End Prohibition

[KalithAlur]

This is one thing about which I'm very much Pro Choice.

Prohibition denies me my right as a human being to decide what I will or will not do with my own body.

Prohibition funds violent crime lords and fills up the US prison with more inmates than any other country.

Without Prohibition, people would trust law enforcement agents much more.

Without Prohibition, there would be no need for irresponsible drug dealers to kill each other and get kids hooked on crack and spread aids with dirty needles.

Pro-hibition or Pro Choice?

I do not believe in other than Consent Crimes.

On the other hand, I'm against the President of Mexico's recent plan to legalize small quantities of almost any drug, because doing so doesn't topple drug lords, it merely gives them funding... he was probably paid by coke dealers to do that. The US pointed its mighty finger and said, "No!"

I also wouldn't mind making it illegal to sell crack or heroin to anybody who isn't already addicted. My mind is currently thinking in a linear manner so I will rethink this whole issue later. The only possible exception I am capable of conceiving to this rule concerns those persons interested in curing Heroin and Cocaine addiction by studying it first hand, who also possess appropriate credentials to prove they are capable of doing so, as well as a definite plan to quit using within 1 month of the start of their experiment.

What do you think? Should all drugs be legal?

 

[The Bellman]

Yes, all drugs should be legal. No question. Regulate production and quality, and there goes many problems of ODing and so forth. Legalise and gut organised crime. At the same time give freedom a boost. I can't see a downside.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

This is one thing about which I'm very much Pro Choice.

Prohibition denies me my right as a human being to decide what I will or will not do with my own body.

Prohibition funds violent crime lords and fills up the US prison with more inmates than any other country.

Without Prohibition, people would trust law enforcement agents much more.

Without Prohibition, there would be no need for irresponsible drug dealers to kill each other and get kids hooked on crack and spread aids with dirty needles.

Pro-hibition or Pro Choice?

I do not believe in other than Consent Crimes.

On the other hand, I'm against the President of Mexico's recent plan to legalize small quantities of almost any drug, because doing so doesn't topple drug lords, it merely gives them funding... he was probably paid by coke dealers to do that. The US pointed its mighty finger and said, "No!"

I also wouldn't mind making it illegal to sell crack or heroin to anybody who isn't already addicted. My mind is currently thinking in a linear manner so I will rethink this whole issue later. The only possible exception I am capable of conceiving to this rule concerns those persons interested in curing Heroin and Cocaine addiction by studying it first hand, who also possess appropriate credentials to prove they are capable of doing so, as well as a definite plan to quit using within 1 month of the start of their experiment.

What do you think? Should all drugs be legal?

Hmm..I think I remember hearing a news story a while back about people wanting to make centers where heroin addicts could get small dosages of the drug in order to keep drug related problems down in the community. I don't remember the whole story but I'm pretty sure it was on national news.

I'm really not sure what I feel about this issue. I'm really hesitant to make any drugs legal, although I understand both yours and The Bellman's arguments. Maybe its just society's and my parents influence on me, but to do so makes me worry whether or not worse crimes would occur more frequently. Would there be more traffic accidents, etc.? Just my two cents though.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

what about age restrictions?

 

[NavyGuy7]

This is one thing about which I'm very much Pro Choice.

Prohibition denies me my right as a human being to decide what I will or will not do with my own body.

Prohibition funds violent crime lords and fills up the US prison with more inmates than any other country.

Without Prohibition, people would trust law enforcement agents much more.

Without Prohibition, there would be no need for irresponsible drug dealers to kill each other and get kids hooked on crack and spread aids with dirty needles.

Pro-hibition or Pro Choice?

I do not believe in other than Consent Crimes.

On the other hand, I'm against the President of Mexico's recent plan to legalize small quantities of almost any drug, because doing so doesn't topple drug lords, it merely gives them funding... he was probably paid by coke dealers to do that. The US pointed its mighty finger and said, "No!"

I also wouldn't mind making it illegal to sell crack or heroin to anybody who isn't already addicted. My mind is currently thinking in a linear manner so I will rethink this whole issue later. The only possible exception I am capable of conceiving to this rule concerns those persons interested in curing Heroin and Cocaine addiction by studying it first hand, who also possess appropriate credentials to prove they are capable of doing so, as well as a definite plan to quit using within 1 month of the start of their experiment.

What do you think? Should all drugs be legal?

Sorry. But there's a reason all those drugs are illegal. Most laws are designed to, well, protect people. Even if it is from themselves. I'm glad illegal drugs are just that. ILLEGAL.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Yes, all drugs should be legal. No question. Regulate production and quality, and there goes many problems of ODing and so forth. Legalise and gut organised crime. At the same time give freedom a boost. I can't see a downside.

Sorry, but I can. I don't think this plan would work. Just because you regulate production and quality doesn't mean people won't OD. There are other ways to get more drugs, after all. I do not believe you are considering all the factors, sir.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

On the contrary he is considering all the factors, and the good far outweigh the bad and allow for room for the bad factors to eventually be cured.

 

[The Bellman]

Sorry. But there's a reason all those drugs are illegal. Most laws are designed to, well, protect people. Even if it is from themselves. I'm glad illegal drugs are just that. ILLEGAL.

It is not the job of government to protect people from themselves.

Sorry, but I can. I don't think this plan would work. Just because you regulate production and quality doesn't mean people won't OD. There are other ways to get more drugs, after all. I do not believe you are considering all the factors, sir.

No, it doesn't mean people won't OD - it just means the likelihood of them doing it would be vastly released. Why would people use other ways to get more drugs? Of course, they wouldn't. Nobody trades in illicit alcohol, because it's regulated and easily available to adults. Drugs should be precisely the same.

Perhaps I'm not considering all the factors - but you haven't pointed out any yet that I haven't.

 

[Brennin]

Yes, all drugs should be legal. No question. Regulate production and quality, and there goes many problems of ODing and so forth. Legalise and gut organised crime. At the same time give freedom a boost. I can't see a downside.

Yeah, I mean, who doesn't want a meth lab next door? Sorry, but your "open the floodgates" approach is insane.

 

[I Just Believe In Me]

Yeah, I mean, who doesn't want a meth lab next door? Sorry, but your "open the floodgates" approach is insane.

It would be no different than having a pharmaceutical company next door.

 

[ebia]

It sounds fine in theory, but it's an enormously risky theory to put into practice.

This is one thing about which I'm very much Pro Choice.

Prohibition denies me my right as a human being to decide what I will or will not do with my own body.

It does, but sometimes we do agree to suspend some of our 'rights' for the good of the whole community.

Prohibition funds violent crime lords and fills up the US prison with more inmates than any other country.

And yet nearly all other countries have very, very similar laws about drugs, so it's hardly self evident that its your laws that are causing you to have more problems in that way.

Without Prohibition, people would trust law enforcement agents much more.

Maybe some would, but the trust different western societies have for their respective police forces seems to depend more on the general behaviour of the force than the specific laws they enforce, within certain limits.

Without Prohibition, there would be no need for irresponsible drug dealers to kill each other

Assuming they didn't find some other organised crime to replace it. Somehow I can't see them all giving up on crime and finding a legimiate business to conduct in a law abiding way.

and get kids hooked on crack and spread aids with dirty needles.

Kids experiment with the current legal drugs as well as the legal ones. I see no reason to suppose that would change.

 

[flicka]

Sorry, but I can. I don't think this plan would work. Just because you regulate production and quality doesn't mean people won't OD. There are other ways to get more drugs, after all. I do not believe you are considering all the factors, sir.

But it's not the governments job to make protect people from OD'ing! That's what personal responsibility is all about. The more laws we make to protect people from themselves the less effective all laws and the government will be.

 

[ebia]

But it's not the governments job to make protect people from OD'ing!

Say's who?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do you think? Should all drugs be legal?

Yes, I think so. I'd prefer to see the drug issue dealt with at a cultural and medical level rather than at a political level.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KalithAlur]

How do drug dealers continue to make money when drugs become available on a regulated open market?

There wouldn't be a Meth Lab next door, there would be less than exist now, because Meth would be available on the open market, at a fair price, in a risk-free purchase style, and unregulated sale of Meth would probably be severely prosecuted...

age restriction? 18's fine with me, I'd say 18.

 

[Peach81]

Sorry. But there's a reason all those drugs are illegal.

Yes, and it has nothing to do with public safety. Legal drugs are often just as powerful and dangerous as recreational drugs. Most of the drugs that have been made illegal were made so because they were affiliated with the classes and races in society that were once viewed (and, to some, still are) as uncivilized. Marijuana, a weed, was (somehow) outlawed after it became popular with jazz musicians and Mexican immigrants. Cocaine was criminalized after several scathing (and mostly untrue) reports of black men getting high and raping white women were printed. LSD was outlawed after it became the drug of choice for the society-changing hippies. Ecstasy, originally a drug prescribed by psychiatrists, was done away with after it became popular with ravers. All these people are looked down upon by people in power.

Most laws are designed to, well, protect people.

Like hell. The government doesn't give a damn about our safety. They don't care about people being hooked on drugs. They just want people hooked on their drugs, so the pharmaceutical companies can become even richer.

I'm glad illegal drugs are just that. ILLEGAL.

I'm not. Outlawing drugs doesn't make them go away; there will always be a demand. Criminalizing drugs creates a black market. A black market creates crime syndicates. Crime syndicates cause more harm than the drugs themselves. That's what alcohol prohibition taught us.

Besides, this is supposed to be a free country. How can you be free if the government can tell you what you can and cannot consume? It's not a crime to cut yourself, it's not a crime to become morbidly obese, it's not a crime to drink yourself to cirrhosis, it's not a crime to get lung cancer or emphysema from smoking...

And nobody who advocates for keeping drugs illegal has given a good reason why marijuana should remain illegal.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Yeah, I mean, who doesn't want a meth lab next door?

You do of course realise this is exactly the point, right?

People have meth labs next door because of prohibition. Legalisation allows for regulation, and ensures drug production doesn't occur on your doorstep any more than drink production in breweries and distilleries.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Say's who?

Well, here's two that do.

 

[Brennin]

It would be no different than having a pharmaceutical company next door.

That is a ridiculous statement. Aside from the fact that no pharmaceutical product is as deadly or addictive as meth, pharmaceutical companies do not have the tendency to explode.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

18 sounds good to me