Why not just legalize all drugs?

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

So why isn't alcohol illegal?

It was in the US (prohibition anyone?), it didn't take.

Clearly americans aren't quitters.

Do I think that Indigo is right, marijuana, LSD, shrooms, E, etc. should be legalized and regulated as much or more than alcohol.

I'm also against the legalization of heroin, meth, crack, and cocaine. I don't think it should be any easier than it already is to get a hold of these drugs. From what I've seen, the people I've known who started doing heroin, meth, and crack, did so because they didn't feel like they had anything to live for. Changing their minds after that point and recovering became exponentially more difficult with the drug problem in the way.
Cocaine, imo, is for b*tches of both genders.

If that comes across a little harsh it's because I intended it to.

 

[Satya]

I'm also against the legalization of heroin, meth, crack, and cocaine.

Are these drugs any more or less harmful than alcohol and tobacco? Would it not be easier to control them if the government regulated them?

 

[testing]

Oh, the hilarity of these assertions.

Both of my parents are drug and alcohol addicts.

I work in recovery, I am the founder of an organization that is a support group for kids whose parents are in recovery. I have seen firsthand my aunt try to set my sister on fire because she was so drunk.

My mother has been molested by her own blood as a child because of hardcore drugs.

I don't even know my real grandpa because my mom wont let me meet him because he a complete and total psycho.

My uncle is also an ex drug and alcohol addict.

My cousin is still out and using drugs; she got raped because she went to a party, got drunk, and was date raped.

The grandpa that I don't know is homeless because of his drug addictions, and he was into the really hardcore stuff-- still is. He's a sick and lonely man that no one wants to take care of.


Do I think drugs should be legalized, all of them?

Yes.

They weren't assertions. They were questions.

 

[~jet]

Tricky question; to some extent people make more money off drugs when they are illegal, so there is THAT motivation (to artificially limit supply and enhance demand.) Beyond that, some obvious do serious damage. Were they to be legalized, however, I would have to argue that people who use them will probably HAVE to pay outrageously higher healthcare insurance fees (at least that would be their choice, tho.)

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

Originally Posted by Lumi Spitsbergen
I'm also against the legalization of heroin, meth, crack, and cocaine.

Are these drugs any more or less harmful than alcohol and tobacco?

Yes.

Would it not be easier to control them if the government regulated them?

I doubt it. They're all dangerous enough that the government wouldn't exactly want them handed out like lollipops, and addictive enough that people would still eventually try to get them in quantity. Legalizing these drugs would just make it easier for people to start using them.

 

[88chaz88]

It was in the US (prohibition anyone?), it didn't take.

Okay so why isn't it illegal in anywhere actually civilised.

 

[bamf]

Are these drugs any more or less harmful than alcohol and tobacco?

I'd wager yes. Nicotine is a completely functioning addiction, and alcohol is to an extent for certain people. Meth, crack, heroin, not really. A year of nicotine abuse has little long term damage when compared to a year of alcohol, meth, crack, or heroin. In fact, nicotine is the only one of these drugs that does not have an overdose factor if used "properly" (smoking). One would become sick far sooner than reaching a lethal dose. Although more toxic than cocaine, it's harder to OD on. Meth, crack, heroin, cocaine, and alcohol can kill in one use.

Tobacco has detrimental long term (years and years) effects, but relatively few short term. Many of the long term effects are even reversible to an extent if the user quits before the age of 30 (it's somewhere around there). The others deteriorate a person quickly. That's something your graphs don't show. Yes smoking is bad, yes it's very addictive, but it's also a functioning addiction. Meth addicts are said to have a lifespan of 4-8 years after becoming addicted if they do not seek treatment. It's said that smoking tobacco can cut a decade off your life. The average lifespan in the United States is ~78 years. If someone starts smoking cigarettes at the age of say...30, the can expect to live on average another 38 years before it kills them. If the same person started smoking meth, the wouldn't be expected to see 40.

There is a huge difference.

 

[Bird]

It surprises me just how critical people can be towards others.

 

[Norton]

...Do I think drugs should be legalized, all of them?

Yes.

So that even more people in society can live the horrors that you recite?

Illegal drugs are expensive because there is high demand and low supply. The demand will always be high whether drugs are legal or illegal because addictive drugs initially provide incredible pleasure and a feeling of well-being. After the body accommodates to an addictive drug, it takes higher doses to feel pleasure and, ultimately, there is little pleasure to be felt. Just the avoidance of withdrawal pain. Thus, legalizing drugs increases the supply to satisfy demand and there will be much wider use in society. (Believe me, this will be an "inventory on demand" supply model) And, as you so well know and have experienced, drug addicts are not particularly good for families, children, or society in general. What more could a nation's enemies wish?

I'm sorry that you've had so much pain in your family, but legalizing drugs isn't going to make the problem better for you or them. It will just make it worse. It is a simplistic wish that, given the political reality in the U.S. and elsewhere, will never happen. Thank God.

 

[Norton]

Tricky question; to some extent people make more money off drugs when they are illegal, so there is THAT motivation...

How do you know this? Can you provide citations?

The world wide market of legal drugs (i.e., Big Pharma) is incredibly large.

In 2008, Pfizer's revenue was $71 Billion, J & J => $64 Billion, Hoffmann

 

[slant]

So that even more people in society can live the horrors that you recite?

Illegal drugs are expensive because there is high demand and low supply. The demand will always be high whether drugs are legal or illegal because addictive drugs initially provide incredible pleasure and a feeling of well-being. After the body accommodates to an addictive drug, it takes higher doses to feel pleasure and, ultimately, there is little pleasure to be felt. Just the avoidance of withdrawal pain. Thus, legalizing drugs increases the supply to satisfy demand and there will be much wider use in society. (Believe me, this will be an "inventory on demand" supply model) And, as you so well know and have experienced, drug addicts are not particularly good for families, children, or society in general. What more could a nation's enemies wish?

I'm sorry that you've had so much pain in your family, but legalizing drugs isn't going to make the problem better for you or them. It will just make it worse. It is a simplistic wish that, given the political reality in the U.S. and elsewhere, will never happen. Thank God.

These people did drugs because they wanted to drugs, and it just proves that, them being illegal doesn't stop people from using them. They also had the nerve and knowledge ( a few of them) to stop abusing drugs. Recovery is real and possible.

I just don't think that the government should ban people from using substances because of the harm it might to do them or their family when alcohol and tobacco are legal; there is no point in denying that these things are harmful to use.

All drugs should be legalized, and warnings like surgeon warning can be placed on them as well as eduaction about some of the more addictive drugs.

 

[Satya]

I'd wager yes. Nicotine is a completely functioning addiction, and alcohol is to an extent for certain people. Meth, crack, heroin, not really. A year of nicotine abuse has little long term damage when compared to a year of alcohol, meth, crack, or heroin. In fact, nicotine is the only one of these drugs that does not have an overdose factor if used "properly" (smoking). One would become sick far sooner than reaching a lethal dose. Although more toxic than cocaine, it's harder to OD on. Meth, crack, heroin, cocaine, and alcohol can kill in one use.

Tobacco has detrimental long term (years and years) effects, but relatively few short term. Many of the long term effects are even reversible to an extent if the user quits before the age of 30 (it's somewhere around there). The others deteriorate a person quickly. That's something your graphs don't show. Yes smoking is bad, yes it's very addictive, but it's also a functioning addiction. Meth addicts are said to have a lifespan of 4-8 years after becoming addicted if they do not seek treatment. It's said that smoking tobacco can cut a decade off your life. The average lifespan in the United States is ~78 years. If someone starts smoking cigarettes at the age of say...30, the can expect to live on average another 38 years before it kills them. If the same person started smoking meth, the wouldn't be expected to see 40.

There is a huge difference.

I think you have made some false assumptions. However, in the interest of learning, I would like to see what evidence you have to back up these assertions. Tobacco kills 400,000 people a year, and illicit drug use, all combined, does not kill even 10,000.

 

[Norton]

... and illicit drug use, all combined, does not kill even 10,000.

Your sources?

 

[Norton]

A vast number of people can't even control themselves when it comes to eating too much food! As a society, we all pay for this. And, most people, I think, would agree that food is fairly harmless, per se. Actually, it isn't, because obesity is growing in epidemic proportions, particularly in the U.S., and we all bear the cost of increased health insurance, and increased medical care, hospital care, etc. because obese people are at risk for a great diversity of illnesses and early death. So, how can one assert that expanding the number of drug addicts in society can be anything but more expensive? The dental care for the rotted teeth of meth users is just one simple, limited example of increased costs to society. Naive and simplistic thinking begets long term costs that a naive, simplistic, and, stupidly, bombastic, moronic U.S. Congress cannot effectively address.

 

[Satya]

Your sources?

I was going off the charts on the previous page. Although it appears I was a bit off. I still might be given I don't have the most up to date stats. In 2000, smoking accounted for 435,000 deaths, whereas illicit drugs account for 17,000.

http://dying.about.com/od/causes/ss/death_causes_2.htm

 

[Kavalan]

I'm going to clarify as this irks me to no end crack and cocaine are the same damn thing... Stop being redundant...

Ironically they carry different punishments

Meth is also a schedule II, it the last guard medicine for those with ADD...

the hard drugs of cocaine, heroin, and meth should be kept illegal I would almost side with mdma as it but that one I'm on the fence about. Marijuana, LSD, shrooms should be regulated and have laws in place akin to alcohol as the are putting people into an altered state of mind.

The firearms bit Gandhi spoke out against populous disarmament

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

It's education. Proper knowledge and use of a firearm can help greatly in accidental death. As far as intentional shootings those who carry out such atrocities happen. Regardless of the legality of the means they used to kill people. Also there is no correlation to gun control and amount of violent crime.

 

[Norton]

I was going off the charts on the previous page. Although it appears I was a bit off. I still might be given I don't have the most up to date stats. In 2000, smoking accounted for 435,000 deaths, whereas illicit drugs account for 17,000.]

This argues for keeping illicit drugs illegal. Cigarettes, which are legal and addictive, cause 435,000 deaths. Illicit drugs are illegal and addictive and only cause 17,000 deaths. Therefore, according to these data, we should continue the ban on illicit drugs so as to prevent an increase in the death rate therefrom.

 

[Satya]

This argues for keeping illicit drugs illegal. Cigarettes, which are legal and addictive, cause 435,000 deaths. Illicit drugs are illegal and addictive and only cause 17,000 deaths. Therefore, according to these data, we should continue the ban on illicit drugs so as to prevent an increase in the death rate therefrom.

There is a bit of a fallacy to that argument. In order to argue that the legality of these substances is what keeps them from posing as great of health risk as smoking, you would have to demonstrate that these drugs pose the same or greater threat to health as does smoking. My argument is that they do not.

 

[bamf]

There is a bit of a fallacy to that argument. In order to argue that the legality of these substances is what keeps them from posing as great of health risk as smoking, you would have to demonstrate that these drugs pose the same or greater threat to health as does smoking. My argument is that they do not.

Smoking kills more people because more people do it. The other drugs are more dangerous to the individual. I've got to get ready to go to work but I'll get you sources to what I said when I get there.

One thing we need to clear up is when you say "pose the same or greater threat to health as smoking does" do you mean society in general or the user. Obviously smoking causes a greater threat to society, and I have been arguing that meth in particular causes a greater threat to the individual. If you honestly believe that smoking meth is better for someone than smoking cigarettes, I will show you in a little bit that you might be mistaken.

 

[Norton]

There is a bit of a fallacy to that argument. In order to argue that the legality of these substances is what keeps them from posing as great of health risk as smoking, you would have to demonstrate that these drugs pose the same or greater threat to health as does smoking. My argument is that they do not.

If what you say is true, and I'm not saying it isn't, then your original comparison of illicit drugs with smoking is equally faulty. I dislike the tired phrase "apples and oranges," but there you have it.

But, just consider, my personal experience with marijuana is that it's a quicker high than alcohol and with, at least, similar impairment. Drunk (drink) driving kills many people. Full scale legalization will surely lead to a significant increase in traffic deaths due to marijuana impaired drivers.

In the NY Times recently there was an article about drivers impaired by legal drugs. If there is a problem with people driving under the influence of legal drugs which are supposedly "controlled" and prescribed by physicians, what can we do about drivers under the influence of illegal drugs and the corpses left in their wake?