision to use.


I'm the opposite way round - I have an unsullied history... but I agree with the assessment. Legality of drugs had nothing to do with my choices.


Basically, I think most people who WOULD do drugs are going to do them regardless of whether or not they're legal.

What legalizing those drugs would have done is it would have made the drugs themselves safer and less likely to be contaminated, it would have reduced the criminal element from the dealer population, and it would probably have ended up making it much harder for me to obtain and use drugs as a minor. (Seriously, it was easier for me to get coke than alcohol when I was a minor.)

I'm all for legalization and regulation. The "war on drugs" doesn't work and never has, it just kills people.

Agreed.

2)So you would say, Shooting someone isnt insane behavior?
Not what I said at all. I said proper use of meth (that is, taking meth) invariably causes insane behavior. Proper use of a gun (that is, shooting it) does not invariably mean shooting at another human to kill them. Shooting someone would be insane behavior.
Like tobacco. Or alcohol.
Yes. Both can be addictive, and both can cost society. But not nearly to the extent of meth and PCP. Not all addictive substances are created equal.

Legalizing drugs would mean more people would use them.

Including children.

Think of the children: Say no to drugs!

:tongue:


In all seriousness, collateral damage to rest of the society is perfectly good reason to have laws and restrictions in the first place: Individuals might be smart but people as a whole incredibly stupid.

Yes. Both can be addictive, and both can cost society. But not nearly to the extent of meth and PCP. Not all addictive substances are created equal.

Meth and PCP are self-limiting. One person can't abuse either of them habitually for long.

Alcohol is more costly to society than meth or PCP. UNLESS you include the cost of keeping them illegal.

30-8 in favor of legalization of some sort.....tragic.

30-8 in favor of legalization of some sort.....tragic.

You're right.

It's sad that eight people want to limit our freedoms because they're scared of other people being happy and intoxicated.

30-8 in favor of legalization of some sort.....tragic.

I'm sure the 21st Amendment would have you crying in your beer.

I agree with Grave n Idle. Opium Dens or something like that. At least then you could draw them into the open and possibly help them. Throwing them in jail helps no one. Certainly not the penal system or the court system.

Meth is death sentence but nothing can be done when they are on the street. De-criminalize but maybe try to deter them. Yes, yes I know behavior modification. Maybe B.F. Skinner had it right?

Legalize Weed and Acid.

Nuff' said

I'd actually get a job then.

Not what I said at all. I said proper use of meth (that is, taking meth) invariably causes insane behavior. Proper use of a gun (that is, shooting it) does not invariably mean shooting at another human to kill them. Shooting someone would be insane behavior.

Yes. Both can be addictive, and both can cost society. But not nearly to the extent of meth and PCP. Not all addictive substances are created equal.


I don't know I think it is a matter of perspective alcohol and tobacco probably kill more than all the other combined because they are legal and not as harmful as the other two.

We need to help these people not lock them away.

You're right.

It's sad that eight people want to limit our freedoms because they're scared of other people being happy and intoxicated.

I might be wee bit against someone's intoxication if it would...
A) Risk my life
B) Cause harm to other innocent people


When your parents, the teacher of your kids, perhaps one of your underaged kids or the truck driver who drove over you/your family member is under influence I suspect even you might have something against liberal drug policies.

I don't like the poll. All drugs are not created equal. Some drugs are far too dangerous to be legalized and sold "over the counter", although some drugs are mostly harmless, others are quite easy to kill yourself with or worse others.

Meth and PCP are self-limiting. One person can't abuse either of them habitually for long.

Alcohol is more costly to society than meth or PCP. UNLESS you include the cost of keeping them illegal.

Alcohol use is also far more widespread (mostly because it is legal and readily accessable). It would be per capita cost for users that would be relevant, which I don't think we have. I also don't think we have numbers for individual drugs within the larger War on Drugs.

Meth and PCP are self-limiting. One person can't abuse either of them habitually for long.
What do you mean by self limiting and how long is "long"?

What do you mean by self limiting and how long is "long"?

I assume self-limiting means deadly.

I assume self-limiting means deadly.
Ah. That indeed is true. Nearly died.

I don't know I think it is a matter of perspective alcohol and tobacco probably kill more than all the other combined because they are legal and not as harmful as the other two.

We need to help these people not lock them away.

Death only costs the individual who dies. It may cost the state in some ammount of health care costs, but I don't tend to buy into that...everyone will die at some point, and the health care costs will still be there.

For all of these people who say all drugs should be freely available, do you think this for Azithromicin? Penicilin?

Death is a deterrent to drug use. However the only way to help them is to draw them out.

Death is a deterrent to drug use. However the only way to help them is to draw them out.

Death wasn't a deterrent for me. Before I was addicted I was pretty sure it couldn't happen, and after I was addicted I really didn't give a fuck, you know because I neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeded it.

Death is a deterrent to drug use. However the only way to help them is to draw them out.

death is a deterrent to a normal person. a person who is addicted to the hardest of drugs isn't normal. Rats would rather receive cocaine than food. Same goes for many humans. In my experience, many addicts either don't care if they die or wish they were dead. It ceases to be a deterrent.

Death only costs the individual who dies. It may cost the state in some ammount of health care costs, but I don't tend to buy into that...everyone will die at some point, and the health care costs will still be there.

For all of these people who say all drugs should be freely available, do you think this for Azithromicin? Penicilin?

Yeah except for the guy who does a swan dive off a building while loaded on PCP or runs through a mall with a sawed off. We need a place to put them where they do not hurt themselves or anyone else.

We are paying the health care costs now so I don't see how anything will improve? We are also paying the law enforcement costs, the legal system costs etc.


I am addicted to [whatever] so the solution is to throw me in jail so that the rest of my life is now messed up? So that I have no hope of rehabilitation and then throw back on the street in 10 years or so to repeat?

I might be wee bit against someone's intoxication if it would...
A) Risk my life
B) Cause harm to other innocent people


When your parents, the teacher of your kids, perhaps one of your underaged kids or the truck driver who drove over you/your family member is under influence I suspect even you might have something against liberal drug policies.

I am against people risking my life or health for any reason. I don't see why drugs should be singled out. After all, other people driving cars risks my life and causes harm to other innocent people, and unlike drugs this is not some sort of hypothesis about possible behaviour, but a given fact.

But we are not banning cars, are we? Instead we come up with laws that minimise the risk to others by making dangerous driving illegal. There is no logical reason to treat drugs differently.

I am addicted to [whatever] so the solution is to throw me in jail so that the rest of my life is now messed up? So that I have no hope of rehabilitation and then throw back on the street in 10 years or so to repeat?
I don't think anyone is saying that.

death is a deterrent to a normal person. a person who is addicted to the hardest of drugs isn't normal. Rats would rather receive cocaine than food. Same goes for many humans. In my experience, many addicts either don't care if they die or wish they were dead. It ceases to be a deterrent.

Well said. I would add making it illegal is even less of a deterrent. Although if you make it illegal now you risk the life/lives of the officer[s] who have to go and collect this user.

Yeah except for the guy who does a swan dive off a building while loaded on PCP or runs through a mall with a sawed off. We need a place to put them where they do not hurt themselves or anyone else.

We are paying the health care costs now so I don't see how anything will improve? We are also paying the law enforcement costs, the legal system costs etc. So your argument is to only allow these drugs to be used in certified parlors...are people required to stay there untill they are sober? How do we enforce that? Not to mention, that means that it is illegal to use the drugs in your own home, which means that we are still paying law enforcement costs, as well as maintenence/monitoring costs.


I am addicted to [whatever] so the solution is to throw me in jail so that the rest of my life is now messed up? So that I have no hope of rehabilitation and then throw back on the street in 10 years or so to repeat?
Is that at all what anyone has argued? Not a single person on here who has been debating has once said the War on Drugs in its current state is working. As Neo said...just because a system is flawed is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I am against people risking my life or health for any reason. I don't see why drugs should be singled out. After all, other people driving cars risks my life and causes harm to other innocent people, and unlike drugs this is not some sort of hypothesis about possible behaviour, but a given fact.

But we are not banning cars, are we? Instead we come up with laws that minimise the risk to others by making dangerous driving illegal. There is no logical reason to treat drugs differently.

Sure, no reason to treat them differently, if your interest is merely "punishing the guilty".

If your concern is, instead, actually saving lives, then it's not nearly so simple. Punishing behavior of an irrational mind (which is, by definition a mind on some drugs) merely punishes the behavior. It doesn't prevent the behavior from happening.

So sure, if your interest is merely retribution, then saying "take as much meth as you want, but if you do something bad on it (which you very well might, since if you're on meth, your rational mind goes out the window) we'll punish you." I prefer, however, to try to stop the bad thing from happening in the first place.

I guess it matters on whether you're coming from a place of retribution, or compassion.

But we are not banning cars, are we?
No, but we do actively limit their use.

Instead we come up with laws that minimise the risk to others by making dangerous driving illegal. There is no logical reason to treat drugs differently.

A drug license? One for each drug?

Hmm...

I might go with that as long as the license is revokable when, for example, planning parenthood or having to work in high risk environment (incl. transportation).

The problem with laissez-faire approach is that people are animals thinking themselves first without care for consequences.

Well said. I would add making it illegal is even less of a deterrent. Although if you make it illegal now you risk the life/lives of the officer[s] who have to go and collect this user.

I'd disagree. It is entirely dependent upon how the illegality is handled...essentially, what form the actual legislation takes. Do we punish low level users and dealers, or are we going hardcore after manufacture and large scale dealing?

Jail is often much more real for a person than death, particularly at young ages. The human mind is still "immortal" untill around 25...untill then, full regard of consequences just isn't in place.

Any drug that can cause significant physiological harm and harm to society should not be allowed to be sold to anyone (though possession of the drug should not be illegal), this would make Cannabis ok, but not other harder drugs. This is of course subject to practicalities, if there wasn't huge problems caused by banning people from selling cigarettes, and had a society not been introduced to cigarettes but the government was aware of the potential harm, it should be banned (and most likely any government would have a long time ago). In reality however, this is not the case.

I am against people risking my life or health for any reason. I don't see why drugs should be singled out. After all, other people driving cars risks my life and causes harm to other innocent people, and unlike drugs this is not some sort of hypothesis about possible behaviour, but a given fact.

But we are not banning cars, are we? Instead we come up with laws that minimise the risk to others by making dangerous driving illegal. There is no logical reason to treat drugs differently.

Proper, safe operation of a car leads to a safe situation.
Proper, safe use of meth leads to an, at best, unpredictable, and at worst, exteremly violent situation.

That is why we don't ban cars.

No, but we do actively limit their use.



A drug license? One for each drug?

Hmm...

I might go with that as long as the license is revokable when, for example, planning parenthood or having to work in high risk environment (incl. transportation).

The problem with laissez-faire approach is that people are animals thinking themselves first without care for consequences.

Sure I would go with that and voluntary removal from society. You know I am sure we have few spare warehouses. Each person is frisked for weapons at the door. All valuables are kept in storage for them when and if they decide to "check out". Maybe we can post guard only to make sure nobody gets mistreated or beat up or anything.

Meals would be a problem and paying for this operation.

Let me ask a question here. Some have argued that criminalizing drugs THEMSELVES is an improper limitation of freedom. Instead they've argued that if HARM comes from that activity, that should be punished, but only if harm comes from it. Otherwise to limit freedom that does not cause harm, is an improper limitation on freedom.

OK then, should I be allowed to take a machine gun, and fire wildly in a shopping mall, and escape punishment if, by some stroke of luck, I manage not to hit anyone?

After all, if your argument that restraints on freedom are illegitimate, unless I cause harm to someone, I should be able to fire wildly into a crowd, and only be punished if, by doing so, I actually manage to hit someone.

Or are we willing to admit that despite all that hyperbole, none of us ACTUALLY believe that?

One reason I'd like to see an end to the war on drugs: I've read too many stories of police raiding the wrong house due to misinformation, malicious false reporting, typos on the warrant, or sheer incompetence on the part of the raid team, and innocent people getting killed. That is unacceptable.

Furthermore, the Mexican border is a dangerous place for both US and Mexican citizens thanks to the drug gang violence that exists solely due to the US drug policies that make smuggling so profitable.

Lastly (for this post) I'd like to point out that the black market nature of drugs dramatically increases the prices and is a significant contributing factor to the crimes committed by addicts in order to fund their habits.

All things considered, there is a great unseen danger in the drug war that may well harm more innocent people that decriminalization could.

OK then, should I be allowed to take a machine gun, and fire wildly in a shopping mall, and escape punishment if, by some stroke of luck, I manage not to hit anyone?

After all, if your argument that restraints on freedom are illegitimate, unless I cause harm to someone, I should be able to fire wildly into a crowd, and only be punished if, by doing so, I actually manage to hit someone.

You could be charged with property damage, reckless endangerment, and any medical expenses from the probable ensuing panic. Your analogy fails. Of course, under the circumstances of such a free society, your penalty would more likely be a hail of gunfire from those you fired upon.

Sure, no reason to treat them differently, if your interest is merely "punishing the guilty".

If your concern is, instead, actually saving lives, then it's not nearly so simple. Punishing behavior of an irrational mind (which is, by definition a mind on some drugs) merely punishes the behavior. It doesn't prevent the behavior from happening.

So sure, if your interest is merely retribution, then saying "take as much meth as you want, but if you do something bad on it (which you very well might, since if you're on meth, your rational mind goes out the window) we'll punish you." I prefer, however, to try to stop the bad thing from happening in the first place.

I guess it matters on whether you're coming from a place of retribution, or compassion.

I'm not sure what you're trying to address here.

First of all, I don't think that people should be punished for simply having an irrational mind, or a mind on drugs.

If they do something bad while on drugs, then I care about the bad thing they did, just like I would care about the bad thing if they were completely sober.

If you want people to stop doing bad things while on meth, you can either stop the meth, which results in them doing bad things while not on meth, or you can address the actual bad thing and end up with people not doing bad things on meth, or not on meth if they prefer.

Unless you believe the meth causes the bad thing, which I'm not sure is true.

No, but we do actively limit their use.

A drug license? One for each drug?

Hmm...

I might go with that as long as the license is revokable when, for example, planning parenthood or having to work in high risk environment (incl. transportation).

The problem with laissez-faire approach is that people are animals thinking themselves first without care for consequences.

I was thinking more along the lines of simply ignoring the stoners unless they start causing problems for others.

You could be charged with property damage, reckless endangerment, and any medical expenses from the probable ensuing panic. Your analogy fails.

Reckless endangerment huh? Wow, that's FASCINATING. It's almost like we think it's ok to criminalize behavior when that behavior carries a high risk of harm to others, even if no harm ACTUALLY happens.

Well who woulda fucking thunk it.

I'd disagree. It is entirely dependent upon how the illegality is handled...essentially, what form the actual legislation takes. Do we punish low level users and dealers, or are we going hardcore after manufacture and large scale dealing?

Jail is often much more real for a person than death, particularly at young ages. The human mind is still "immortal" untill around 25...untill then, full regard of consequences just isn't in place.

Great throw them in jail so they can make friends with other experts in their craft. Feed them 3 meals a day give them a place to sleep. Allow them to workout and get bigger and meaner and learn from the best in the business. Then fast forward 10/15 years, now this guy is tattooed and has bunch of new friends in the business and now we put him back on the street.

Sure I would go with that and voluntary removal from society. You know I am sure we have few spare warehouses. Each person is frisked for weapons at the door. All valuables are kept in storage for them when and if they decide to "check out". Maybe we can post guard only to make sure nobody gets mistreated or beat up or anything.

Meals would be a problem and paying for this operation.

Doesn't work. If I voluntarily check in, and can choose when I check out, then there is nothing keeping me there. I take the meth, and leave to do as I please. Or I rob the place and take the meth home to sell or use as I please.

Proper, safe operation of a car leads to a safe situation.
Proper, safe use of meth leads to an, at best, unpredictable, and at worst, exteremly violent situation.

That is why we don't ban cars.

I don't agree with either of those statements. The amount of pollution caused by cars and their manufacture results in a lot of harm. And this is true regardless of whether or not the drivers are handling their cars safely. This is inherent to the act of burning fossil fuels.

I don't think extreme violence is inherent to meth use. I may be wrong. Do you have a link?

Great throw them in jail so they can make friends with other experts in their craft. Feed them 3 meals a day give them a place to sleep. Allow them to workout and get bigger and meaner and learn from the best in the business. Then fast forward 10/15 years, now this guy is tattooed and has bunch of new friends in the business and now we put him back on the street.
Yes. Because that is exactly what I am arguing. Except not at all. I have said nothing about what I think the punishment should be, only that I think there should be one.

Illegality is not inherently prison.

Unless you believe the meth causes the bad thing, which I'm not sure is true.

And therein lies the crux of our disagreement. I do.

I don't agree with either of those statements. The amount of pollution caused by cars and their manufacture results in a lot of harm. And this is true regardless of whether or not the drivers are handling their cars safely. This is inherent to the act of burning fossil fuels.
So your issue is with the proper use of fuels, not the proper use of the vehicle itself. Change the fuel to something that is entirely clean. The safe operation of a car is just that. Safe.
I don't think extreme violence is inherent to meth use. I may be wrong. Do you have a link?

Physical effects

Physical effects can include a reduced appetite, anorexia, hyperactivity, dilated pupils, flushing, restlessness, dry mouth, headache, tachycardia, bradycardia, tachypnea, hypertension, hypotension, hyperthermia, diaphoresis, diarrhea, constipation, blurred vision, aphasia, dizziness, twitches, insomnia, numbness, palpitations, arrhythmias, tremors, dry and/or itchy skin, acne, pallor, convulsions, coma, heart attack and death.[16][17][18][19]

[edit]
Psychological effects

Psychological effects can include euphoria, anxiety, increased libido, increased self-awareness, increased alertness, increased concentration, increased energy, increased self-esteem, increased self-confidence, increased excitation, increased orgasmic intensity, increased sociability, increased irritability, increased aggression, psychomotor agitation, hubris, excessive feelings of power and/or superiority, repetitive and/or obsessive behaviors, and with chronic and/or high dosages paranoia and amphetamine psychosis can occur.[20][17][19]
It is specifically the paranoia and amphetamine psychosis that tend to lead to violence, combined with irritability, agression, and feelings of power.

Doesn't work. If I voluntarily check in, and can choose when I check out, then there is nothing keeping me there. I take the meth, and leave to do as I please. Or I rob the place and take the meth home to sell or use as I please.

I never thought about the rob angle okay so maybe we need armed guards. Hey wait a minute this is starting to sound familiar?


That is the whole point check in and check out when you like. If we made the drugs free then there would be no reason to steal them? Let's face these drugs do no one any good so why should we let people profit from them? When you check in. Leave your weapons at the door or in lock up. Trip until your hearts content or it is not beating, but here is the catch once you light up, tune in whatever, you do not leave until you touch down. Nobody gets shot, nobody gets robbed, nobody drives while high. We have guards to make sure nobody gets beat up or raped.

I was thinking more along the lines of simply ignoring the stoners unless they start causing problems for others.
The problem with that is, that every time a stoner takes to the road with his or her car, they are causing [potential] problems for others. Same goes for a parent discarding their baby in order to 'get a hit' or someone giving their teen their first dose.


The licensing, I'm envisioning, would include both education, background check, exam and use test results of which would be used to decide whether the person is indeed responsible enough to use the drug. Naturally the license could be revoked with any breach of the license terms.

It wouldn't be perfect but I feel it would work better than IMO completely asinine uncontrolled drug use.

So your issue is with the proper use of fuels, not the proper use of the vehicle itself. Change the fuel to something that is entirely clean. The safe operation of a car is just that. Safe.



It is specifically the paranoia and amphetamine psychosis that tend to lead to violence, combined with irritability, agression, and feelings of power.

Yeah it punches holes in your brain, it is truly awful stuff. Have you seen the brain scans? Your brain starts to look like a golf ball.

I never thought about the rob angle okay so maybe we need armed guards. Hey wait a minute this is starting to sound familiar?


That is the whole point check in and check out when you like. If we made the drugs free then there would be no reason to steal them? Let's face these drugs do know one any good so why should we let people profit from them? When you check in. Leave your weapons at the door or in lock up. Trip until your hearts content or it is not beating, but here is the catch once you light up, tune in whatever, you do not leave until you touch down. Nobody gets shot, nobody gets robbed, nobody drives while high. We have guards to make sure nobody gets beat up or raped.

a) If I can't check out while I'm high, then it isn't checking out when I want.
b) How many guards are we having per person? Because a room full of people on meth is what I would term "volatile" to say the very least
c) We're giving the meth free? TNSTAAFL. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Who's paying for the meth?

Reckless endangerment huh? Wow, that's FASCINATING. It's almost like we think it's ok to criminalize behavior when that behavior carries a high risk of harm to others, even if no harm ACTUALLY happens.

Well who woulda fucking thunk it.

Yeah, like we punish drunk driving because it's when someone does something to endanger others. The drinking isn't the problem, it's the driving. Punish the actions that endanger others if you must, but don't punish the consumption of the drugs.

Yes. Because that is exactly what I am arguing. Except not at all. I have said nothing about what I think the punishment should be, only that I think there should be one.

Illegality is not inherently prison.

Trafficking gets you thrown in prison. Often for longer than killing someone. No matter why you were doing it. Even if it was to feed your family, it doesn't matter. We want blood.

Makes no sense and it is very expensive. We should just admit we can not win the War on Drugs(TM). There is no way, shut down one supplier and another one opens up. Nab one kingpin, 3 more step up to replace him or her. Attrition does nothing, it just wears down your forces in this case the police.

...It is specifically the paranoia and amphetamine psychosis that tend to lead to violence, combined with irritability, agression, and feelings of power.

Do you have anything that shows that stimulant psychosis is more widespread or more dangerous than, say, alcohol induced psychosis?

The problem with that is, that every time a stoner takes to the road with his or her car, they are causing [potential] problems for others. Same goes for a parent discarding their baby in order to 'get a hit' or someone giving their teen their first dose.


Right, and every time a stoner drives under the influence, we can bust them for DUI. Parents who discard their baby can be charged with child abuse. Look, we can actually address the actual issues that are actually causing social harm or risk without legislating other people's self-intoxication!

The licensing, I'm envisioning, would include both education, background check, exam and use test results of which would be used to decide whether the person is indeed responsible enough to use the drug. Naturally the license could be revoked with any breach of the license terms.

It wouldn't be perfect but I feel it would work better than IMO completely asinine uncontrolled drug use.

Would we need one for coffee? Cigarettes? Alcohol?

You know, no one has answered me yet...those of you who want full legalization of all drugs, do you also support the full legalization of all antibiotics including azithromycin, penicilin, levaquin, and amoxicilin?

a) If I can't check out while I'm high, then it isn't checking out when I want.
b) How many guards are we having per person? Because a room full of people on meth is what I would term "volatile" to say the very least
c) We're giving the meth free? TNSTAAFL. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Who's paying for the meth?

b) Many, I was being funny it starts to sound more and more like a conventional prison.

With the money you would be funding to the War on Drugs(TM)

c) Your average University Level chemistry student can make it, meth that is. Although it production is full of difficulties and is dangerous in and of itself. LSD is easier, less dangerous to produce and less costly.

Trafficking gets you thrown in prison. Often for longer than killing someone. No matter why you were doing it. Even if it was to feed your family, it doesn't matter. We want blood. Again, I've said nothing about form of punishment.

Makes no sense and it is very expensive. We should just admit we can not win the War on Drugs(TM). There is no way, shut down one supplier and another one opens up. Nab one kingpin, 3 more step up to replace him or her. Attrition does nothing, it just wears down your forces in this case the police.I'm still not arguing a continuation of the failed "war on drugs"

Do you have anything that shows that stimulant psychosis is more widespread or more dangerous than, say, alcohol induced psychosis?not on hand. I'm about to head out, but if I remember I'll dig something up.




Right, and every time a stoner drives under the influence, we can bust them for DUI. Parents who discard their baby can be charged with child abuse. Look, we can actually address the actual issues that are actually causing social harm or risk without legislating other people's self-intoxication!after the fact, yes, we can. You know, after the baby has been found in the dumpster, and the parents are already long gone. Or after the driver has already done something stupid. Preventative vs. punishment. I'd rather prevent the baby from being chucked away in the first place.

You know, no one has answered me yet...those of you who want full legalization of all drugs, do you also support the full legalization of all antibiotics including azithromycin, penicilin, levaquin, and amoxicilin?

Aren't they already legal?

not on hand. I'm about to head out, but if I remember I'll dig something up.




after the fact, yes, we can. You know, after the baby has been found in the dumpster, and the parents are already long gone. Or after the driver has already done something stupid. Preventative vs. punishment. I'd rather prevent the baby from being chucked away in the first place.

No rush on the link, I have to head out myself for a bit.

Preventing child abuse has little to do with drug legalisation and more to do with other factors, I believe.

b) Many, I was being funny it starts to sound more and more like a conventional prison.

With the money you would be funding to the War on Drugs(TM)

c) Your average University Level chemistry student can make it, meth that is. Although it production is full of difficulties and is dangerous in and of itself. LSD is easier, less dangerous to produce and less costly.

So the tax payer is now paying not just for current meth adicts, but anyone who wants to try to drug. We are not only paying for their drugs, but their care and security.

And yes, anyone can make meth. That doesn't mean that anyone can make meth for free. And LSD is irrelevant.

Decriminalize marijuana and keep everything else like it is.

Oh, and get rid of mandatory minimums because I'd rather our racism be a little more disguised.

Ah. That indeed is true. Nearly died.

That was, indeed, what I was getting at.

People I've known that used meth either go off it REAL quick, or pretty much destroyed themselves in pretty short order.

I think it'd be easier to keep track of who was using, and what kind of state they were in, if it was legal. And I think a lot of people would try to clean up a lot quicker if it were something you could admit to being involved in without worrying about legal repercussions.

I'm halfway between liberty and authority on drugs - as I said earlier, the stuff that's high maintenance, I think you should have to enroll in a program for, or register at centres, or something. Keep you off the street while you're fucked up. Let people see you who know what warning signs to look for, so you can get help, if you want it. etc.

Alcohol use is also far more widespread (mostly because it is legal and readily accessable). It would be per capita cost for users that would be relevant, which I don't think we have. I also don't think we have numbers for individual drugs within the larger War on Drugs.

Per capita cost of use? Or of the costs of use - like drink driving?

So your argument is to only allow these drugs to be used in certified parlors...are people required to stay there untill they are sober? How do we enforce that? Not to mention, that means that it is illegal to use the drugs in your own home, which means that we are still paying law enforcement costs, as well as maintenence/monitoring costs.


It doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal to use in your own home, so that's a bit of a strawman.

What it does mean, though - why would you do a drug at home, that was actually cheaper to do elsewhere?

I think it'd be easier to keep track of who was using, and what kind of state they were in, if it was legal.

Why?

Aren't they already legal?

With a script, yes. But then, so is heroin (diacetylmorphine or diamorphine), marijuana (specifically THC as Marinol), cocaine in a 4% solution, and yes, even our dear friend methamphetamine, sold under the brand name Desoxyn.

So...do you favor making all drugs over the counter, including antibiotics?

Why?

Because they wouldn't be so inclined to hide, I'd reckon.

Right, and every time a stoner drives under the influence, we can bust them for DUI.Parents who discard their baby can be charged with child abuse. Look, we can actually address the actual issues that are actually causing social harm or risk without legislating other people's self-intoxication!
But in my opinion PEOPLE simply aren't RESPONSIBLE enough for it to work without further control and thus it would cause inexcusable collateral damage.

Would we need one for coffee? Cigarettes? Alcohol?
Coffee - No.
Cigarettes & Alcohol - Yes, I'd like to see a license implemented.

Because they wouldn't be so inclined to hide, I'd reckon.

I guess that's a point. This is why I think possession of a drug should be legal, but selling certain hard drugs shouldn't be.

Why?

Because there'd be less incentive to hide it?

Because there'd be less incentive to hide it?

See above. Although that would be an argument for making possession illegal, I don't think that's any reason to make selling the drug legal.

Per capita cost of use? Or of the costs of use - like drink driving?
Total cost...actual costs of use combined with related crimes while on the drugs and off (that is, if you commit theft, and use the money to buy meth, that is part of the total cost), divided by the number of users.
It doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal to use in your own home, so that's a bit of a strawman.

What it does mean, though - why would you do a drug at home, that was actually cheaper to do elsewhere?

How are we making it cheaper? You're talking about a facility that supplies drugs, security, and medical care. How is that going to be cheaper?

And yeah, some people would rather do their drugs in their home rather than a facility.

It doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal to use in your own home, so that's a bit of a strawman.

What it does mean, though - why would you do a drug at home, that was actually cheaper to do elsewhere?

Yeah what he said and you would get people to voluntarily turn themselves in.

So maybe we only supply to existing drug users, not people who just want to try it. Those people we smack around and make them care for the people in the warehouse. See first hand what a life on drugs means. Oh and by the way sign your children up for adoption before you get into "The Program".

If we were really smart we would make them work for the drugs. I don't know picking up garbage or street cleaning, anything. So long as it is an easy task with no complicated machinery to hurt themselves with or others.


So you are meth addict, we will support your habit, just grab this pick and dig some coal.

Because there'd be less incentive to hide it?

While this is true, I think our government has to balance that with the fact that they'd be legalizing somethings quite dangerous to the user. Perhaps this wouldn't be outright approval of their use, but tacit at least. I think the real solution is to keep them illegal but reform the punishment/rehabilitation ratio we practice upon their users.

For instance, if we legalize drug use we can stress rehab as an option, but I think it should be mandatory and not optional. I just hesitate at the thought of government support of something so obviously unhealthy.

Yeah what he said and you would get people to voluntarily turn themselves in.

So maybe we only supply to existing drug users, not people who just want to try it. Those people we smack around and make them care for the people in the warehouse. See first hand what a life on drugs means. Oh and by the way sign your children up for adoption before you get into "The Program".

If we were really smart we would make them work for the drugs. I don't know picking up garbage or street cleaning, anything. So long as it is an easy task with no complicated machinery to hurt themselves with or others.


So you are meth addict, we will support your habit, just grab this pick and dig some coal.
That's pretty fucked up man.

Total cost...actual costs of use combined with related crimes while on the drugs and off (that is, if you commit theft, and use the money to buy meth, that is part of the total cost), divided by the number of users.


How are we making it cheaper? You're talking about a facility that supplies drugs, security, and medical care. How is that going to be cheaper?

And yeah, some people would rather do their drugs in their home rather than a facility.

We are doing it now it is called prison/penal system. None of those guys pays for their medical, we do. They do not pay to be feed, we do. The only benefit to our new system is you don't need police.

We are doing it now it is called prison/penal system. None of those guys pays for their medical, we do. They do not pay to be feed, we do. The only benefit to our new system is you don't need police.

We still have to pay for police (or security guards) within the complex. And...you know...the drugs. And is it legal to use meth at home still, or no?

Yeah what he said and you would get people to voluntarily turn themselves in.

So maybe we only supply to existing drug users, not people who just want to try it. Those people we smack around and make them care for the people in the warehouse. See first hand what a life on drugs means. Oh and by the way sign your children up for adoption before you get into "The Program".

If we were really smart we would make them work for the drugs. I don't know picking up garbage or street cleaning, anything. So long as it is an easy task with no complicated machinery to hurt themselves with or others.


So you are meth addict, we will support your habit, just grab this pick and dig some coal.and this is different from prison just because they can walk out when they want? Can they use meth at home legally?

While this is true, I think our government has to balance that with the fact that they'd be legalizing somethings quite dangerous to the user. Perhaps this wouldn't be outright approval of their use, but tacit at least. I think the real solution is to keep them illegal but reform the punishment/rehabilitation ratio we practice upon their users.

For instance, if we legalize drug use we can stress rehab as an option, but I think it should be mandatory and not optional. I just hesitate at the thought of government support of something so obviously unhealthy.

Well said but how do rehabilitate a trafficker? By removing the incentive, I say? You will no longer get rich doing this because we are going to put you out of business.

Rehab is great idea for people who decide to leave "The Program". The government would not be endorsing their use. We would be doing it to remove profit from the equation. No money, no supplier - no supplier, no problem. Then you just have current user who hopefully we can ween off.

and this is different from prison just because they can walk out when they want? Can they use meth at home legally?

Once you check in you have to go through rehab to get out. It would take maybe 3 to 5 years to flush the existing stock but eventually you would see a decline.

Once you check in you have to go through rehab to get out. It would take maybe 3 to 5 years to flush the existing stock but eventually you would see a decline.

So you can't check out whenever you want any more?

Yeah...this is prison crossed with a rehabilitation program.

The only real way to decrease drug use (in our current system certainly, and in any system I can envision) is to help the poor.

I wonder if anyone has ever seen the 5th season (I think) of the Wire?

We still have to pay for police (or security guards) within the complex. And...you know...the drugs. And is it legal to use meth at home still, or no?

Yeah, but hopefully less guards if you do it right. I suppose the chink in the armor is I guess it would be "not criminal" at home. I am fairly confident it will soon out those people as well. Eventually you will run out of family you can steal from and you will need a fix and we offer it "free of charge".

The police would still be required for these people. As a user if they get caught once they are assigned to "The Program". Traffickers and Suppliers if caught should be made to support them through work programs or something. See first hand the misery you cause everyday.

Yeah what he said and you would get people to voluntarily turn themselves in.

So maybe we only supply to existing drug users, not people who just want to try it. Those people we smack around and make them care for the people in the warehouse. See first hand what a life on drugs means. Oh and by the way sign your children up for adoption before you get into "The Program".

If we were really smart we would make them work for the drugs. I don't know picking up garbage or street cleaning, anything. So long as it is an easy task with no complicated machinery to hurt themselves with or others.


So you are meth addict, we will support your habit, just grab this pick and dig some coal.

Go Watch Interstate 60.

Go Watch Interstate 60.

:eek: You're a cruel cruel man.





Me likey. :)

Go Watch Interstate 60.

Thanks I will check it out.

:eek: You're a cruel cruel man.





Me likey. :)

Thanks I will check it out.

It's a good movie...

Promotes some really deep thinking...

Right Smunkee? ;)

"if someone offers you an advantage... might as well take it."

I'm picturing druggie-communes where people can take their own poisons without being arrested or what have you, where they either get plastered with leaflets on their way out the front door, or carted out the back.

The last bit is a bit sad :(

What? Are you serious? Legalise all drugs? That's just fucked up. Speaking from experience drugs are best left alone.

It's a good movie...

Promotes some really deep thinking...

Right Smunkee? ;)

"if someone offers you an advantage... might as well take it."

I wasn't prepared for that type of intellectual stimulation when I saw it, I thought I was just sitting down for a fluff movie on a Saturday afternoon....it broke my widdle brain.

I don't like the poll. All drugs are not created equal. Some drugs are far too dangerous to be legalized and sold "over the counter", although some drugs are mostly harmless, others are quite easy to kill yourself with or worse others.

^ This. It's utterly silly to declare that we should treat marijuana, meth, aspirin, Xanax, and azithromycin exactly the same way because "they're all drugs."

How are we making it cheaper? You're talking about a facility that supplies drugs, security, and medical care. How is that going to be cheaper?

And yeah, some people would rather do their drugs in their home rather than a facility.

It would be cheaper simply because you wouldn't have all the associated costs of the business being illegal. The drug you could buy on the street would be coming through illicit sources (if we instituted the kind of scheme I was suggesting), so would have the blackmarket premium added.

Medical care is irrelevent, because both legal and illegal users may need care.

So - the cost comes down to the security - is the self-policing you do of your User-Centres going to be less than the additional costs of bringing the drug to the street. That would probably hinge on the number of users that WERE willing to 'sign in', since the more active registrations, the lower the per capita cost.

While this is true, I think our government has to balance that with the fact that they'd be legalizing somethings quite dangerous to the user.

If you've ever looked at the shit food companies can legally put into your food, or actually looked at the horrendous road-death tolls in the US, you'd quickly see that 'dangerous to the user' is way, way, WAY down on the list.

As is collateral damage, if your investments are right.

Stupid poll is stupid.

It would be cheaper simply because you wouldn't have all the associated costs of the business being illegal. The drug you could buy on the street would be coming through illicit sources (if we instituted the kind of scheme I was suggesting), so would have the blackmarket premium added.

Medical care is irrelevent, because both legal and illegal users may need care.

So - the cost comes down to the security - is the self-policing you do of your User-Centres going to be less than the additional costs of bringing the drug to the street. That would probably hinge on the number of users that WERE willing to 'sign in', since the more active registrations, the lower the per capita cost.



User Centres sounds way better than "The Program"


Meth is not that expensive to make, the price comes from risk/danger to the makers i.e. being arrested, death in a hail of gunfire, ripoffs etc. It is also priced to what the market will bear which in this case is an awful lot.

If cocaine was $300 or $500 would it make a difference? Not to people who are addicted. It comes down to do I rob 3 people or 5?

If you've ever looked at the shit food companies can legally put into your food, or actually looked at the horrendous road-death tolls in the US, you'd quickly see that 'dangerous to the user' is way, way, WAY down on the list.

As is collateral damage, if your investments are right.

Very well said. If it doesn't explode too easily or if only a very few might experience it. You know a cost/benefit analysis at an average 10 million per lawsuit times the number of people affected. If it is less than the cost to fix it ... the public is in trouble.

Not all of them, no. Some are just too harmful to be available to the general public.

Im inclined to agree. Drugs that have high costs to the societies, both economic and otherwise, Im not in favor of legalizing. For example, heroin.

I dont think we should be jailing users however. Rehab.

With a script, yes. But then, so is heroin (diacetylmorphine or diamorphine), marijuana (specifically THC as Marinol), cocaine in a 4% solution, and yes, even our dear friend methamphetamine, sold under the brand name Desoxyn.

So...do you favor making all drugs over the counter, including antibiotics?

Let us not confuse things.

All drugs are toxic in certain dosages. So they must be regulated in some way.

Penicillin and other antibiotics have specific medical uses. They have no recreational uses.

Some drugs like marijuana and meth have both medicinal uses and medical ones.

Others, like alcohol, seem to have only recreational uses.

Consequently, we regulate their consumption differently. The term 'over the counter' deals specifically with non-recreational, medical drugs whose toxic dosage is such that it's difficult to really hurt yourself. It does not apply to powerful medical drugs that could cause you harm if taken improperly, or to recreational drugs, such as alcohol.

So, while I am in favour of legalising all drugs that can not be shown to cause a reasonable expectation of harm to others, I would not make them all 'over the counter'.

Let us not confuse things.

All drugs are toxic in certain dosages. So they must be regulated in some way.

Penicillin and other antibiotics have specific medical uses. They have no recreational uses.

Some drugs like marijuana and meth have both medicinal uses and medical ones.

Others, like alcohol, seem to have only recreational uses.

Consequently, we regulate their consumption differently. The term 'over the counter' deals specifically with non-recreational, medical drugs whose toxic dosage is such that it's difficult to really hurt yourself. It does not apply to powerful medical drugs that could cause you harm if taken improperly, or to recreational drugs, such as alcohol.

So, while I am in favour of legalising all drugs that can not be shown to cause a reasonable expectation of harm to others, I would not make them all 'over the counter'.

Talk about the cure being worse than the disease...

Methamphetamine is a Schedule II stimulant, which means it has a high potential for abuse and is available only through a prescription that cannot be refilled. There are a few accepted medical reasons for its use, such as the treatment of narcolepsy, attention deficit disorder, and -- for short-term use -- obesity; but these medical uses are limited.


So guess what happens when they can refill their prescription?

Marijuana is a little different but only in a matter of degrees. The majority of people are not using because of illness.

What constitutes "too harmful?" There's no objective way to quantify it, and no consistent and legitimate way to draw a line - it would be totally arbitrary. To say "Legalize them all...oh, except X Y and Z" is logically inconsistent and hypocritical.

Its in the same way that we can deem certain weapons as being too harmful for the public to have access to readily. Meth, for example is like a nuke. it just completely destroys everyone who takes it. Plus there is the nasty habit of meth houses exploding because those idiots are cooking explosive chemicals.

My guess is that you have never seen the harmful side affects that these hardcore drugs do to people, causing them to do all sorts of crazy things, often infringing on the rights of other people. (Think about how many people are robbed by crack heads, for example).

Marijuana doesn't really do this, which is why is should be the only illegal drug that is legalized. Crack/Cocaine, LSD, PCP, Meth, etc destroy brain functions too much, which in turn leads to people not being able to be a productive part of society.

Its in the same way that we can deem certain weapons as being too harmful for the public to have access to readily. Meth, for example is like a nuke. it just completely destroys everyone who takes it. Plus there is the nasty habit of meth houses exploding because those idiots are cooking explosive chemicals.

My guess is that you have never seen the harmful side affects that these hardcore drugs do to people, causing them to do all sorts of crazy things, often infringing on the rights of other people. (Think about how many people are robbed by crack heads, for example).

Marijuana doesn't really do this, which is why is should be the only illegal drug that is legalized. Crack/Cocaine, LSD, PCP, Meth, etc destroy brain functions too much, which in turn leads to people not being able to be a productive part of society.

Few of these people are being "productive" to society in their current state. If we legalize or better de-criminalize we can control and make it less profitable to produce the drugs which is the prime motivation for the suppliers.

While I may agree that Marijuana should not be lumped in with the rest of them. When you talk about it production is really a sorry state. Plus you get who know what else mixed with it. There are absolutely no controls in the current state. Making them illegal does nothing to curb it use, in fact it may even glamorize it in the United States. Think about all the rap stars just about every one was a dealer or around dealers.

The other one that comes to mind is "High Times" and magazines like it. When I was kid I used to go to the 'Head Shops" about every other week. They would have cool posters and roach clips and whatever. I mostly went because they had a kick ass music section. As we have seen legalizing does not much good either but at least we can control it to some degree. More importantly it hurts the criminals where it counts in the wallet.

^ This. It's utterly silly to declare that we should treat marijuana, meth, aspirin, Xanax, and azithromycin exactly the same way because "they're all drugs."

I will have to join the cheerleaders for this position. Some drugs can be lagalized, but not all of them. Some are simply too dangerous.

Trafficking gets you thrown in prison. Often for longer than killing someone.
Really?

Source, please.

Let us not confuse things.

All drugs are toxic in certain dosages. So they must be regulated in some way.

Penicillin and other antibiotics have specific medical uses. They have no recreational uses.

Some drugs like marijuana and meth have both medicinal uses and medical ones.

Others, like alcohol, seem to have only recreational uses.
There are few with no medicinal use or potential medicinal use. Similarly, there are few that have no street use (though, I would agree with some have no recreational use). For example, the antibiotics I mentioned have street value amongst adicts who develop abscesses. Legalization of many drugs would reduce this street use by providing legitimate pathways of care without risk of imprisonment. This I agree on. However, what has been established is that certain drugs must be treated differently. This is no different than what I suggest.

Alcohol was historically used as a medicine...this use has almost entirely disappeared with the advent of other, more effective, drugs. However, this does not negate its medicinal use. It is frequently seen in other drugs, like cough syrups and mouth washes.

Consequently, we regulate their consumption differently. The term 'over the counter' deals specifically with non-recreational, medical drugs whose toxic dosage is such that it's difficult to really hurt yourself. It does not apply to powerful medical drugs that could cause you harm if taken improperly, or to recreational drugs, such as alcohol.

So, while I am in favour of legalising all drugs that can not be shown to cause a reasonable expectation of harm to others, I would not make them all 'over the counter'.So you favor legalizing recreational use of drugs like meth, heroin, and PCP, despite the fact that these are drugs that are very easy to OD on, cause high personal harm, are highly addictive, and have been shown to correlate to higher levels of crime? I agree that my use of over the counter was not the proper phrase, but that is the closest I can come to something that describes the system most seem to be suggesting...access to drugs without a script.

I tend to fall in line with GnI in the field of regulation with the caveat that I do not believe that the harshest of drugs should be legal, and that redirecting resources from the failed war on drugs would easily cover increased education about all drugs, as well as handling those still illegal.

My point is this: many people, both here and in other conversations, say "legalize all drugs and tax them", then defend legalizing meth and PCP (and a handfull of others) without restrictions. What they fail to realize is one of two things: either they truly mean all drugs, in which case things like antibiotics come into frequent use without cause, leading to a whole mess of problems, or that they actually have no problem treating some drugs differently than we treat others.

If it is the first, it tends to be a part of the argument "It is the persons right to choose". This is flawed on several fronts...we, as members of society, give up certain freedoms to be a part of said society. Few would argue that it is okay, as neo said, to go into a crowded mall and fire a machine gun at random, so long as you don't hit anyone. In certain cases, the safety of society stands above the individuals right to get fucked up.
(side note: I learned today that my access to academic databases has run up. It may be a bit before I have a chance to get some sources running)

If it is the second, it is either ignorance of their own stance or blatant hypocricy a la "All drugs should be fully available. you're wrong for suggesting some shouldn't. Except, you know...these 500 medications. Thouse shouldn't be fully available."

Really?

Source, please.

http://www.abanet.org/media/kencomm/factsheet.pdf

Drug laws, particularly mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, are the largest driver of expanding prison populations.
- Between 1980 and 1990, the number of drug arrests almost doubled – from 581,000 to 1,090,000 Average Sentences for Federal Convitions (in months)
72.7 = Drug Trafficking
34.3 = Manslaughter
37.7 = Assault
65.2 = Sexual Abuse

Average Sentence (in months)



- In 2001, the average federal drug trafficking sentence was 72.7 months, the average federal manslaughter sentence was 34.3 months, the average assault sentence was 37.7 months, and the average sexual abuse sentence was 65.2 months.
- In state court, the average sentence imposed in state courts for felony drug trafficking was 35 months.



Even has a pretty graph if you look it up.

"We also found that among both women and men, crystal meth users were more likely to be involved in risk-taking and antisocial behaviors such as selling drugs and engaging in violent behavior," said Bonita Iritani, study author and Associate Research Scientist at PIRE's Chapel Hill Center. "Sexual risk taking including having more than one sex partner, not having safe sex, and having regretted a sexual situation due to alcohol or drug use also was more prevalent among meth users."
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Meth-Users-Involved-in-Violence--Sexual-Risk-Taking-3A-Study-23363-2/

Yes, legalization would reduce the selling of drugs (potentially with the caveat of necessitating other means of getting money), but would likely have little impact upon violent behavior.

The current research analyzed the relationship between methamphetamine use and violence among young adults eighteen to twenty-five years old. Interviews were conducted with a sample of 106 respondents. The research was based primarily on in-depth, life-history interviews with individuals who used methamphetamine for a minimum of three months and who resided in Los Angeles County.

Of the 106 respondents, 37 (34.9 percent) had committed violence while under the influence of methamphetamine. Males comprised two-thirds of the 37 respondents (N = 24). Of the total sample, 38 percent of males and 30 percent of females committed methamphetamine-related violence, respectively. Overall, the 37 respondents reported fifty-four separate violent events while using methamphetamine. Of these fifty-four events, thirty-three (61.1 percent) acts of violence involved domestic relationships, nine (16.7 percent) of the violent events were drug related, seven (13 percent) were gang related, and five (9.3 percent) involved random acts of violence (e.g., road rage, stranger assault).
link (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V75-4M9H3HD-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=abf9a8de04daa6e95dec92315b015485)
of these, legalization would possibly eliminate the 16.7% that were drug related. That is still significant violence whilst on the drug.

http://www.abanet.org/media/kencomm/factsheet.pdf

Drug laws, particularly mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, are the largest driver of expanding prison populations.
- Between 1980 and 1990, the number of drug arrests almost doubled – from 581,000 to 1,090,000 Average Sentences for Federal Convitions (in months)
72.7 = Drug Trafficking
34.3 = Manslaughter
37.7 = Assault
65.2 = Sexual Abuse

Average Sentence (in months)



- In 2001, the average federal drug trafficking sentence was 72.7 months, the average federal manslaughter sentence was 34.3 months, the average assault sentence was 37.7 months, and the average sexual abuse sentence was 65.2 months.
- In state court, the average sentence imposed in state courts for felony drug trafficking was 35 months.



Even has a pretty graph if you look it up.

manslaughter is unpremeditated killing, and is signficantly different than murder. Do you have figures for that?

It also likely has to do with the fact that drug traffickers are generally commiting several crimes simultaneously, rather than a killer who only commits one.

How about this here is another one.

http://www.cjpf.org/takeaction/crackcocaine.html

Currently under Federal law, trafficking in 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powder cocaine incurs a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment (up to 40 years). Trafficking in 50 grams of crack cocaine or 5000 grams of powder cocaine incurs a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment (up to life imprisonment). Persons convicted of aiding and abetting trafficking or being participants in conspiracies to traffic are also subject to these penalties

The term 'over the counter' deals specifically with non-recreational, medical drugs whose toxic dosage is such that it's difficult to really hurt yourself.
That's actually not true. Many over the counter drugs can cause serious liver damage and worse just by doubling up on the dose. They aren't over the counter because it's "really hard to hurt yourself" they're over the counter for completely different reasons.

There are few with no medicinal use or potential medicinal use. Similarly, there are few that have no street use (though, I would agree with some have no recreational use). For example, the antibiotics I mentioned have street value amongst adicts who develop abscesses. Legalization of many drugs would reduce this street use by providing legitimate pathways of care without risk of imprisonment. This I agree on. However, what has been established is that certain drugs must be treated differently. This is no different than what I suggest.

I didn't think of the fact that there would be an underground market for antibiotics. Public healthcare where I live makes this a non-issue. In that case, I would just argue for a public healthcare system as you would then kill several birds with one stone.

...

So you favor legalizing recreational use of drugs like meth, heroin, and PCP, despite the fact that these are drugs that are very easy to OD on, cause high personal harm, are highly addictive, and have been shown to correlate to higher levels of crime? I agree that my use of over the counter was not the proper phrase, but that is the closest I can come to something that describes the system most seem to be suggesting...access to drugs without a script.

I would ask some questions. A quick and dirty way of looking at it would be to compare ease of OD, level of individual harm (if you care), and causation of crime (rather than correlation) with the same criteria with respect to alcohol. Then based on how much worse, or better, the drug is than alcohol, you regulate it appropriately.

Assuming we're only talking about recreational drugs (because regulation of medicinal drugs is already around), we can use different models of regulating alcohol consumption to regulate party drug use. For example, in most of Canada, you can not buy any alcohol in the corner store. In Quebec, you can buy beer and wine at the corner store, but not hard liquor. So, let's say you can buy a pack of marijuana smokes at the corner store but you have to go to the hard drug store to get your smack. Or go to a bar, where they don't let you take it out of the bar.

I tend to fall in line with GnI in the field of regulation with the caveat that I do not believe that the harshest of drugs should be legal, and that redirecting resources from the failed war on drugs would easily cover increased education about all drugs, as well as handling those still illegal.

The only ones I would consider making illegal are those that cause violent or aggresive behaviour in a percentage of users that is greater than, say, the the percentage of those acting that way due to alcohol.

My point is this: many people, both here and in other conversations, say "legalize all drugs and tax them", then defend legalizing meth and PCP (and a handfull of others) without restrictions. What they fail to realize is one of two things: either they truly mean all drugs, in which case things like antibiotics come into frequent use without cause, leading to a whole mess of problems, or that they actually have no problem treating some drugs differently than we treat others.

Obviously, you have to treat drugs differently. Which is why I have aspirin in my medicine cabinet instead of dilaudid. But most party drugs should be legal for recreational use.

If it is the first, it tends to be a part of the argument "It is the persons right to choose". This is flawed on several fronts...we, as members of society, give up certain freedoms to be a part of said society. Few would argue that it is okay, as neo said, to go into a crowded mall and fire a machine gun at random, so long as you don't hit anyone. In certain cases, the safety of society stands above the individuals right to get fucked up.
(side note: I learned today that my access to academic databases has run up. It may be a bit before I have a chance to get some sources running)

But we don't outlaw all things that pose a risk to others, just those that pose an unreasonable risk. You can fire a machine gun at specific shooting locales that have done whatever is required to reduce the risk to others to a reasonable level. You can't drink booze while driving a school bus, but you can do it when you and your SO go out for a night on the town.

http://www.abanet.org/media/kencomm/factsheet.pdf

Drug laws, particularly mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, are the largest driver of expanding prison populations.
- Between 1980 and 1990, the number of drug arrests almost doubled – from 581,000 to 1,090,000 Average Sentences for Federal Convitions (in months)
72.7 = Drug Trafficking
34.3 = Manslaughter
37.7 = Assault
65.2 = Sexual Abuse

Average Sentence (in months)



- In 2001, the average federal drug trafficking sentence was 72.7 months, the average federal manslaughter sentence was 34.3 months, the average assault sentence was 37.7 months, and the average sexual abuse sentence was 65.2 months.
- In state court, the average sentence imposed in state courts for felony drug trafficking was 35 months.



Even has a pretty graph if you look it up.

Ah sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood what you meant by "trafficking" and for some reason thought you meant traffic violations. I would have been surprised if you got a worse punishment for parking illegally than for a brutal murder :p

But thanks for the link and your effort :wink:

manslaughter is unpremeditated killing, and is signficantly different than murder. Do you have figures for that?

It also likely has to do with the fact that drug traffickers are generally commiting several crimes simultaneously, rather than a killer who only commits one.


Are you kidding they plead down to Manslaughter. Not to mention murder caused by drug trafficking.



Man, how many would you like.

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2007/Table13.pdf

Take a look at the sheer volume of the problem

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/crime.html

How is this for your cost as well:

In America, the crime clock continues to click: one murder every 22 minutes, one rape every 5 minutes, one robbery every 49 seconds, and one burglary every 10 seconds. And the cost of crime continues to mount: $78 billion for the criminal justice system, $64 billion for private protection, $202 billion in loss of life and work, $120 billion in crimes against business, $60 billion in stolen goods and fraud, $40 billion from drug abuse, and $110 billion from drunk driving. When you add up all the costs, crime costs Americans a stunning $675 billion each year.

I didn't think of the fact that there would be an underground market for antibiotics. Public healthcare where I live makes this a non-issue. In that case, I would just argue for a public healthcare system as you would then kill several birds with one stone.It isn't so much the difficulty of getting them...there are free or cheap clinics in all major cities (and many minor ones), and a big oozing hole in the arm tends to be a pretty simple diagnosis...it's more the risk of then being reported for drug use. Though I don't disagree with the want for public healthcare.

I actually never considered the street value untill I talked to my dad. I have a closet full of antibiotics up here (dad is a doctor, whenever I need them, he orders me extra incase I need them again for something so I won't have to go get them again later). I was joking around, saying that for all the drugs I have, I couldn't sell a single one to make any money. He told me I easily could.



I would ask some questions. A quick and dirty way of looking at it would be to compare ease of OD, level of individual harm (if you care), and causation of crime (rather than correlation) with the same criteria with respect to alcohol. Then based on how much worse, or better, the drug is than alcohol, you regulate it appropriately.I'd agree with that, so long as the option to make a drug illegal for recreational use is available. I agree that causation would be a good stat...I'm just not finding sources on that right now.

Assuming we're only talking about recreational drugs (because regulation of medicinal drugs is already around), we can use different models of regulating alcohol consumption to regulate party drug use. For example, in most of Canada, you can not buy any alcohol in the corner store. In Quebec, you can buy beer and wine at the corner store, but not hard liquor. So, let's say you can buy a pack of marijuana smokes at the corner store but you have to go to the hard drug store to get your smack. Or go to a bar, where they don't let you take it out of the bar.
could possibly work, again, depending upon the drug in question. There is already a big issue with liability and alcohol service and consumption (as a bartender, I am liable if someone I served later gets in a car and kills someone)


The only ones I would consider making illegal are those that cause violent or aggresive behaviour in a percentage of users that is greater than, say, the the percentage of those acting that way due to alcohol.
fair enough.


Obviously, you have to treat drugs differently. Which is why I have aspirin in my medicine cabinet instead of dilaudid. But most party drugs should be legal for recreational use.Ah...most. So you are on the same side as both Neo and I, just phrasing it differently.



But we don't outlaw all things that pose a risk to others, just those that pose an unreasonable risk. You can fire a machine gun at specific shooting locales that have done whatever is required to reduce the risk to others to a reasonable level. You can't drink booze while driving a school bus, but you can do it when you and your SO go out for a night on the town.That's sorta the point I was getting at. As I said earlier, it is a cost/benefit thing. I simply think (from my personal experience with meth adicts) that the cost of permitting meth outweighs any benefit.

And the cost of crime continues to mount: ... $40 billion from drug abuse, and $110 billion from drunk driving. When you add up all the costs, crime costs Americans a stunning $675 billion each year.

What would abuse of legalized drugs (all drugs) cost America per year?

Are you kidding they plead down to Manslaughter. Not to mention murder caused by drug trafficking.
Yes...murderers try to plead down to manslaughter because it is a lesser crime carrying a lesser penalty. You claimed that killing someone will get a lesser penalty than drug trafficking. This is partially true, but not entirely. "killing someone" is not a crime: murder is a crime and manslaughter is a crime. The two are directly related through their result, but are not the same crime. By your chart, murder gets an average of 258.5 months, manslaughter 48.7, and drug trafficking 83.2. So yes, if you kill someone without having planned to do so before (by accident or something similar), you get a shorter sentence than someone who has actively planned to kill someone or a person who is actively engaged in the sale of drugs.



How is this for your cost as well:

In America, the crime clock continues to click: one murder every 22 minutes, one rape every 5 minutes, one robbery every 49 seconds, and one burglary every 10 seconds. And the cost of crime continues to mount: $78 billion for the criminal justice system, $64 billion for private protection, $202 billion in loss of life and work, $120 billion in crimes against business, $60 billion in stolen goods and fraud, $40 billion from drug abuse, and $110 billion from drunk driving. When you add up all the costs, crime costs Americans a stunning $675 billion each year.Uh huh...and which is far more common in the United States: drug use, or alcohol use? The sheer number of people using alcohol on a regular basis leads to the higher number. As I said, it would be more effective to look at per capita (cost divided by user) than raw cost. Legalization would likely lead to increased use, and therefore, increased cost...even if the cost dropped per person.

Here is another real good especially the part about CEOs and fraud. If you are going to steal make sure it is from your own company you will get less time than stealing a minivan.


http://social.jrank.org/pages/1286/Lesser-Crimes-Offenses-Sentencing-Drugs-Public-Order-Crimes.html


How about drugs? Those arrested on drug-related charges represented 20.9% of those incarcerated at the state level, up from just 6.5% in 1980. More people are arrested for possession of drugs than for trafficking, but more are imprisoned for trafficking. A drug trafficker received an average sentence of 69 months in 2001, just under 6 years, and down from the 83 months (7 years) he served in 1996. A sentence for drug possession has increased from a 6 month to a 7 month sentence. But not all drugs are equal under the law. Legislation passed by Congress in 1986 takes a harsher approach to crack over powder cocaine. Simple possession for powder cocaine is a misdemeanor; simple possession for crack cocaine is a felony. The average sentence length for powder cocaine is 77 months, compared to 119.5 for crack cocaine. That's nearly as long as the current sentences for murder (203.4 months), kidnapping/hostage taking (181.5 months), robbery (93.5 months), and arson (82.1 months). In May 2001, legislation increased sentencing around the drug Ecstasy. Possession of 800 Ecstasy pills is now a 61 month sentence, up from 18 months before the law. An Ecstasy related crime now receives a 60 month sentence, up from 25 months. (Ecstasy and other club drugs are examined in Chapter 6).

Here is another real good especially the part about CEOs and fraud. If you are going to steal make sure it is from your own company you will get less time than stealing a minivan.


http://social.jrank.org/pages/1286/Lesser-Crimes-Offenses-Sentencing-Drugs-Public-Order-Crimes.html


How about drugs? Those arrested on drug-related charges represented 20.9% of those incarcerated at the state level, up from just 6.5% in 1980. More people are arrested for possession of drugs than for trafficking, but more are imprisoned for trafficking. A drug trafficker received an average sentence of 69 months in 2001, just under 6 years, and down from the 83 months (7 years) he served in 1996. A sentence for drug possession has increased from a 6 month to a 7 month sentence. But not all drugs are equal under the law. Legislation passed by Congress in 1986 takes a harsher approach to crack over powder cocaine. Simple possession for powder cocaine is a misdemeanor; simple possession for crack cocaine is a felony. The average sentence length for powder cocaine is 77 months, compared to 119.5 for crack cocaine. That's nearly as long as the current sentences for murder (203.4 months), kidnapping/hostage taking (181.5 months), robbery (93.5 months), and arson (82.1 months). In May 2001, legislation increased sentencing around the drug Ecstasy. Possession of 800 Ecstasy pills is now a 61 month sentence, up from 18 months before the law. An Ecstasy related crime now receives a 60 month sentence, up from 25 months. (Ecstasy and other club drugs are examined in Chapter 6).
no one on here has claimed that the war on drugs is working or should be continued as is.

What would abuse of legalized drugs (all drugs) cost America per year?

That is why you have to control it because you can't stamp it out, it is not possible when profit is the motive. So you make it legal or de-criminalize it and control where and how they use it. Make it free to all existing users. Please sign up for application to one our "User Centres" any children you have will be put in foster care and we will keep you as safe as possible. Much safer than on the street or in some back alley way.

We know you won't be driving a car

We know you won't be stealing for a fix

We know you won't have to risk killing someone to get the stuff.

They would also be near medical help should the need arise plus then maybe you can get them to come off.

That is why you have to control it because you can't stamp it out, it is not possible when profit is the motive. So you make it legal or de-criminalize it and control where and how they use it. Make it free to all existing users. Please sign up for application to one our "User Centres" any children you have will be put in foster care and we will keep you as safe as possible. Much safer than on the street or in some back alley way.

We know you won't be driving a car

We know you won't be stealing for a fix

We know you won't have to risk killing someone to get the stuff.

They would also be near medical help should the need arise plus then maybe you can get them to come off.

I think you're being naive about drug addiction.

I would not try to claim that alcohol is any better but compare and contrast the problem as it is now to the problem under Prohibition. You had gangs, murder, organized crime etc. What do you know the same as we see under our current drug laws. There will always be alcoholism; there will likely also be drug abuse. Which better an uncontrolled problem or a controlled one?

What would abuse of legalized drugs (all drugs) cost America per year?

What is the cost of alcoholism? At least drunk driving is only small percentage I would say. Alcohol does not have the same stigma as drugs.

You know it because of our culture mostly. I mean think of Animal House, Arthur, PCU, Van Wilder whatever the drunk guys are always the fun ones.

Same thing with drugs

Trainspotting, Yellow Submarine, Pretty much any movie in the 60's, Cheech and Chong

It all leads you to the same place....


Rock bottom

What is the cost of alcoholism?

Don't know about the US but in the UK a really high proportion of domestic violence, assaults, accidents, fires, in fact pretty much most crime there is a higher association with alcohol than other drugs.

Don't know about the US but in the UK a really high proportion of domestic violence, assaults, accidents, fires, in fact pretty much most crime there is a higher association with alcohol than other drugs.

Not to mention homelessness, loss of job, loss of family

Alcohol is no better really unless you consider the fact that it may be a little easier to recover from and unless you are violent, usually does not carry a jail term. To some degree alcohol just works at a much slower pace.

I think the problem is better controlled. In the USA we have law where you can place a liquor store when it can open, who it can sell to, you have requirements for licenses etc.

Since drugs tend to work much quicker and have a somewhat more drastic affect on a person you would need to make stronger regulations on where it could be done. Hence our "User Centre" idea.

Don't know about the US but in the UK a really high proportion of domestic violence, assaults, accidents, fires, in fact pretty much most crime there is a higher association with alcohol than other drugs.
Again, is that per capita of users, or is that raw numbers? More people drink, and so the numbers (of course) will be inflated.

That is why you have to control it because you can't stamp it out, it is not possible when profit is the motive. So you make it legal or de-criminalize it and control where and how they use it. Make it free to all existing users. Please sign up for application to one our "User Centres" any children you have will be put in foster care and we will keep you as safe as possible. Much safer than on the street or in some back alley way.

We know you won't be driving a car

We know you won't be stealing for a fix

We know you won't have to risk killing someone to get the stuff.

They would also be near medical help should the need arise plus then maybe you can get them to come off.

If you're going that route... might as well make em second class citizens. keep em in camps and make em work for their fix.

don't let them have kids (Withdrawl symptoms are BAD.) and keep them away from any type of machinery.

need some form of ID that cannot be lost or given away... say... a tattoo?

If you're going that route... might as well make em second class citizens. keep em in camps and make em work for their fix.

don't let them have kids (Withdrawl symptoms are BAD.) and keep them away from any type of machinery.

need some form of ID that cannot be lost or given away... say... a tattoo?

Seems fair. Although the machinery clause seems like it would only apply when they were actually suffering the effects of the drug(s).

What about when they left these 'holiday camps'? Another tattoo?

Seems fair. Although the machinery clause seems like it would only apply when they were actually suffering the effects of the drug(s).

What about when they left these 'holiday camps'? Another tattoo?

nope. After all, withdrawls can be bad (depending on the drug used) and operating any type of machinery can be dangerous.

leave?

I guess they can leave if they kick the habit, but it's a one time deal. once they return to the camp...

If you're going that route... might as well make em second class citizens. keep em in camps and make em work for their fix.

don't let them have kids (Withdrawl symptoms are BAD.) and keep them away from any type of machinery.

need some form of ID that cannot be lost or given away... say... a tattoo?

What are they now? Second class citizens would be higher on the scale.

I believe it goes Slaves, Outlaws & Criminals, Indentured Servants, and so on.

Since in the US we have no more slaves, at least legal ones.


What about the children they already have while they search for their next fix?

I am not suggesting we take their rights away. Since it is voluntary they could opt-out and we would help them.

You are trying to draw the parallel between drug dealers and Racism?

nope. After all, withdrawls can be bad (depending on the drug used) and operating any type of machinery can be dangerous.


The same is obviously true of cough medicine - indeed, it's right there on the wrapper.


I guess they can leave if they kick the habit, but it's a one time deal. once they return to the camp...

Why are we holding drugs to different standards? For the effects - I can see it, but a 'one-strike' policy on one drug, but not on others...

The same is obviously true of cough medicine - indeed, it's right there on the wrapper.



Why are we holding drugs to different standards? For the effects - I can see it, but a 'one-strike' policy on one drug, but not on others...

well, why not for all?

(of course I'm not being serious here.) ;)

Why are we holding drugs to different standards? For the effects - I can see it, but a 'one-strike' policy on one drug, but not on others...

Technically that would be a two strike policy. Since they got addicted once, reformed, then got addicted again.

Alcohol was historically used as a medicine...this use has almost entirely disappeared with the advent of other, more effective, drugs. However, this does not negate its medicinal use. It is frequently seen in other drugs, like cough syrups and mouth washes.

It's also the cure for ethylene glycol (found, for instance, in antifreeze) poisoning.


My position on the OP:
As a general rule, I think all things should be legal unless the government has a very good reason for interference. Obviously, "very good reason" is a bit subjective, but I set the bar rather high.

So I think the vast majority of drugs should be legal. In some cases, they may be heavily regulated. In others, it should be legal to sell them at the local corner store. And there may be arguments compelling enough to make certain drugs completely illegal.

Reckless endangerment huh? Wow, that's FASCINATING. It's almost like we think it's ok to criminalize behavior when that behavior carries a high risk of harm to others, even if no harm ACTUALLY happens.

Well who woulda fucking thunk it.

You knew this was going to happen, didn't you you crafty fucker? :p

So you can't check out whenever you want any more?

Yeah...this is prison crossed with a rehabilitation program.

On a dark desert highway,
cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas,
rising up through the air...

well, why not for all?

(of course I'm not being serious here.) ;)

(Don't worry, I have no problems with pushing the envelope, or even taking a complete Devilled Avocado position, when it seems warranted).

Why not for all? To me - the simple acid test that we've consistently NOT done it so far.

Technically that would be a two strike policy. Since they got addicted once, reformed, then got addicted again.

One strike at 'the cure'.

http://jokes-o-matic.com/categories/whatever/jokes/Fridays-in-Hell I love the bunny fu-fu reference

One strike at 'the cure'.
Oh, come now. They weren't that bad of a band...

Oh, come now. They weren't that bad of a band...

*shocked face*

Wash your mouth out with gin! I love the Cure!

(Don't worry, I have no problems with pushing the envelope, or even taking a complete Devilled Avocado position, when it seems warranted).

Why not for all? To me - the simple acid test that we've consistently NOT done it so far.

but we're consistant in our inconsistency.

*shocked face*

Wash your mouth out with gin! I love the Cure!

a) that doesn't surprise me for some reason and b) if I must.

*doesn't actually mind the cure at all, but does love me some gin*

but we're consistant in our inconsistency.

We're not, though, are we.

Look at our policies regarding many of the very drugs we're discussing. The drugs that are SOOO evil, and unthinkable now... were legal centuries, or just decades... ago. And some of the drugs still are legal... and some aren't.

We're not even consistent in being IN-consistent. :(

a) that doesn't surprise me for some reason and b) if I must.

*doesn't actually mind the cure at all, but does love me some gin*

I... don't... think I was being dissed... bah, hang it all. Pass the gin.

I... don't... think I was being dissed... bah, hang it all. Pass the gin.

Gin: solves all problems on NSG.

Gin: solves all problems on NSG.

In my experience, Gin solves ALL problems.

Either that, or you don't care any more...

:D

In my experience, Gin solves ALL problems.

Either that, or you don't care any more...

:D
If that isn't a solution, I don't know what is. Cheers.

Considering that since the United States criminalized marijuana use has increased 1400%, it shows that people will use what they are going to use. It is a personal choice and people should be free to make it. It was sea change when the government suddenly decided in the 20's that it would start policing what people put in their bodies, it is generally assumed that the Constitution upheld the right of people to use drugs that made them feel good.

Legalized drugs would have several effects: first it would make them safer, anything legal and manufactured and marketed is inherently safer. This would lead eliminate accidental overdoses as the drug in question would have a known purity and concentration level. Second: Our borders would be much safer the violence at our borders has one source drug money. Put that money ion the hands of americans that produce the drug here and Mexican and Colombian drug lords lose the single biggest drug market in the world.

Keeping drugs illegal only helps those that distribute it illegally by keeping prices astronomically high. It should be a no brainer to legalize drugs.