Should drugs be legalised? - Page 2

Derek... what are you talking about? You're ignoring DECADES of tobacco and alcohol regulation that, over the last generation or so, has become incredibly sophisticated and monumentally profitable for both state and federal governments.

It's impossible to make a case against drugs whilst alcohol and nicotine are not just legal but seemingly endorsed by the state. And let's not forget food itself. Yes, the latter is a basic human necessity whilst the former are recreational. But we must remember that certain foods (especially those containing high quantities of sugar and fat) are highly addictive.

The food industry likes to fall back on the argument of free will. We have control over our own lives and we should exercise such to ensure healthy living. But there is a mountain of evidence which says that - when presented with copious opportunity (as most in the West are) - certainly personality types find it incredibly difficult to say "no".

I don't know about anyone else but I found it far easier to quit smoking (which was by no means a cakewalk) than give up sugar or fatty foods. Food is addictive. Which is why many Western nations are currently battling an epidemic of obesity.

I recall a conversation with my dentist a few years ago in which he showed me a diagram that traced the spread of diabetes throughout the world alongside exports of a very popular soft drink.

For some time I've vacillated between outright legalisation and decriminalisation and I still can't make up my mind. I certainly wouldn't like to see some form of pharma-state partnership (as we see with alcohol and, to a lesser extent, cigarettes) insofar as heroin or methamphetamine is concerned.

This is a very tricky issue. Many drugs are highly addictive and addiction cannot be switched off and on in line within the constraints of society. It's one thing if your bus driver, or the guy working next to you on a hazardous assembly line is addicted to cigarettes. It's altogether something else if he is hooked on junk.

Cigarettes sure... but let's say that same bus driver is dangerously addicted to alcohol. Personally, I'd say that's about as potentially harmful for society as a whole as an addiction to hard drugs.

The biggest difference is that the alcohol addicted bus driver has NUMEROUS, respected, socially acceptable treatment paths to seek... paths that, to a limited degree, involve aid in the form of government/charitable funding that make these programs ACCESSIBLE to people in lower income brackets.

Addicted to heroin? Methadone clinic for you. Also, you're scum.

Personally I support decriminalisation over legalization for the simple reason that taking illicit drugs out of the hands of ruthless criminal empires and putting them into the hands of ruthless corporate empires seems like a simple 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' scenario.

If you legalise a drug, you facillitate ease of use, therefore more people will use it. I don't think we should be encouraging heroin and cocaine use. Even though one can find those drugs anyway, its much tougher than it would be if it were legal. Decriminalisation is something I support too.

Do you really think I give a shit what the Rand Corp. says?

Yeah, thats how I feel about it as well.

If I lived in California I would vote yes.

To me, the argument that youth can get their hands on illegal drugs easier than legal, is bs. In HIGH school, pot was much easier to come by than alcohol. Also legalizing pot is a no brainer since its a Plant that i have seen grow ACCIDENTALLY. If we found that birch trees got you high, would we arrest eighty percent of america and go on a tree burning binge? Since this is the only major drug that is really natural, it seems that any drug that requires manufacturing would absolutely suffer detriment to legalization. If Pfizer's making legally required, "safer" meth earl in the trailer park stands no chance. I guess i just feel that putting murderers in jail is more important than someone with a green thumb. Also: outlaw paint,keyboard duster, listerine, nyquil, and oxygen.

Uh... Touché?

I'm talking purly about the many lawsuits that drug companies and tobaccoo companies are still going through. There was a lawsuit won this year against RJ Reynolds.

I get alot of the "this drug is believed to have caused heart desease to patients. If you were a patient or your a family member of a patient between 2000 and 2007 call us" ads in my area. There are alot of these cases pending in our court system in which a drug was used and then recalled.

I'm asking if recreactional drugs became legalised, couldn't one still sue for damages those drugs cause (maybe marajuana is off the list, but considering we are talking about legalising heroin, meth, cocaine, I think the question of are companies that would manufacture those be liable for any damages caused)

I applogize because I know that this is something more of a parrell universe question because in general the drugs being legal is not going to be occuring anytime in my lifetime.

Have you seen a lot of liquor companies getting into gang wars recently? This is anti-corporate sentiment taken to an illogical extreme.

But age limits don't really help that much, do they? Kids can still get drunk or high if they want to. It's just made easier if you can get it from anyone of legal age instead of a limited number of dealers.

Considering the costs and misery caused by already "safely regulated" drugs and alcohol, I dont see how more of them would be a good thing.

And of course more people will start using drugs, or more of it, if it's legal and easier to get hold of. Why wouldn't they?

Lawsuits against tobacco and prescription drug companies aren't based on the bare fact that they have negative health consequences so much as the failure to accurately represent those consequences to consumers. Presumably, commercial cocaine distributors would have similar obligations in terms of warning labels, fine print, and so forth.

Legitimizing drug cartels to the extent that they'd subject to the same legal avenues and restraints as McDonalds/Phillip Morris/Pfizer would be one of the primary benefits of legalization. Class action lawsuits are messy and costly, but they're preferable to drug wars.

I just wanna clarify... are you specifically referring to harder drugs than pot? I feel that you are... just wanna be sure.

The arguments against legalization, at least the ones worth arguing with, the ones that go beyond "Drugs are bad, m'kay" are in my opinion two.

The first one says that criminals would then just move to a different source of income. And that's the whole point, in my opinion. Drug trafficking is so easy and profitable that depriving it from criminal organizations would cut down their power to an extend that policing will never be able to. First of all it will completely break down the chain of interlinked organizations from production, to transport, to distribution that exists today making their structure obsolete and vulnerable in a very short time. Take for example a Mexican cartel. It employs a huge number of people for a variety of jobs. Security, enforcement, storage, transportation, financial, all tuned to the task of getting drugs over the border to the US. Without product what are they going to do? It will have to be broken up due to both redundancy and cash flow problems. Where will the remnants of the cartel turn to then? The only things with as big a market as drugs are the arms trade and the oil trade. Good luck with getting into either of them. This period of weakness and disorganization would be perfect for a big push from law enforcement since they will surely have momentum on their side. It will be the biggest blow against organized crime in history. Will the criminals find in the end something other to do? Surely, but short of them spraying random streets with machine guns and grenades it will create less collateral damage to society.

The second is whether lawful availability will mean increased number of addicts. To that there is already a real world, large scale example. The use of drugs in Portugal is completely decriminalized. You can shoot heroin in front of a cop and the only thing he can do is give you advice about using clean needles and point you to the nearest rehabilitation center (I'm exaggerating a tiny bit). What did it accomplish? It cut down deaths by overdose in half. It cut down drug-use related HIV infections by half. And all that without any noticeable spike in drug consumption. I bet that example doesn't come up too often in the US whenever legalization is discussed.

Our foolish fear of challenging our taboos, to the detriment of our well being is infuriating.

Yes.

That Rand thing is kind of a "well, no shit" item though. Of course California standing lonely out there isn't going to end the Mexican Drug Wars. But the whole nation making it legal? That would certainly make a huge impact.

I'm really looking forward to this docu. by Eugene Jarecki (Why We Fight)

While the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq) should continue to be at the forefront in the minds of US citizens, I think the 'drug war' has been and will continue to be more damaging to our society.

I can only hope Obama will address this in his 2nd term.

 

 

--Filmed in more than twenty states, THE HOUSE I LIVE IN tells the stories of individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the narcotics officer, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s criminal justice system, revealing the profound human rights implications of U.S. drug policy.

 

Rather silly postulation,,,,   The question is not IF drugs should be legalized,,,  the majority of recreational drugs are derived from naturally occurring plants,  I DARE you to outlaw a plant..  I can't even keep weeds out of my yard. So your beloved government is now going to regulate what is allowed to grow? Ahhh....  but they don't CARE what grows...  or the effects....  they simply want the TAX revenue.... so, regardless of the benefits....  if they can't tax it, YOU can't have it.