Should we legalize drugs?

[Baron Max]

Hey, I pretty much agree with Asguard! I think all drugs should be decriminalized (no prosecution of possession). Some drugs (like pot) should be handled like alcohol. Others (like heroin), should be given by prescription to addicts.

Please, Mad, this is in response to your post, but it's far more a response to all of the people here rather than to you personally:
Yes, that's your personal view of things, perhaps. But do you give no consideration for what the rest of society wants? If you are a part of society, in a relatively democratic society, shouldn't you be more willing to accept that society has deemed that drugs are harmful to society and should be illegal to obtain, sell and use?

I'm always struck with the personal aspects of social ideals as compared to the ideals of society itself. The society makes the rules for society, each individual does NOT make the rules for all of society.

Yes, you, personally, might like things changed for your own personal reasons, but what about what society wants? All of the people in the society must matter more than the individual ...or else the society would be something like Norsefire keeps suggesting (and which y'all seem to disregard as childish and immature).

How do you, personally, reconcile the differences between what you want and what society as whole wants?

Baron Max

 

[John99]

I don't really think you can be too responsible with hard drugs, like you might be able to do with marijuana or alcohol. To be honest though I don't really see what the big deal is by regulating it, the way alcohol is regulated. Government controls dosage of drug dispensed, where it can be dispensed, and who it can be dispensed too (i.e. not small children).

One big problem is tolerance builds steadily and i dont see how or where alcohol is regulated.

 

[scott3x]

Of course we should:

Less crime.

Taxable.

People who would do drugs will get them anyways (though I could see how more could get exposed to them if its legal).

Less crowded jails.

Legalize it all.

Did more people become exposed to hard licquor after prohibition? Perhaps, but this being as it may be, I don't think we're going back to prohibition and the times of Al Capone any time soon. As you implied, people who want a drug are generally going to get it, atleast until they're locked up; and frequently even then. What's needed is more money for voluntary treatment clinics for drug addicts of all sorts, including alcoholics; for those who use alcohol or other drugs in a responsible manner that doesn't affect their quality of life, I don't see the problem. All these laws to simply throw people in jail help no one but some of the private corporations that build and maintain jails.

 

[codanblad]

Id like to see truthful informaton made avalable about all drugs... such as... the percentage of people who tryed pot or alcohol or heron... ect.. an it made the quality of ther life worse... an the percentage who tryed those drugs an it improved ther quality of life.!!!

An not only literature made readily avalable... but also regular documentaries presented on tv about drug users lifes.!!!

try 'super high me'. apparently a doco about some comedian who smoked pot 30 days straight, my friend watched it and found it interesting, but he's a stoner.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

try 'super high me'. apparently a doco about some comedian who smoked pot 30 days straight, my friend watched it and found it interesting, but he's a stoner.

Thats prolly the guy i saw on a talk show... he said that he coud quit smokin pot but he jus dont want to... lol.!!!

Ive worked aroun pot smokers---stoners... an when they ant hi ther thankin about gettin hi... O well ther choise... but i suspect that if they had been educated about what can hapen to people who try the drug... ther woud be fewer peopel ever tryin it.!!!

 

[madanthonywayne]

Please, Mad, this is in response to your post, but it's far more a response to all of the people here rather than to you personally:
Yes, that's your personal view of things, perhaps. But do you give no consideration for what the rest of society wants?

Who's to say what society wants? The fact that marijuana is the largest cash crop in the US suggests that there are a lot of people out there who'd like to see pot legalized. Personally, I don't use any illegal drugs nor would I if they were legal. However, I think the social costs of a "war on drugs" far outweighs the benefits. Furthermore, I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to fuck up their own brain/body; let them. It's their body/mind to fuck up. On the other hand, don't come crying to me when you're living on the street giving blowjobs for crack.

 

[RubiksMaster]

Yes, that's your personal view of things, perhaps. But do you give no consideration for what the rest of society wants? If you are a part of society, in a relatively democratic society, shouldn't you be more willing to accept that society has deemed that drugs are harmful to society and should be illegal to obtain, sell and use?

No. The rest of society doesn't have the right to take away my rights just because there are more of them.

I'm always struck with the personal aspects of social ideals as compared to the ideals of society itself. The society makes the rules for society, each individual does NOT make the rules for all of society.

There is no such thing as society. Groups can't give or take rights, because a group is merely individuals. An individual can't take away the rights of another individual, regardless of how much he disagrees. If one individual can't, then a "group" of individuals can't either.

but i suspect that if they had been educated about what can hapen to people who try the drug... ther woud be fewer peopel ever tryin it.!!!

I doubt that. I think people are always going to try drugs. There are already so many education campaigns against the dangers of drugs, and drugs are still being used.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

One big problem is tolerance builds steadily and i dont see how or where alcohol is regulated.

It isn't regulated at all? I just assumed it was because all places (at least in CA) that wish to sell alcohol have to get a permit and advertise to the public several months before they begin selling alcohol and the public can contest that permit if they want to and keep the store from selling alcoholic beverages. If a store wants to start carrying potato chips they don't have to tell anyone nor get a special permit, they just start selling potato chips. It's also can't be sold to minors nor consumed by minors (legally). I guess unless it's in medication. You can't drink and drive (you can even get a DUI for riding your bike under the influence)or even have an open container of it while driving (again legally). That's not regulation?

 

[Baron Max]

Who's to say what society wants?

Isn't that what voting and representation is all about?

The fact that marijuana is the largest cash crop in the US suggests that there are a lot of people out there who'd like to see pot legalized.

A lot of people? How many is that expressed as a percentage of the total population?

However, I think the social costs of a "war on drugs" far outweighs the benefits.

But obviously society does not think it's too costly because those laws are still in effect, and people are still being tried in courts.

Furthermore, I don't believe in victimless crimes.

And here again we have the difference in what you, individually, believe as compared to what society believes. If one kid smokes pot, then dies in some way while high as a kite, then you might think of it as a victimless crime, but the parents and friends of that dead guy might not agree. To the parents, their son or daughter might be viewed as the "victim" of the drug dealer.

And again, Mad, this it not necessarily directed at you personally, just the viewpoints. Our society has to have some authority over what it's members do or else we'll end up in total anarchy like Norsefire wants. And you and I both know that simply won't work.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

No. The rest of society doesn't have the right to take away my rights just because there are more of them.

Don't be silly ....society is what gave you those rights in the first place. Or do you think "rights" just came down from god when you were born?

And please don't say it's because you're human ...UNLESS... you don't believe in evolution. Humans are just another animal in the world ...and rights are a human invention that can given out or taken away.

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

Spoken like a "true American Patriot". (not)

 

[Cellar_Door]

Most people don't realise the proportion of crime that is perpetrated purely to get money for drugs.
Criminalised or not, people will find a way to get hold of them. So, wouldn't it be better to take the industry out of the hands of dangerous drug barons and into the those of licensed vendors?

The way I see it, there is no perfect solution. However, the current system is obviously failing terribly.

 

[chris4355]

Did more people become exposed to hard licquor after prohibition? Perhaps, but this being as it may be, I don't think we're going back to prohibition and the times of Al Capone any time soon. As you implied, people who want a drug are generally going to get it, atleast until they're locked up; and frequently even then. What's needed is more money for voluntary treatment clinics for drug addicts of all sorts, including alcoholics; for those who use alcohol or other drugs in a responsible manner that doesn't affect their quality of life, I don't see the problem. All these laws to simply throw people in jail help no one but some of the private corporations that build and maintain jails.

You are right. And I highly doubt the cost of treatment and prevention will be anywhere as expensive as maintaining those jails, paying for the lawyers etc...

That, along with the fact that crime rate would be significantly reduced, to me, its a no brainer.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Isn't that what voting and representation is all about?
A lot of people? How many is that expressed as a percentage of the total population? But obviously society does not think it's too costly because those laws are still in effect, and people are still being tried in courts.

Indeed. It's also what discussions such as this are about. Alcohol was once illegal, now it's legal. And support for legalization of marijuanna is growing. Check out this graph:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html
As the graph shows, we've gone from about 9 to 1 against legalization back in 1970, to 5 to 4 against now. I doubt that it will be long before those numbers turn around and we have a majority in favor of legalization. Don't forget, it was the promise of increased government revenues during the depression that served as an incentive to legalize alcohol back then. Many are pushing Obama to use the same logic to legalize pot.

And again, Mad, this it not necessarily directed at you personally, just the viewpoints. Our society has to have some authority over what it's members do or else we'll end up in total anarchy like Norsefire wants. And you and I both know that simply won't work.

I'm not saying we should ignore the law or supporting anarchy, but suggesting it may be time to change the law.

 

[hypewaders]

You had to go and draw him a picture, didn't you. Hopefully you haven't scared the Baron away.

Thanks for the 538 link, Maddy- worth a bookmark for future reference.

 

[Norsefire]

The thing about these kinds of laws is that the government assumes it can parent us. Well, it is the individual's responsibility to be informed and make good decisions; if you're going to abuse drugs like an idiot, that is your problem.

The mere fact that it is a choice should mean that there is no question as to whether or not to legalize it.

Legalize. And on regulation

Regulation is still parenting.

 

[Liebling]

We should legalize drugs with no restrictions or regulations. Those with the genetic tendency to be addicts who can't control themselves will die of consumption, thereby removing themselves from the gene pool and furthering evolution.

We step in too frequently to help the weak minded, and even the weak bodied. From a purely scientific standpoint, we are doing ourselves in helping the weak in general. If we let them die out, then we further ourselves on the evolutionary scale.

Of course, that removes all the emotion out of it, doesn't it?

And before you lambaste me, I carry the BRCA gene and have a higher chance of getting breast cancer. I've even had two pre-cancerous masses removed. But if I had known about the gene and had been tested before I had children I wouldn't have had them. I'm all for social responsibility because I have compassion for others, but I think we go way too far and are crippling our future generations because of our willful ignorance.

 

[Norsefire]

We should legalize drugs with no restrictions or regulations. Those with the genetic tendency to be addicts who can't control themselves will die of consumption, thereby removing themselves from the gene pool and furthering evolution.

We step in too frequently to help the weak minded, and even the weak bodied. From a purely scientific standpoint, we are doing ourselves in helping the weak in general. If we let them die out, then we further ourselves on the evolutionary scale.

I completely agree.

Laissez-faire is where the bright and abled can thrive without being constrained by the weak.

 

[RubiksMaster]

Don't be silly ....society is what gave you those rights in the first place.

Nobody has the power to grant rights. They are absolute.

And please don't say it's because you're human ...UNLESS... you don't believe in evolution. Humans are just another animal in the world ...and rights are a human invention that can given out or taken away.

Now you're the one being silly. Saying that humans have rights makes absolutely no statement about other forms of life.

 

[Norsefire]

Rubiks I agree that society doesn't have the power to take away or grant rights, however I don't think rights are actual objective facts of the universe.

I believe rights are subjective, and the rational individual has rights because he says so.