End Prohibition

[Caitlin.ann]

"Any adult" then? People who haven't been born are "anyone" because they don't exist. You are right that I wasn't thinking about children.

But still, almost no one has the inclination to use hard drugs. And anyone who does have that inclination is already doing them. Children who haven't heard of hard drugs don't have that inclination, though they might grow up and choose to do so, I suppose (though I feel that explaining the dangers of such hard drugs would convince any sane person to avoid them).

But, the .01% or so (might be less, actually) of the population that has the desire to use heroin are already doing so, despite its legal status. If it were legal, the only difference is that their purchase would stimulate the economy, would be taxed, and the quality and amount of the substance they get would be regulated (along with an assurance of having clean needles).

Almost no one wants to use hard drugs, and making them legal wouldn't change that. I wouldn't do heroin if it were legal and free, because there are too many risks involved. Almost no one would use a hard drug, because they have reasons (other than the legal status) to not do so.

Drugs exist, legal or not. I don't see the point in trying to arrest people (and fill up our prisons) with non-violent drug offenders, and allowing illegal drugs to support organized crime. If people are going to keep doing something, and that thing doesn't harm anyone outside of their body (most drugs are harmful both to the user and to pregnant women's unborn human "cargo" *wink*), why not make it legal and tax it?

Doesn't matter, those drugs aren't going to be made legal anytime soon. At this point, I'm ready to say I agree to disagree with you to the point that I still have reservations about making drugs legal. And in essence all I ever said in this debate is that I have serious reservations about making drugs legal, something which didn't need a full flung debate thrown at it. Maybe you could be so kind as to provide some scholarly articles with your opinion about how making drugs legal could be beneficial, but until then my opinion stays the same.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I think everyone does, and they should. Drugs should be taxed, regulated, and have legal age restrictions, just like booze and cigarettes (well, purchasing them, anyway).

But I don't have any fear about people doing more drugs should they be legalized. I'm a product of the "just say no" generation, and after having grown up with much more anti-drug propaganda than any other generation before me (or after me), I think it's safe to say that people are going to get high no matter what. Criminalizing drugs doesn't make any difference about that.

If those drugs were taxed, regulated, and had legal age restrictions, I'd have less reservations about it. My fear is that acceptance will lead to more people doing the drugs themselves, some of which (if not all) have proven to be harmful in the past.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Doesn't matter, those drugs aren't going to be made legal anytime soon. At this point, I'm ready to say I agree to disagree with you to the point that I still have reservations about making drugs legal.

I can agree to disagree (though I don't actively disagree - because I also have reservations about making hard drugs legal, I just like debating).

And in essence all I ever said in this debate is that I have serious reservations about making drugs legal, something which didn't need a full flung debate thrown at it..

I didn't mount a full debate, I just pointed out some of the flaws in your reasoning, namely that drugs, legal or illegal, are present around children.

 

[WatersMoon110]

If those drugs were taxed, regulated, and had legal age restrictions, I'd have less reservations about it. My fear is that acceptance will lead to more people doing the drugs themselves, some of which (if not all) have proven to be harmful in the past.

Except that, in the Netherlands, where cannabis (and some other "soft" substances) is decriminalized, drug use and drug abuse decreased and is far lower than percentages in the US. If you'll excuse the biased site, there is a chart which shows this here (I couldn't find such a comparison elsewhere, but they have their sources marked). It can be assumed that this trend could also happen in the US if cannabis and other drugs are decriminalized or made legal.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Smart parents will breed smart children, and if the parents are stupid, with or without legal drugs, their children are probably screwed.

 

[ebia]

Please. Organized crime doesn't both selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors, because there isn't enough money in it. They would not bother selling other drugs, were they legal, for the same reason.

I wasn't addressing the "selling it to minors bit", though by prohibiting them from them you still keep that "it's forbidden" incentive for them to try it. If adults are allowed it, and they are not, they are damn well going to try them just as they do with alcohol and tabacco. We have major problems with kids binge drinking - it seems naive to suggest that going from drugs being illegal to them being regulated in a similar way to alcohol
is going to make a big positive impact on children's use.

I could photocopy the newspaper and sell it, but it isn't cost efficient for me to do so.

If the taxations are low enough that's fine. But as soon as they get higher, especially if you have adjacent countries with significantly different tax rates, you generate a business in smuggling or illegal production. (As you have into the UK for both alcohol and tabacco).

Organized crime would still to large money crimes, theft, murder, gambling, prostitution, and "protection".

If the logic worked I don't see why you wouldn't apply a similar logic for gambling and prostitution. Mind you, widely available, regulated, gambling here might have moved the organised crime people to other avenues, but it has had the effect of massively increasing the amount of gambling related problems in society.

 

[Peach81]

That will neatly ensure there is some scope for organised crime - don't want to put them all out of a job!

There's already organized crime, because of prohibition. If drugs are legalized, then the power is taken away from the black market... just like when alcohol was decriminalized.

 

[ebia]

There's already organized crime, because of prohibition. If drugs are legalized, then the power is taken away from the black market... just like when alcohol was decriminalized.

And people are talking about replacing illegality with regulation and taxation, and I'm just pointing out that if the taxation rates are significant it acts in many ways similarly to a partial version of criminalisation. The same logic that says "decriminalise" has to say "and keep the tax rates very low or zero".

 

[KalithAlur]

I consider prostitution the selling of a drug also, so this thread is also advocating (or at least opening up debate about) legalized prostitution.

Prostitution for me is easier to justify legalizing than hard drugs like heroin and crack. Why? Simply because the social consequences are more obvious. This has actually been done before (see Nevada). Sex is already legal, so selling it should be legal.

no more street walking

less spread of diseases due to the regulations enforced upon prostitution. even if only regulated by free-market capitalism (who would go to a risky prostitute over a prostitute required to test for diseases once a week?)

i don't want to start a debate about rape is domination and it isn't sexual! but, legalized prostitution might make sex so easily available everybody gets the hot girl, everybody's psychologically stable. (at least in the Freudian, all mental illness springs from unfulfilled sexual fantasies and guilt-repressed sexuality, standpoint)

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I can agree to disagree (though I don't actively disagree - because I also have reservations about making hard drugs legal, I just like debating).
I didn't mount a full debate, I just pointed out some of the flaws in your reasoning, namely that drugs, legal or illegal, are present around children.

Okay, I understand your point better now, and I'm sorry for my angry outburst. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Except that, in the Netherlands, where cannabis (and some other "soft" substances) is decriminalized, drug use and drug abuse decreased and is far lower than percentages in the US. If you'll excuse the biased site, there is a chart which shows this here (I couldn't find such a comparison elsewhere, but they have their sources marked). It can be assumed that this trend could also happen in the US if cannabis and other drugs are decriminalized or made legal.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it and found the link quite interesting. For the record I wouldn't mind if Cannabis were legalized, although with restrictions. I do see your point much more clearly now, although if weed and heroine were (or either) were legalized, I do think we should at least have better education methods of teaching our children the dangers or possible benefits of either drug. Although personally I don't know any benefits of heroine, I do know there are many benefits to weed.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Smart parents will breed smart children, and if the parents are stupid, with or without legal drugs, their children are probably screwed.

It doesn't always work that way. Some of the smartest parents give birth to numbskulls. Kids tend to experiment and sometimes get into things they're not supposed to regardless of how smart the parents are.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I consider prostitution the selling of a drug also, so this thread is also advocating (or at least opening up debate about) legalized prostitution.

Prostitution for me is easier to justify legalizing than hard drugs like heroin and crack. Why? Simply because the social consequences are more obvious. This has actually been done before (see Nevada). Sex is already legal, so selling it should be legal.

no more street walking

less spread of diseases due to the regulations enforced upon prostitution. even if only regulated by free-market capitalism (who would go to a risky prostitute over a prostitute required to test for diseases once a week?)

i don't want to start a debate about rape is domination and it isn't sexual! but, legalized prostitution might make sex so easily available everybody gets the hot girl, everybody's psychologically stable. (at least in the Freudian, all mental illness springs from unfulfilled sexual fantasies and guilt-repressed sexuality, standpoint)

Makes sense, but I've agreed with legalized prostitution for a long time, lol.

 

[MasterK]

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.

Pot is illegal, no one has ever been harmed by smoking weed. Any problems related to it are probably because it is illegal.

Plus if high quality, government grown bud was sold in stores I'm certain the amount of people doing harder, chemical drugs would decrease immensely.

 

[KalithAlur]

To say nobody has ever been harmed by smoking weed is to go to the extreme... I personally know of cases of people being harmed by smoking weed.

I don't know of any fatalities and I don't know of any permanent injuries, at least concerning my own friends.

If you'v ever smoked any really great dank out of some high quality smoking equipment, you'l realize that even pot can impair driving ability. Heck, before I got used to smoking pot, I couldn't drive even on the low quality stuff.

but i do think the many good things i'v seen happen to people because of pot far outweigh the negatives

 

[MasterK]

To say nobody has ever been harmed by smoking weed is to go to the extreme... I personally know of cases of people being harmed by smoking weed.

I don't know of any fatalities and I don't know of any permanent injuries, at least concerning my own friends.

If you'v ever smoked any really great dank out of some high quality smoking equipment, you'l realize that even pot can impair driving ability. Heck, before I got used to smoking pot, I couldn't drive even on the low quality stuff.

but i do think the many good things i'v seen happen to people because of pot far outweigh the negatives

I'm speaking in a physiological sense, in that weed doesn't do anything to your body/mind that is inherently harmful.

Certainly people will get hurt while stoned, and people will let pot ruin their lives. But that is true for any substance, whether it's legal or not.

Smoking shwag an driving is probably a bad idea, just because it gets you so wasted. And there are times when you're too stoned to drive, but if you're too high to drive you're probably too high to move.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Drugs are harmful, no matter how you look at it, but pot is one of the less dangerous ones, I personally know several people who do pot, they function just fine (when they aren't high)

 

[Patashu]

If those drugs were taxed, regulated, and had legal age restrictions, I'd have less reservations about it. My fear is that acceptance will lead to more people doing the drugs themselves, some of which (if not all) have proven to be harmful in the past.

Not really. If drugs become legal the popular teenager view will be that it's 'not cool' because you can get it legally. Usage of drugs among teenagers will either stay the same or drop and at the same time drugs will become safer (as legal companies will require their products to be checked for safety)

 

[Patashu]

Drugs are harmful, no matter how you look at it, but pot is one of the less dangerous ones, I personally know several people who do pot, they function just fine (when they aren't high)

Not intrinsically harmful. Some people can focus better when using marijuana or cigarettes. Something like meth or heroin would be tougher to argue for, but it still shouldn't be illegal. Unlike being murdered and raped, heroin usage isn't forced apon you.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I agree that they should be legal, but not that they are harmless