Legalize it. ALL of it.

[Heysup]

Speaking as one who has used heroin and who currently smokes a fair deal, even trying to compare the two is like.. eh. Trying to compare a very mild paper-cut with the severance of a limb. You really can't.

If you're really going to go down the 'you're fucking up your life by smoking' route, where the hell are you going to stop? Banning fat people from eating cake, forcing abortions on teenage girls because they're certainly fucking their lives up by getting pregnant too early, legislating on what education people take (and I mean choosing someone's career path for them based on perceived strength, not saying your populace need to gain a basic level of education before leaving school), choosing what people read, say, and do in case they fuck up their lives by doing so? Prosecuting people for being in destructive relationships, fining people for dying their hair a stupid colour or getting visible tats/face piercings (since that seriously hinders possible career choices, and therefore fucks your life up to a degree)?

Where exactly do you stop on this slope? Seems pretty damn slippery to me.

I actually sort of outlined that.

You stop when people DONT hurt other people around them. A fat person eating cake ONLY hurts himself. Smoking of any kind produces second hand Smoke, Polution, etc. Thats the difference between Drugs and cake children. I would consider smoking a form of manslaughter if I had the choice.

Cigarettes and the drugs in question ARE similar, you cant deny that. People fuck their lives up from smoking AND heroin alike, you dont need to have done either to know that.

 

[akuchi]

Well why the hell else would someone kill themselves if not to escape outside factors? For giggles and shits? Are you telling me that emotional pain (that could be ongoing for decades) and abuse is not reason enough to commit suicide?

I know/knew a rather lovely boy who killed himself purely on the grounds he didn't really see the point in life. He wasn't depressed, or mentally ill, or physically ill. He'd had cancer as an early teen which had been in remission for years but forced him to confront his own mortality, and he realised that a) he wasn't scared of death, and b) he didn't particularly want anything out of life. So he killed himself. I believe it's three years to the day next week.

 

[Janenmori]

I know/knew a rather lovely boy who killed himself purely on the grounds he didn't really see the point in life. He wasn't depressed, or mentally ill, or physically ill. He'd had cancer as an early teen which had been in remission for years but forced him to confront his own mortality, and he realised that a) he wasn't scared of death, and b) he didn't particularly want anything out of life. So he killed himself. I believe it's three years to the day next week.

One of the main symptoms of major depressive disorder, also known as clinical depression, is a loss of interest or pleasure in normally enjoyable activities. Many people with depression are good at hiding it, and this is a sign of another symptom, which is self-neglect. So you cannot really be sure if he did or did not kill himself out of depression. And before you accuse me of not knowing, I have personal experience regarding the matter of depression.

 

[akuchi]

So do I, so did we all. I knew him personally, I've been clinically depressed for more years than I care to remember, numerous psychiatrists had found nothing wrong with him, noone considered him depressed including himself.
Just because it's not the usual reason for terminating one's life does not mean it is not a possible reason for some incredibly special and unusual people to do so.
He did not neglect himself. He took interest in a lot of activities and had a lot of fun, he enjoyed life. He just didn't really want to spend the rest of his living, which is fair enough and his choice.

On topic to the drugs analogy: we all knew this was his choice, and we didn't prevent him - I talked to him the night he died, before he took the pills - his girlfriend talked to him whilst he was overdosing. And we didn't stop him. Why? Because we knew him well enough, and respected him well enough, as a bright, intelligent, caring young man who was reasonable enough and responsible enough to have autonomy over the most basic aspect of his existence - namely, whether he lived or died.
That is not our choice to make for someone else.

 

[Hipmonlee]

It's actually not a reason for killing yourself at all. Not wanting anything out of life is different to wanting to be dead.

Either he was kinda confused about something or he wanted to die for a reason other than what you said. Or I misunderstood your explanation of his reasoning.

Have a nice day.

 

[CaptKirby]

Don't you mean undocumented foreign citizens? Aliens are from Mars, not Mexico! /claptrap.

Porous borders do encourage the drug trade, but Mexican drug traders would still try and ply their trade even if drugs were legalized. Criminal enterprise has entrepreneurs too.

It is incredible that you not only make a pointless semantic argument to get on your pedestal and espouse your stance (or I assume you must be anti-illegal aliens, or this would be pointless and asinine for you to say), but then missed my point entirely. My point is that the United States would lose an excuse to deport people by legalizing all drugs, their greatest excuse by far, which is not something that would be well-liked!

 

[ivar]

Any reason is a reason, the reason, in this instance, being that he find life to be undesirable. And by finding life undesirable, he wants to kill himself (to rid himself of that which he finds undesirable). Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Hipmonlee]

She never said he found life undesirable, just that he didnt see the point in it. Her whole point seemed to be that he killed himself despite not finding life undesirable at all.

Not seeing a point in life is only a justification for killing yourself if you see a point in death.

Have a nice day.

 

[Deck Knight]

It is incredible that you not only make a pointless semantic argument to get on your pedestal and espouse your stance (or I assume you must be anti-illegal aliens, or this would be pointless and asinine for you to say), but then missed my point entirely. My point is that the United States would lose an excuse to deport people by legalizing all drugs, their greatest excuse by far, which is not something that would be well-liked!

LOL at excuse. The broke the law. Drug crimes are just a secondary offense after illegal breakins. Illegals murder people and drive without licenses or a knowledge of English, killing hundreds of people every year.

You don't need an excuse to deport someone in the country illegally, lol. "They've done nothing wrong but enter illegally!" "Good, as long as they don't set up a camp on your lawn. Then you might sing a different tune. It's all 'no one is illegal' until someone trespasses on your personal property."

Anyway, legalization is not going to stop the drug trade. There will always someone trying to peddle "harder stuff."

 

[Oddish On Fire]

LOL at excuse. The broke the law. Drug crimes are just a secondary offense after illegal breakins. Illegals murder people and drive without licenses or a knowledge of English, killing hundreds of people every year.

You don't need an excuse to deport someone in the country illegally, lol. "They've done nothing wrong but enter illegally!" "Good, as long as they don't set up a camp on your lawn. Then you might sing a different tune. It's all 'no one is illegal' until someone trespasses on your personal property."

Anyway, legalization is not going to stop the drug trade. There will always someone trying to peddle "harder stuff."

How can you criticize illegal immigrants when at one time, your very own family consisted of immigrants? If the only way to help your family was entering America illegally, wouldn’t you do it? Regarding your argument about crime, America is one of THE most violent countries, easily beating most of the other industrialized countries. I doubt that you would suggest the deportation of all Americans from white ancestry due to our high rate of murder combined with the fact that somewhere down their lineage they were immigrants. Though I’m sure Fox News may have told you differently, Mexicans aren’t so bad, and adding yet another culture to our melting pot social system just increases our knowledge by forcing ourselves to broaden our horizons and learn another language.

Regarding the topic however, I disagree that ALL drugs should be legal. I think that most non-addictive substances, such as marijuana, shrooms, and acid should be legalized so long as they are heavily monitored. For instance, multiply the sentences of all crimes that were committed under the influence by two.

 

[Oddish On Fire]

Suicide is already illegal, it's just that you can't be prosecuted if you succeed.

If you fail, are you prosecuted for attempted suicide?

 

[Trax]

Yes. All or nothing, I've said it 20 times already.

Despite the fact that your "it doesn't harm anyone but the user" argument lies in a bloodied mess, you still back this position.

What you don't seem to understand is that it acts on a huge number of people, for instance in Australia we've got plenty of problems.

I, for one, do not want more people taking this shit in the vicinity in which I live.

 

[CaptKirby]

Again, you miss my point, but this time probably deliberately so, which is why I am not going to bother trying to respond point by point to prove something. This is why your arguments are so often farces.

 

[Vineon]

Why an all or nothing limitation?

A limitation that has you choose 'nothing' by default.

Legalizing everything has no realistic chance to happen. First, I don't think it has a precedent anywhere and second simply legalizing marijuana seems like a difficult pill to swallow for a lot of people.

You can aim legalizing everything over time however but if you want to work towards that, you would need to take it by bits.

That said, I don't see myself voting in favor of legalizing beyond soft drugs regardless of what I said earlier about 'the most taken from organised crime circles the better'.

 

[Margon84]

An Economic Perspective

I've been over this with several Economists and Philosophers, and I thought some interesting facts might illuminate the discussion. I don't use drugs of any kind, but I am a Libertarian who thinks government's job is to protect us from each other, not ourselves. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but I don't smoke and rarely drink, though I believe in the RIGHT to do such things.

#1 Most drug murders aren't the results of junkies seeking cash or drugs, they are between dealers who have double crossed one another in transactions. If drugs were legalized, drug dealers who have grievances against a supplier/customer could sue in court for breach of contract like other businesses. This is why bartenders don't shoot alcoholics (i.e alcohol junkies) who fail to pay their tab: they can just go to legitimate collection agencies and the courts. These legitimate, non violent recourses are currently unavailable to dealers, who must resort to threats of force to keep the people they do business with honest.

#2 Economists have calculated that the amount of money it costs to keep a dealer or user of illicit drugs in prison is 8 TIMES the amount it costs to put a junkie in rehab. Even if you factor in the low percentage of rehabilitation in treatment programs (25%), it is still half the cost to legalize drugs and put all ABUSERS in treatment as many times as it takes. (There is a difference between Users and Abusers of a drug; contrary to what most people have been told not all drug users become addicted to their drug of choice, research shows that many "Hard" drugs are in fact less chemically addictive than cigarettes and alcohol, and we know people who often quit these substances or use them in moderation their whole life with no ill social effect).

#3 I have only heard this from one source, but I have never seen any evidence to dispute it, and the source had a PHD and taught at a major state University: Many of the nastier side effects we see in users of hard drugs like cocaine and heroine, are in fact not caused by the active ingredient, but by the impurities in it because it is made in non-laboratory conditions. For example pharmaceutical grade heroin doesn't fry your brain, and might not even be possible to Overdose on. Presumably, if recreational drugs were legal and regulated by the FDA like our medicines and our food are, they could be produced profitably without the terrible side effects of street drugs.

#4 Most disturbing, economists have calculated that the more successful you are in keeping drugs off the street, and dealers in jail, the more the price rises, and since demand is fairly constant it provides a MASSIVE financial incentive to enter the drug business. Consequently, because more risk is involved and the amount of money greater, drug related street violence increases as well. Many Libertarians and free-market economists now consider this the primary reason we haven't won the drug war: it mathematically can't be done without eliminating the human psychological desire for pleasure(users) and profit(suppliers).

#5 Several studies have popped up finding people who abuse alcohol actually do more damage to their bodies, their minds, and their families than do hardcore drug junkies(We can all imagine having an angry abusive drunk for a father, but its hard to picture an angry, abusive stoner).

This isn't actually an argument in favor of drugs, its simply pointing out that from a social and a health perspective it makes no sense for alcohol to be legal and drugs, not. However, after this country's experiment with Prohibition we know what happens when you outlaw alcohol: people can still get it and it made the Mafia extremely wealthy and powerful (Historians now admit that gangsters basically ran some of America's largest cities thanks to the influence that alcohol profits bought them). The chilling parallel is that today, drugs are so profitable that many drug dealers are better armed (and informed) than the police sent to control them, indeed in some countries the Drug Armies are better equipped than the REAL ARMY.

 

[Vineon]

Not many, if any at all. Stoners don't want to drive anywhere, and I'd say that on the majority stoners are safer drivers than many normal assholes out on the roads. That's beside the point though: like CK said, penalties for driving under the influence have to be much harsher, they just aren't a deterrent right now.

Now me and my friends have worked stoned back when I was working in a plastic factory operating machines that easily could have killed me if I was to mishandle them. I want to believe we are not the only morons amongst stoners and that others chose to drive.

As for stoners being safer drivers, that is based on absolutely nothing but your weird personal perception. Pointless anyway, as it is safe to say that once stoned, they arent quite as good.

Why try to portray stoners as smarter people, there are smart and dumb stoners. As there are smart and dumb people in roughly any group you could think of. I sure was part of the dumb ones.

So why put him in prison? Who is he harming by toking up after work/school/the last time he toked up? But you can't just say that marijuana is okay, because then people will ask, "hey, what about cocaine? People barely ever OD on that." And then people will say, "well, if cocaine then why not LSD?" It's all or nothing, man.

Simply because the debate will endure doesn't meant it has to be "all or nothing". So what if the debate continues? Besides, as if suddenly legalizing everything would forever close the issue. You could and then have people question whether it was a good idea to not maybe simply ban heroin.

Should all debates over every issue be all or nothing? It should be because that seals the deal? It doesn't. Abortion being legal in Canada sure never stopped pro-life people from contesting it. It sure didn't stop some 'moderates' to suggest it should instead only be legal in rape cases or if the mother's life is in danger.

Americans, as a whole, are smart. They should be able to make the choice for themselves, and trust me, the vast majority already have. You're another person making the assumption that just because the drugs will be easier to get that everyone will go flocking to get some. That's just not true.

Heres what I want to say about this. I don't care for anyone that tells me hard drugs are easily accessible for anyone that really wants to try them. I'll make a correlation to guns here. While it is possible to want a hand gun in Canada it is difficult to get one. This difficulty is an obstacle for anyone that wants a hand gun but not really all that badly. You make it easier to get, yes it is certain there will be more people trying it. Then again, you go by the philosophy that they are all smart enough to know what they are doing so that should be alright. You cannot still make the claim that more people wont do drugs however.

 

[Relictivity]

#2 Economists have calculated that the amount of money it costs to keep a dealer or user of illicit drugs in prison is 8 TIMES the amount it costs to put a junkie in rehab. Even if you factor in the low percentage of rehabilitation in treatment programs (25%), it is still half the cost to legalize drugs and put all ABUSERS in treatment as many times as it takes. (There is a difference between Users and Abusers of a drug; contrary to what most people have been told not all drug users become addicted to their drug of choice, research shows that many "Hard" drugs are in fact less chemically addictive than cigarettes and alcohol, and we know people who often quit these substances or use them in moderation their whole life with no ill social effect).

So if it is this bad of a chance of them going through rehab and the like why do we allow their production at all. Why do we allow people to get addicted to things like this? Addictions are a form of slavery, believe it or not. Why don't we do something to discourage drugs, instead of unbanning drugs?

The simple truth is: If you don't do something about it, your just agreeing with your opposition.

#3 I have only heard this from one source, but I have never seen any evidence to dispute it, and the source had a PHD and taught at a major state University: Many of the nastier side effects we see in users of hard drugs like cocaine and heroine, are in fact not caused by the active ingredient, but by the impurities in it because it is made in non-laboratory conditions. For example pharmaceutical grade heroin doesn't fry your brain, and might not even be possible to Overdose on. Presumably, if recreational drugs were legal and regulated by the FDA like our medicines and our food are, they could be produced profitably without the terrible side effects of street drugs.

The addiction is the fault of the drug, and that is the major problem. Because they get addicted, and then transfer to something worse that will cause problems.

#4 Most disturbing, economists have calculated that the more successful you are in keeping drugs off the street, and dealers in jail, the more the price rises, and since demand is fairly constant it provides a MASSIVE financial incentive to enter the drug business. Consequently, because more risk is involved and the amount of money greater, drug related street violence increases as well. Many Libertarians and free-market economists now consider this the primary reason we haven't won the drug war: it mathematically can't be done without eliminating the human psychological desire for pleasure(users) and profit(suppliers).

So let's figure out a way of serving that human desire in another matter, and just get rid of drugs altogether.

#5 Several studies have popped up finding people who abuse alcohol actually do more damage to their bodies, their minds, and their families than do hardcore drug junkies(We can all imagine having an angry abusive drunk for a father, but its hard to picture an angry, abusive stoner).

Alcohol, like drugs, is an addictive substance, so I agree with you here.

We need to change how people think about drugs, not make them available. We don't want people slaves to the drug, and therefore slaves to the companys that make them. We want people to be mentally awake, and capable of good decisions, and being a good member of the community. Addictive substances prevent people from becoming good citizens, by effectively destroying their ability to judge a situation rationally.

 

[Margon84]

Good Responses

Your responses are generally correct, but are predicated on the assumption that you can eliminate the demand for drugs, by making everyone not want them. Eliminating demand would of course solve all of our drug problems, but to date most drug prevention education programs like D.A.R.E in the U.S. are abysmal failures. Today, many young people choose to smoke, knowing it will kill them earlier than they otherwise would AND cigarettes taste disgusting to first time users, unlike drugs which are (usually) euphoric.

Theoretically, if you could, through severe psychological conditioning or genetic manipulation eliminate the pleasure people receive from drugs you could eliminate the problem in the fashion you propose. Economists however, must deal with the realities and limitations of the real world, and unfortunately in our world the monetary costs for such programs would be astronomical, even if the technology existed. Furthermore, supposing the tech existed AND was monetarily feasible many would point out that a society that orders the "reprogramming" of its citizens brains is even less ethical than one with an endless drug war or one with legalized drugs.

Even if we discovered why some people never use drugs, and created a program to instill those values in others a social program with a 100% success rate would be unknown to our science, and is not realistic.
So, given that their will ALWAYS be an element in our society that seeks such substances, the question becomes one of how to mitigate the damage, and maximize the gains from our policy, not 100% elimination.

We need to change how people think about drugs, not make them available. We don't want people slaves to the drug, and therefore slaves to the companys that make them. We want people to be mentally awake, and capable of good decisions, and being a good member of the community. Addictive substances prevent people from becoming good citizens, by effectively destroying their ability to judge a situation rationally.

Some people might also point out that certain drugs that are currently illegal actually improve mental processes and decision making. Many things can be addictive, but should not be outlawed. Psychologists are finding that people can be addicted to: Sex, Food, Falling in Love(your brain actually releases chemicals similar to cocaine when this happens), Video Games, Television, and Exercise(like falling in love exercise releases pleasurable chemicals into your system that makes you feel high). You presume that because somthing is addicting people are slaves to it, but in reality each person is different, and I think if you proposed outlawing any of the above activities life in your world would be pretty abysmal (and limited to three weeks- the longest you can go without food ;) )

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

So if it is this bad of a chance of them going through rehab and the like why do we allow their production at all. Why do we allow people to get addicted to things like this? Addictions are a form of slavery, believe it or not. Why don't we do something to discourage drugs, instead of unbanning drugs?

yeah, imagine what a wonderful drug-free world we would live in if we did something to discourage drugs

like, say

anti-drug campaigns on tv

or anti-drug education in schools

or making them illegal

but why waste time with these pipe dreams

So let's figure out a way of serving that human desire in another matter, and just get rid of drugs altogether.

okay, great idea! hang on a second i'll just completely get rid of drugs

Alcohol, like drugs, is an addictive substance, so I agree with you here.

man, "drugs" isn't a substance. some drugs are chemically addictive and some aren't

 

[ivar]

An ultimately meaningless post and one that certainly will not further any discussion, but very well put Margon (and I'm not just saying that because I agree with your position, though I'm sure that has some effect...).

 

[Margon84]

Interesting

One of the main symptoms of major depressive disorder, also known as clinical depression, is a loss of interest or pleasure in normally enjoyable activities. Many people with depression are good at hiding it, and this is a sign of another symptom, which is self-neglect. So you cannot really be sure if he did or did not kill himself out of depression. And before you accuse me of not knowing, I have personal experience regarding the matter of depression.

It is possible that this person was in fact depressed, but suicide is an unusual outcome for normal/severe depression because a person in this state lacks the energy and drive to go through with it. Manic depressives are at most risk of suicide, as when they enter the manic phase they become filled with energy, but still may be suffering from the gloom of the depressed state.

Having said that this individual seems to have had whats called an existential crisis- when a person who is otherwise a success and is entirely rational, determines there is no objective meaning to be derived from life. They view the sole pursuit of pleasure (food, sex, companionship) that seems to motivate many humans as hedonistic, and ultimately futile in the face of death. Typically they are non religulous because the religious don't feel the need for life to have an objective value, they believe life is valuable because god (or whomever they worship) willed it so. One of my psychology professors who treats very wealthy individuals encounters this often among doctors, who are wildly successful in life, but are frequently reminded of the inevitability of death.

 

[Nate]

I clearly do not have enough free time to keep up with this topic. Before I give up on it though, I would like to respond quickly to Relictivity, as he is the only one to have responded to me.

All of your arguments in relation to my last post would seem to assume that it is impossible to use drugs responsibly. I would especially like to point out the following couple of sentences as particularly...silly.

...Because that is what an addiction is. They have no choice once they start. Or so little choice it is inconsequential.

No, by restricting your rights to do drugs, we are mantaining your rights to make more important choices. By legalizing drugs, you will end up restricting more people than keeping drugs illegal ever would. Because addiciton is restricting.

Do you really not know any recreational drug users who aren't addicted? Speaking as a one-time marijuana user, you do now. I'm also a one-time cigarette smoker, a one-time cigar smoker, and an increasingly responsible drinker.

p.s. I won't take the restricting-your-activities-with-your-good-in-mind argument to its logical extreme because it's already been done so many times. I-Robot was a good book, but I never saw the movie. Will Smith is cool though.

 

[DM]

Despite the fact that your "it doesn't harm anyone but the user" argument lies in a bloodied mess, you still back this position.

It only lies in a "bloodied mess" to those who misunderstand it. You are lumping in indirect harm with direct harm, and I have repeatedly said drugs only cause DIRECT harm to the user. In many cases, yes, the effects of addiction on one person have negative effects on those around them, but that is not an immutable truth about drugs. Stop presenting it as such.

Why an all or nothing limitation?

A limitation that has you choose 'nothing' by default.

Not necessarily, it just depends on what side of the fence you fall on. I'm attempting to bring more people to my side.

Legalizing everything has no realistic chance to happen. First, I don't think it has a precedent anywhere and second simply legalizing marijuana seems like a difficult pill to swallow for a lot of people.

You can aim legalizing everything over time however but if you want to work towards that, you would need to take it by bits.

This is very true. There isn't going to be one miraculous day where all the detractors will wake up and proclaim, "Hey, I've been wrong all along!" This is going to be a process, and considering those who share my point of view are such a small minority, it's going to take a looooooong time to affect any real change.

Now me and my friends have worked stoned back when I was working in a plastic factory operating machines that easily could have killed me if I was to mishandle them. I want to believe we are not the only morons amongst stoners and that others chose to drive.

As for stoners being safer drivers, that is based on absolutely nothing but your weird personal perception. Pointless anyway, as it is safe to say that once stoned, they arent quite as good.

Why try to portray stoners as smarter people, there are smart and dumb stoners. As there are smart and dumb people in roughly any group you could think of. I sure was part of the dumb ones.

Yeah, that was a pretty flimsy argument based mostly on personal experience. It doesn't hold any real weight in this debate, but I still stand by it.

Simply because the debate will endure doesn't meant it has to be "all or nothing". So what if the debate continues? Besides, as if suddenly legalizing everything would forever close the issue. You could and then have people question whether it was a good idea to not maybe simply ban heroin.

Should all debates over every issue be all or nothing? It should be because that seals the deal? It doesn't. Abortion being legal in Canada sure never stopped pro-life people from contesting it. It sure didn't stop some 'moderates' to suggest it should instead only be legal in rape cases or if the mother's life is in danger.

This debate is only "all or nothing" because we're mostly theorizing and not thinking practically about application. In order to start changing things we need to start changing people's minds, and one way to do that is to convince them on the more extreme parts of the case you're presenting, because then the lesser parts won't seem so bad anymore.

Heres what I want to say about this. I don't care for anyone that tells me hard drugs are easily accessible for anyone that really wants to try them. I'll make a correlation to guns here. While it is possible to want a hand gun in Canada it is difficult to get one. This difficulty is an obstacle for anyone that wants a hand gun but not really all that badly. You make it easier to get, yes it is certain there will be more people trying it. Then again, you go by the philosophy that they are all smart enough to know what they are doing so that should be alright. You cannot still make the claim that more people wont do drugs however.

I can't say that more wouldn't try them, because they will, it's true. But I really think that overall the number of new users would be quite negligible.

I clearly do not have enough free time to keep up with this topic.

I'm with you there, man. I started this thread and really wanted to keep current with the posts and my argument (and did for the first couple pages), but I'm just too damn busy these days. Hopefully, I got enough like-minded individuals out of the woodwork to carry on the torch for me.

 

[akuchi]

'For example pharmaceutical grade heroin doesn't fry your brain, and might not even be possible to Overdose on'

That's a bloody lie, med-grade diamorphine is a fantastic CNS depressant and was used by Harold Shipman in the murder of possibly hundreds of elderly patients.

 

[REQUIRED FIELD]

agree that people shouldnt waste hours prosecuting druggies, but god help us if we made drugs easily obtainable and legal