Should ALL drugs be fullly legalized?

[USArmyParatrooper]

I'm a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana even for recreational use. I also think it should be treated like alcohol where it's illegal to drive while intoxicated, there are age restrictions and it should be taxed.

But I'm kind of a fence sitter when it comes to harder drugs, especially drugs like crack cocaine and heroin. I'm all about personal liberties so long as you're not hurting others. But you'll seldom find a responsible, casual crack smoker or heroin user. Users will often end up having adverse affects on society and committing crimes to support their habit.

So I'm kind of torn between having more personal freedoms or having pragmatic restrictions for the betterment of society. I wish I could post a poll, but I haven't yet forked over a donation. But I'm mostly interested in reading what people have to say on this issue.

So let's set alcohol and marijuana aside for a moment, as I stand strongly for both being 100% legal.

What say you about legalizing ALL drugs?

And one more thing... although it's not really relevant, out of curiosity I'm interested in your political affiliation. I'm curious how Democrats, unaffiliated Liberals, Independents, etc. tend to lean on this issue.

Thanks!

[The Northerner]

1. Yes

The government cannot protect us from ourselves and what we choose to ingest.

All drugs (including PCP, meth, heroin, cocaine, etc.) should be discouraged from being used but the addicts should be treated like normal drug addicts.

[USArmyParatrooper]

3. I agree about treating addicts

and about discouraging use. But what about full legalization?

[Maru Kitteh]

4. There is a world of difference between decriminalization and legalization

I'm all on board for decriminalizing users and 1000% on board with treatment. I'm not up for legalizing meth lords.

[Fumesucker]

19. Are "meth lords" anything like "alcohol lords"?

Where are the "alcohol lords" in our society today? Where are the shootouts?

[DeadEyeDyck]

7. agreed

prohibition laws and several unintended consequences.
1. Always results in concentration at the source. Before prohibition, Brandy was the manly drink. Bootleggers needed to transport the greatest alcohol in the least volume. Thus came moonshine and whiskey.
2. Restrictions create desirable markets. I would love to have a desirable product and be in collusion with the government to help me keep the market cornered.
3. Illegal drugs finance foreign governments and terrorism. More money crosses borders for dope than oil! Legalize drugs and the market collapses immediately.
4. Drugs are only profitable because they are illegal. There is no market in "pushing" drugs once made legal. Pot would sell for less than beer since it requires less processing than cigarettes!
5. Our prisons are full of people who wanted to escape reality for a few hours a day - not life for 20 years. They don't belong in prison. We need more room for politicians!!

[laughingliberal]

8. +1000 nt

[unpossibles]

2. well, one argument to be made is obvious

that keeping the hard drugs illegal is not really curbing their use, and is instead creating a horrible black market - you know, the kind which allowed criminals to become crime lords back in the Prohibition. I say legalize them with strong controls and emphasis on getting clean if you are buying said drugs. Ironically, I doubt that were crack et al legal you'd see new users and I bet current users may avoid the legal stuff anyway. Also, I strongly believe that the creation and use of stronger, more concentrated drugs (which are the ones which tend to cause more problems) are a direct result of the drug war in many ways.

[cemaphonic]

18. Yeah, the concentration aspect is bigger than people realize

As noted above, Prohibition made harder alcohol more popular than it had been. And while laudanum and coca leaves are not exactly healthy habits, they're a lot better than heroin or crack.

[proteus_lives]

5. No, some drugs but not all.

I don't see any positives in legalizing cocaine, meth or heroin.

[Greyhound]

64. How do you propose to stop people from using them? The more resources

we pour into this black hole, the higher the numbers of users rises and the price declines.

Unless you are prepared to live under constant surveillance by a "police force" with unlimited power, you cannot stop demand and while there is demand, it will be met. What is so hard to figure out about this?

[proteus_lives]

81. "How do you propose to stop people from using them?"

You can't. But that doesn't mean society should endorse the use either.

There must be a sane middle ground.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Legality does not equate to endorsement

Does 'society' endorse gambling, alcohol consumption, or even divorce? It is legal to hire private dancers and drive about in a limo all day drinking Bombay gin and reciting dirty limericks, but I'd hardly say that behavior is endorsed by society.
Just such a leap you are making.

[KillCapitalism]

6. I'd say everything except meth should be legalized.

The reason for that is b/c manufacturing it is extremely dangerous. Around here some meth cookers were operating a huge lab in pretty muc every room of a 2-story house. There was an explosion and that house along with 4 other nearby homes were leveled to the ground & 5 people were killed. The explosion was powerful enough to blow windows out of homes up to 1/4 of a mile away.

[eridani]

17. Wouldn't that be better dealt with as an environmental crime--

--than as a drug crime?

[Warren Stupidity]

29. " manufacturing it is extremely dangerous"

because it is illegal. Methadrine was manufactured and sold legally for decades without double wides blowing up on a regular basis.

[TheKentuckian]

45. Legalizing it would allow for more controlled and safer manufacturing

[TheKentuckian]

9. I say yes. The enforcement of vice is too expensive and is a huge

distraction from actually stopping and investigating crimes of a more "don't tread on me" nature.

We have plenty of laws for driving under the influence, assault, murder, sex crimes, theft, and whatever actual crimes a junky might commit.

Then there is the stone cold fact that what we do just plain doesn't work and worse creates violent criminal organizations to deal with and substitute for the law in their world.

it just doesn't add up to be a net benefit to deal with vice enforcement at all. I'm sure many proponents have their hearts in the right place but trying to make and execute laws dictating what people put into and do with their bodies is goofy and the gambling in the context of our culture is way absurd when our centerpiece is the market and I guess every state has a lottery by now.

The whole idea seems a bad mix of authoritarianism, scam, puritanical craziness, paternalistic nanny statery, and bizzaro math.

[Newest Reality]

10. Of course!

All drugs and natural substances where once legal, or at the very least, subject to conventions and taboos.

You cannot have an enlightened or mature society that deals with the very fact that human beings have always used various substances to alter consciousness as if it were natural trait, in such Draconian ways. What belies the modern war on "some drugs" is all the various racist and corporate and political subterfuge that has made this mess what it is today for us.

I won't even list the various facts behind the war on some drugs and why it is a scourge on both our evolution and our future as a species. That is, not to mention what a shame and devolution it represents on cultures and mindsets that precede us. Most intellectuals, based on that kind of historical knowledge, along with adept reasoning, can discern what a travesty the obviously childish and corporately-based control mindset has been on humanity at large.

There is nothing but hypocrisy in the deluge of advertising from Big Pharma when it pushes its state sanctioned drugs to both profit from and control the population while we see the demonizing and vilifying of even the most natural and once held sacred of plants that alter consciousness and even provide chemical doorways to personal, profound and direct experiences when experienced with the right set and setting.

The tragedy is, that while we incarcerate and destroy the lives of many innocent, good and law-abding people here in the US, to a point where these non-violent "offenders" are a larger portion of our prison population and while we, a supposed free country, excel the rest of the World in our per-capita rate of imprisonment, we can even imagine that we have freedom, rationale, or anything but a corporate dictatorship that accuses us of thought crimes and feels privileged to decide what substances will drive its owned society and form the facade of its profit-driven culture.

C affine, nicotine, alcohol? All drugs, but usefull to the owners as history shows. Anti-depressants, sleep aids, anti-psychotics, again useful for control and imposed ideas of what the masters invoke as that mirage called normalacy. Ritalin is fine for kids, even though it is close to cocaine by a few molecules and we could call it speed. Profit makes it good for corporate America as it weaves its a spell about the magic and wonder of your own nuerochemistry around you so that you cannot use it as owner and operator, taking the risks that go with the potential results as you choose.

You cannot have a free mind or live in a free society that controls your access to natural subsatnces that the planet itself provides, be that availability accidental or purposeful.

[DeadEyeDyck]

11. but you know the most fundamental principle about drug

restrictions is simply, "it is my body and no one has a right to tell me what I can ingest into it." It is that simple. I saw a young kid with a goat-tee of nails stuck through his chin!!! Real nails somehow coming out of his chin. And of course, he was tatted out the ass and had those hideous rings in his ear-lobes that I thought were only seen in National Geographic magazines. I gasped and I am under 25!


Though I thought what he did to his body is insane, do I have a right to tell him not to hammer nails through his lower lip?

[Toucano]

12. Compare the toxic doses of alcohol to cocaine and then explain why it's a "hard" drug

My point is that every argument for the prohibition of "hard drugs" can equally apply to marijuana and alcohol.

The cost to society of alcohol abuse is enormous. Yet we know prohibition is impossible.


Prohibition of marijuana was more effective in the past when it was unacceptable culturally. That's changed now and consumption is much more common. It's prohibition is evolving into more of a problem for society than the consumption itself could ever be.

It some parts of the world, cocaine consumption is more acceptable culturally and doesn't cause any more "societal ills" than alcohol. Again, the prohibition is responsible for the societal problems.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Yes, all drugs should be fully legalized.

What we have been doing has been helping violent criminals and our prison systems more than helping addicts.

[JoeyT]

14. I'm not sure about legalization,

but I fully support decriminalization and treatment.

Liberal that supports Democratic politicians.

[aquart]

15. No more prescription pads?

Do you really want Granny deciding her own dosages?

[Warren Stupidity]

27. legal does not mean unregulated

For example, booze is legal, but regulated. Prescription drugs are legal, and regulated. Illegal drugs are illegal, and unregulated. FULL STUPID FAIL.

[blueamy66]

37. I realize that booze is regulated in some areas of the US...

if definitely isn't here in AZ.

We can buy it 24/7...cept on Sundays between 2 and 6 (starting the end of July)....at the corner C store, a drive thru liquor store or a big box store.

I can buy a case of vodka if I like. I can go home and drink it all if I like.

IMHO, it really isn't "regulated."

Am I missing something?

[NuttyFluffers]

40. yes, a lot. do you regularly fear blindness from drinking alcohol?

you would if it was shoddily made from time to time. so why do you not fear this? is it because it is regulated? what about homes nearby blowing up from a home-made still? why not? regulation again?

you seem to have quite a bit to learn about the subject. please feel free to look at what the gov't ATF does for a start. :)

[blueamy66]

75. No need to be snarky.

I just asked a question.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. No you do not realize.

The laws in Arizona regulate where it can be sold, how it can be sold, what alcohol purity can be sold, who it can be sold to, and tax the sales. Alcohol is legal and regulated in all 50 states.

Arizona has an entire state department who's business is regulating alcohol: Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control http://www.azliquor.gov/


Mission Statement

To vigilantly promote the health, safety and welfare of Arizona citizens by licensing the liquor industry and assuring compliance with state liquor laws through collaboration, training, adjudication and enforcement.


Yes you can drink yourself to death. So what? As an informed adult you should have that choice.

[LanternWaste]

88. Why qualify it with "informed"?

Why qualify it with "informed"? And what is the sum total of information that you would require for an adult to have that choice?

[Warren Stupidity]

90. The idea is that children and the mentally challenged

are not free to drink themselves to death.

Product labels should indicate clearly what the risks are.

'Informed adults' are people who are assumed to be capable of making their own choices, of exercising something like free will.

[blueamy66]

96. Thank you for the information without being a dick.

:-)

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Legalize pot, treat hard drug addiction as a public health issue instead of a LE one.

As I said in a diff. thread, I have trouble envisioning meth being sold at the 7-11, but I also have trouble with the idea that a consenting adult shouldn't have the right to do what he or she wants with his or her own body, as long as they don't directly harm or endanger others.

Probably where I sit, realistically, between my principles and realism, is with the people who support a mixture of decriminalization, treatment on demand, and mandatory treatment for addicts who cause problems. :shrug:

Political Affiliation: Democrat.

[Fumesucker]

21. Alcohol is a "hard drug".

It's addictive and highly mind altering besides being one of the most violence provoking drugs around.

Do you propose "decriminalizing" alcohol, you know, like it was during alcohol Prohibition?

The possession and consumption of alcohol was never made illegal during alcohol Prohibition, only the sale, importation and manufacture, that's "decriminalization" in a nutshell.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Ha! Try to tell us something we don't know.

Believe me, Jack, you're preaching to the choir on alcohol.

Nevertheless, prohibition (as I suspect is your point) didn't work. But I fully admit I have trouble envisioning full legalization of substances like meth or crack cocaine. I don't have all the answers, but I know what we're doing now isn't working, either.

[Fumesucker]

72. Most people I talk to have no idea that possession and consumption of alcohol was legal..

During Prohibition.. It's rare when I find anyone that knows that alcohol was "decriminalized" during Prohibition, they virtually all assume it was like the drug war is today, get caught with a bottle of rum and go to jail.

And yet it was quite possibly the biggest failure in American history, only thirteen years passed between the Amendments that initiated the Volstead act and repealed it, such a huge and rapid swing in popular opinion has never happened before or since.

[elocs]

20. This is purely an academic exercise since I never see that happening here for all drugs.

Is there such a thing as a casual crystal meth user? Is American society prepared to deal with the fallout from legalizing all drugs? Because American society and its makeup is not the same as the Netherlands, Great Britain, or Switzerland and there is no use in pretending that it is.

We live in a world where very few people are an island. Peoples' choices nearly always have consequences for somebody other than themselves--their family, friends, neighbors. There are few things of consequence that we may choose to do for which we may claim that it only impacts us so it is the business of nobody else.

[JonLP24]

71. Yes

to your first question.

I'll be honest here that I was one.

I haven't done it in over 5 years but I did it no more than once or twice every two months or so. Cannabis was always my drug of choice but there was things I liked about it. It gave me energy when I'm the type of person who lacks energy for no reason. This was at first--it sped up my brain where I was able to think and talk faster--that wears out after about 4 hours and you can't get that back unless you sober up and take another hit. The crash is horrible, the worst feeling in the world but cannabis helps A LOT with that. With that said I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless it's for treatment which it is used for. Now there was one big reason that I liked about it that I'm afraid to say here but that very reason is the ONLY reason why I continued use.

My point is there are casual users, the ones you see reported on or the pictures you see are the ones that abuse it, use it any chance they get. Most are not like that, most use it as well as other drugs such as cannabis, alcohol, cocaine, etc. I knew someone in the Army who was in excellent physical shape, on the fast track to promotion, could score over 300 on the PT test when the extended scale is used and he liked to use meth. It's when it becomes the first drug of choice for people when it becomes a major problem.

Now all this was tough for me to admit so be gentle. :)

Let me add the fact that it's illegal is NOT the reason I quit.

[TexasObserver]

22. Only truly criminal activities should be illegal.

Things people do to their own body should not be illegal, whether it is tattoos, piercings, boob enhancement, wang lengthening, spiked hair, no hair, brandings, or ingesting all manner of mind altering drugs.

If they neglect their kids, take the kids and charge them with child neglect, not drug possession.

If they steal to support their habit, charge them with stealing.

But if they're just users, who use at home and pay their own way, they're not criminals and we can't afford to police all these citizens who simply get high a different way than drunks and pill poppers.

[ixion]

23. Yes, they should.

Part of the problem is that drugs are illegal.

[tavalon]

24. Absolutely!

They should all be out on the pharmacy shelves, available to anyone. And education should be king and queen, for that matter. Doctors and Pharmacists should be teachers not prescribers. But, my point of view is about as liberal as one can get. My affiliation: still registered Democrat, leaning strongly toward being Socialist and wondering if I don't have a big streak of anarchy in me.

I'm a registered nurse as well.

[ThomThom]

25. The goal here should be to destroy the black market in drugs

if you don't legalize all you would still have trafficking in the illegal ones. If people are given a choice I think they would choose more wisely. I don't think meth would be very popular if there were safer alternatives like cocoa leaves or diet type pills. A barbiturate pill would probably be preferred over PCP. Opium over heroin. But of course some people would still be drawn to the hardest stuff available and that is a fact either way. The basis for legalizing is about freedom so to not legalize all is to sell out freedom. I believe the war on drugs is completely unconstitutional and I am a progressive liberal and drug free. I believe treatment is very important whether we legalize or not but locking people up for hurting themselves is wrong. It is time for some compassion. The war on drugs has really been a war against our own people mostly our young people. It has caused many more problems and failed to solve the perceived problem. The war has alienated many good people and ruined more lives than the actual drug use has. Treat people with compassion and give them help if they need it not jail time.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Yes. It is FULL STUPID FAIL to lock people up for getting high.

Why not take the same approach with the War On Cancer? Got a tumor? Go to jail.

[LanternWaste]

89. I think the relevant question would be...

I think the relevant question would be "why take the same approach as the War On Cancer?" As I rarely see one thing precisely equating with another thing I imagine every separate things requires a different approach. :shrug:

[demwing]

28. Drug Use - Yes / Drug Sales - No. /nt

[Greyhound]

30. Yes. If for no other reason than that prohibition has never worked,

and can never work without sacrificing the last shreds of America the ideal.

[wcast]

31. False American Morality

What drugs we choose to declare "legal" and the ones declared "illegal" are based on a false sense of morality, and are used to keep certain segments of the population down. Why is tobacco legal, but not marijuana? Why is it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes but not to smoke them? Why is there a price limit on how low your price of cigarettes are? For that matter, why is the lottery legal, but not number running? These are all decisions based on money and how the people in power get paid.The industrial prison system is a big money maker. It is also used as defacto Jim Crow, as the prosecution and imprisonment of offenders is largely based on race.

Two great articles address this issue. One was a study from the Cato Institute on the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

The other from Friday out of the UK, comparing prohibition to the current war on drugs. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-can-americas-war-on-drugs-succeed-if-their-prohibition-laws-failed-1997227.html

Both are excellent reads and show that what we currently do doesn't work, that the people in charge know it doesn't work, but there is too much tied up in our current system.

Again, I think it goes back to a false sense of American morality. What I (the majority) do is fine, but what they ( the minority of the population) do is not. This has always been my biggest gripe about religion in America. Not to go too far off topic, but I used to be a church goer. Still am a believer, but most Christian churches don't follow Christ's teachings. What I stated above is true for the Church's position on Homosexuality. Most Christians are not gay, and don't think they ever will be, or that it will ever impact their lives. So they demonize the minority of people that are gay. OTOH, when was the last time you heard the church, or any church, demonize divorce and adultery?

The government and politicians are no different. Majority politics get them elected, keep them in power, and in the money. It's easy to demonize the minority of users, so they do. It's what I liked best about Portugal's approach to decriminalization. The intent was to take morality out of the equation so people weren't stigmatized by getting treatment. I'm not sure if the US can ever get there, but I pray that they do.

[EOTE]

51. Great post. And welcome to DU!

Those are two good reads you link to as well. I think a lot of what you mentioned is so ingrained in American culture/politics that it would require a seachange in the way we think in order to get sensible drug policy in this country. It won't be impossible, just difficult.

[Toots]

32. Mexico did this a couple of years ago and they seem quite pleased at the results.

ALL drugs are now Legal in Mexico. The USA could learn something if anyone pays attention.

[Hugabear]

93. That's not quite 100% true. Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts.

Selling drugs in Mexico is still illegal.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918725,00.html

[ProgressiveVictory]

33. Nope. If any drug will be legalized it will be Marijuana. nothing more.

If you legalize heroin and crack it will start to effect how people do things since they are more addictive drugs.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Why???? Would you run out and start doing crack because it is legal?

The same people that use while things are illegal will be using when legal.

Describe what you foresee as the fall out and connect some of the dots.

[moriah]

34. My dad died from shooting up meth.

He got HIV, and the dying took 17 years.

I've known people who died from heart attacks from cocaine, and when I worked at an RCF I saw a young lady who had suffered a stroke from crack.

My ex-husband was a heroin addict before we met, and got clean when the woman he loved ODed.

I know many people who were raver kids and did a lot of ecstasy, and as adults they have severe depression from damaging their serotonin receptors.

I've known two people who had psychotic breaks after repeated dextromethorphan (cough syrup) trips.

-----

But I've yet to meet someone who has been seriously damaged by taking mushrooms or LSD. I'd say legalize those and put age restrictions, along with pot.

[TheKentuckian]

54. The drugs being illegal didn't save those people dear to you.

Maybe it even made it more likely they couldn't seek treatment or easily get clean needles.

Filling up prisons to the point that a private for profit industry and blowing billions and trillions on bogus enforcement isn't going to save anyone or bring those you love back.

What can you say is the actual upside of vice enforcement? How effective is it reducing harm?

[moriah]

83. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm firmly behind harm reduction.

Manufacturing should be a felony and require mandatory jail time. I think selling should depend on the amount -- if it's just someone who is "flipping" it to support their own habit, treatment is going to work a lot better than jail time. Simple possession should be treatment as well, not jail. I firmly believe in needle exchange programs, and in my state it's legal to buy insulin needles over the counter. I think methadone maintenance and Suboxone treatment should be more available for all opiate abusers, not just ones who have a history of heroin addiction.

I'd like to see more research done on cocaine and crack abuse -- after Dad destroyed his veins shooting up bathtub meth, he switched to crack. There are very few drug treatments that help cocaine/crack abusers to stay clean, whereas even meth dependence can be treated with prescription ADD medications. I believe Dad started using meth to compensate for untreated ADD, but the drugs damaged his brain so much. Long before he contracted HIV he'd lost the ability to draw or paint -- Mom remembers a beautiful watercolor painting he had on his wall from his teens that he did himself, and he experimented with oils as well, but after a few years of using he was unable to do much more than cartoon-like drawings.... and by the time I re-met him at 13, right after he was diagnosed, he couldn't even do that.

I would personally like to see more restrictions on alcohol and tobacco than on pot and hallucinogens. But meth destroys a person's body in many ways even if they do not share needles. Cocaine and crack cause so many cardiovascular problems.... while opiates have no "lethal dose" when titrated properly, it's easy to misjudge the dose and OD. Ecstasy may seem like a "harmless" drug, but repeated usage destroys serotonin receptors. Harm reduction and treatment help, but if these are made legal there will be no penalty for those who make their money off of other people's suffering by manufacturing and trafficking these dangerous chemicals.

[PassingFair]

35. Nope. Just pot. n/t

[ProgressiveVictory]

36. It would be one step backwards. Its just as bad as having obese children

Think about it. People are saying that they should be free to choose what they put in their body. Well if you believe that you should not be mad at the people who are overweight and use the hospital more and make our costs go up.

Its the same thing.

[unpossibles]

41. but do you honestly think that if legalized suddenly people who never wanted to try heroin or crack

will decide to become a drug addict? Personally I doubt it. I think most who want to do hard drugs will do so now and just buy them illegally.

[eShirl]

47. do we lock people up for being fat?

[EOTE]

52. Wow, talk about a bad comparison.

"Think about it. People are saying that they should be free to choose what they put in their body. Well if you believe that you should not be mad at the people who are overweight and use the hospital more and make our costs go up."

No, actually those who think they should be free to choose what they put in their body should not PREVENT people who are overweight from putting whatever they want in their bodies. Being mad at something has nothing to do about it. Just about everyone participates in activities which are unhealthy. I don't go about trying to make all those activities illegal because I'm not a fascist.

[krabigirl]

Well, i don't think the government should tell people what they can't put in their bodies.

But i don't think all drugs should be freely available. I just don't think people should be put in cages for using them. Hard drug users need treatment, and I'd much rather pay for that than jail. As for fatty foods, yeah, of course people should be allowed to eat them.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I don't think it should be illegal for people to be fat, either.

Neither do I think we should be spending upwards of $40 Billion Dollars a year to put fat people in prison for being fat.

People make bad choices that other people aren't going to approve of, and sometimes those will translate into health care costs. People drink. People smoke. Some non-drinkers and non-smokers ride motorcycles too fast. Some other people have sex with lots of partners.

If you really want to pick and choose which unhealthy behaviors you're "willing to pay for", you are going down a long, endless road. Far better to front the costs on the intelligent side- education, treatment on demand, along with, say, making it easier for people to make informed, healthy choices in diet and exercise- than to try to play this game of "I'm not paying for this, but I will pay for that".

Meanwhile, there is NO reason why we shouldn't legalize, regulate, and TAX marijuana at the very least, maybe feeding that $ into health coverage for all- it would be a net gain, given that the health and social costs associated with pot are far lower than those of cigarettes and alcohol.

[derby378]

38. Two words: GENE POOL

We've had enough problems from self-inflicted birth and developmental defects from lead, pesticides, industrial pollution, etc. Granted, legalizing marijuana and hashish isn't going to do much harm along these lines, but all drugs? No way. We have a biological imperative to keep our species healthy and strong.

Progressive Democratic election judge and state delegate, BTW. :hi:

[TheKentuckian]

58. Taking that at face value, what is the actual real benefit of vice enforcement?

The people that use substances still use them regardless of legal status and still reproduce.

How does this solution positively impact the problem you see?

Also, if keeping the race strong and vital is paramount then why would you stand in the way of natural selection?
Wouldn't free access clear up some of the weaker strains and result in a better gene pool if some of these folks were excluded?

[Warren DeMontague]

79. What drugs do you think cause this genetic damage you're talking about.

Just curious. Any science to back it up?

[NuttyFluffers]

39. i believe so. just have counseling, rehab readily available, too.

once you take away a lot of the glamour from drugs, a lot of them become quite sad when addicted to. and once it becomes something to pity, it no longer holds the same sway.

by legalizing it you remove:
income in black markets, thereby also reducing crime (and starving covert gov't ops the world over, tee hee)
one avenue of exploitation of perpetually impoverished communities
unnecessary deaths from poor product
impoverishing mark-ups on a high demand product
any latent "taboo" cool factor already attached

add in Universal Single-Payer Health Care, covering all physical and psychological needs and you further remove:
people self-medicating
provide a venue of hope for people in a downward spiral
replace the stigma of drug use from being dangerous/cool "outside the system" into being just a really sad part "inside the system"

suddenly within the space of legality and available healing the substance is contained within a strong social framework. this will not be able to save everybody -- no society has ever managed to do that on anything -- but it will take care of many of the weak and vulnerable, while letting adults capable of resisting and indulging occasionally the room to enjoy themselves.

i don't view drugs as something Beyond the Pale, and incapable of being socially managed without absolute banning/exile. i believe very much in working with biological motivations while imposing a social control/ritual space on overly potent aspects. sex, just like drugs, is never going to go away, but denying it entirely is just folly. better to work with the human animal in a social aspect when dealing with biological urges.

[clu]

42. all but PCP

that's a scary drug

[bigwillq]

43. Yes (nt)

[Deep13]

44. Short answer: no.

I agree on grass. Also, I would have to be blind not to see what a dismal failure the so-called war on drugs is. Having said that, I don't think addictive drugs should be available without a prescription. And addictive drugs with no legitimate medical use should not be allowed at all. I would really like to see some nearly harmless drug replace alcohol as this society's social drug of choice.

[ZombieHorde]

69. Are you suggesting we should reinstate the prohibition on alcohol. nt

[Deep13]

73. No. But if there was something else...

...that was less toxic, less addictive and not prone to causing violence, I think people would make the switch. Reeferade, anyone?

[redqueen]

46. Yes

I'm a Democrat

[walldude]

68. ROFLMAO!! +1

Short and sweet! :yourock:

[anarch]

48. yes. Prohibition flat out does not work n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

49. Pot only and treat it like beer.

The rest should be misdemeanors for use and felonies for sale.

[krabigirl]

53. Legalize cannabis, decriminalize the others and focus on treatment.

[EOTE]

57. Soft drugs for sure. Perhaps opiates as well.

As for the scary stuff like PCP and meth, I'm really not sure how they should be treated. I think the way we're treating them now is certainly not working, so I'd like there to be a change, I just don't know if legalizing drugs like PCP and meth would make things better. There are people smarter than I who can come up with ways of dealing with those drugs. Perhaps some very heavy form of regulation like how methadone is dispensed now. I'm a registered Democrat, but I now consider myself to be a Socialist.

On edit: this reply was supposed to be to the OP.

[One_Life_To_Give]

55. Penacillan without a script, like much of the world

:bounce: :bounce:
Get me some Premarin!

[asdjrocky]

56. Yes.

[Trillo]

59. Perhaps....

If oil is legal, as toxic and damaging as it is, perhaps.

It is rather hypocritical to say that oil and its byproducts are legal, but other chemicals are not.

[Robb]

We should legalize all drugs, except marijuana.

...Not really, but I bet you were dying to know my reasoning, eh? :D

[Iggo]

67. Goddammit, Robb!!!!!

:toast:

[Robb]

60. Delete, double post nt

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I'm going to add this: If the ONLY two choices are full legalization or what we're doing now

I would have to go with full legalization. For instance, I would rather live in a world with more opiate addicts, than live in one (like we have now) where pain patients often can't get adequate palliative care due to doctors living in fear of the DEA.

If the price of, say, bone cancer patients being able to be fully treated for pain is that anyone who wants morphine can buy it over the counter, I have to say I would take the latter option.

[MicaelS]

63. Legalize, regulate to ensure quality, and tax heavily...

As a contrast...treat pot just like beer or wine. Allow people to grow a small amount for their own use, just like you can make your own beer or wine.

Harder drugs only available from a pharmacy or a clinic.
Same price nationwide, publicly posted, no discounts.
No advertising of any type permitted.
No "brands".

And I'm an old fashioned populist, I believe in the dignity of the American worker.
Single payer NHC and a strong social safety net.
Progressive income tax.
If it's a choice between an American getting a job, and someone from another country getting a job, the American worker comes first.
I'm no globalist, or internationalist, and I do not believe in open borders.

[JonLP24]

65. Yes

All drugs.

The main reason why is that when it's illegal you drive the business underground which leads to majority of the crime. How do you handle disputes? You can't go to the police, you can't sue, many resort to violence to settle disputes such as being ripped off, someone cutting your drugs to the point where it's not effective, etc.

[Iggo]

66. Yes.

[FlyByNight]

70. Yes

Prohibition was tried once and it failed.

Alcohol and tobacco do more harm than any other narcotic and THEY'RE LEGAL. The "'War' on (untaxed) Drugs" is a war on personal freedom and a justification to perpetuate the surveillance state/prison-industrial complex.

[FedUpWithIt All]

74. Even with legalization there will be a black market. Addicts will not go happily

into regulations. There will be a black market and all the responding crime because the addict will still function at the same addled level he does now. Kids will still be neglected and abused by the drug hazed or enraged. Addicts will still find it easier to meet their needs through the instant result of crime rather that the consistent investment of work. It is the nature of the abuse. Selling drugs in a corner shop or in an alley way you are still going to have crime to support an addicts need because the addict remains the same. Addicts have SERIOUS social and behavioral faults. This will not change with legalization and taxation. There is a distinct difference between the Prohibition and the discussion about today. Prohibition was largely rebelled against by "casual" alcohol consumers. There aren't many "casual" meth and heroin users.

Broad and affective health care IS and has long been available to addicts. It is useless unless the addict WANTS it to work. Of course, the addiction often wins. Some might argue that there will be better health care...but they obviously are overlooking that this will likely only be available to those who can pay for it(nothing that is not already in place). Usually, the worst addicts do not fit into this category. Regulation will not change this. Hell we cannot even manage in this country to provide basic preventative health care to our youngest citizens. We certainly won't be throwing, any more than we already do, great amounts of money at the health needs of the down and out addicts.

I suspect there are two types of people who loudly support legalization, those who have never seen a darker side of addiction that a romp outside a bar and those who seek to have more freedom to feed their own already existing addictions without fear of criminality.

I am in support of the legalization of Marijuana and the decriminalization of use and possession (edited to add...with the exception of distribution) of most other drugs but only with intensive mandatory treatment. Criminal punishment for drug induced crime (which will continue) should remain intact IMHO.

Comments are welcome but i will likely not respond as this issue has the tendency to bring up a very severe case of PTSD in me. I have seen the very dark side of drug abuse.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. See Portugal

legalization is the best way to reduce the harm of drug addiction. In fact it appears to be the only policy that actually reduces the aggregate harm related drug addiction in any meaningful way.

"I suspect there are two types of people who loudly support legalization, those who have never seen a darker side of addiction that a romp outside a bar and those who seek to have more freedom to feed their own already existing addictions without fear of criminality. "

Yeah that must be it.

" Addicts will still find it easier to meet their needs through the instant result of crime rather that the consistent investment of work."

Nope - everywhere decriminalization and legalization have been tried crime rates drop. It is simple economics. If you need to steal $1000 of goods/day to feed a $100/day habit, (assuming a 10% of value payout from the friendly local fence) and if the legalized cost to you is $10/day, then even if you continue in a life of thievery, you need only steal $100/day. Crime drops proportional to the average daily cost of addiction. In fact it is even better, as there is a threshold where even the dreaded subhuman 'addict' will decide that the risk of thieving to feed his 10/day habit is just stupid, and will find legal ways to earn that ten dollars. And that does not even start to factor in the incredible, stunningly FULL STUPID FAIL cost of incarcerating all of those subhumans and their vendors.

[FedUpWithIt All]

91. Portugal did not legalize drugs. There are still severe penalties those who distribute them.

They simply stopped arresting those who were in possession of an amount for personal use. It is still illegal to sell and distribute drugs in Portugal.

Quite a difference from the legalization called for by so many here.

Portugal historically has a low crime rate but violent crime, particularly theft, has been increasing over the past year.

Portugal also has one of the highest traffic incident rates in Europe.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1002.html

Edited to add

http://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=87735

"Violent criminal confrontations and the use of firearms are rare, but recent trends indicate that these forms of crime are on the rise. When firearms are used in the commission of crimes in Portugal, the incidents usually involve drug trafficking or carjacking. Visitors should also be aware that it is not unusual to be approached by con artists and small time drug dealers in many tourist parts of Lisbon. U.S citizens should also take note of the fact that burglars and pickpockets are active, and crimes of opportunity are common. Residential break-ins have increased but are still considered to be at a low level. During the past two years, at least three Americans reported to the Embassy that they were victims of date rape type drugs."

"According to police statistics, overall crime is down, but there has been a slight up-tick in violent crime. The number of carjackings in Portugal is up 10 percent since 2006, and over 30 percent since 2003. "

"Drug trafficking is on the rise. The numbers of seizures of most forms of illicit narcotics are increasing in frequency and magnitude. That being said, the number and size of cocaine seizures has dropped sharply in the last year after several years of dramatic increases."

"There is a growing trend of credit card fraud in Portugal"

[mochajava666]

76. The war on drugs is a war on logic

Prohibition has never been effective. It just adds to the problem.

It does serve the racist, corrupt, prison-industrial complex, so most Americans love the war on poor minorities, er I mean the war on drugs.

[Duer 157099]

78. Yes; because it's a HEALTH issue, not a LEGAL one n/t

[Mopar151]

80. Something like the English system

For hard drugs would be good.
Perhaps a system where we tightly regulate refined and synthesized drugs, and require Medicinal herbs to meet safety and labeling standards.

[muffin1]

82. Yes. Legalize everything.

I guess you could call me a far left liberal.

[RainDog]

84. yes. treat addiction as a health problem

provide clean needles for addicts, clinics for treatment and no religious bullshit as a condition of humane treatment since that would negate the effect. (referring to the religulous reich that wants to extort $$ from the U.S. govt. to subsidize their fantasies.)

this is SO sensible, however, I doubt it will happen in the U.S. in my lifetime.

plus, the prison industry doesn't want to lose it cash cow.

[Hugabear]

92. Even if you legalize all drugs, where do you buy them from?

Where would you go to buy drugs like crack, heroin, or crystal meth? I can't imagine any of these hard drugs being sold by "legitimate" businesses - certainly not at your corner convenience store, and probably not even in "head shops". I imagine that this would be extremely regulated, any business selling these hard drugs would have to be located in very obscure, out-of-the-way areas. Therefore, you'd still have many of the same problems you do now, with unlicensed, unregulated drug dealers competing with each other to sell these drugs on the street.

I'm all for decriminalizing all drugs, and making marijuana completely 100% legal. I'm just not sure how practical it would be to completely legalize harder drugs.

[AtomicKitten]

94. Yes please. nt

[harkadog]

95. I think all drugs should be legalized and regulated in the manner of tobacco or alcohol.

I don't think society should be responsible for the abuses by the users which would initially take place. However when people saw society would not come to the rescue this problem would become self-correcting.

[Dr Morbius]

97. I'd say no.

My reasoning is this: substances that are immediately and directly harmful should be prohibited by law. Substances which are indirectly harmful, or not immediately harmful, should be discouraged by taxation. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana: these may be arguably harmful in the long term, but not immediately. Heroin, PCP, meth: these are immediately and directly harmful.

I'm a liberal Democrat.