Why We Should Legalize Drugs

[Zool]

Tell it to the spiders man. That spiders not going to be eating anytime soon.

[Freak Out]

Legalize it.

[Partial]

What the government should do is legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.

It would be much cheaper when produced on a farm rather than smuggled in. Dealers would be out of a job and would be forced to earn an honest living(in a perfect world).

If that were to happen, I support taxing it to the point that the cost is the same as it is now(I have no idea what it costs now). By doing that, it would create some serious revenue while taking away the desire for kids to do it(not illegal, not risky and cool).

I think they should do the same things with cigarettes. 10 dollars a pack will not only bring down health care costs for everyone, make the world cleaner, and improve the quality of our air, but also generate revenue for the country. More people would quit due to the spike in price.

MTP, the reason their is never anyone ever noted for being high off of pot and smashing their car into someone as it is:
A. not illegal to have smoked, only to have posessed
B. no readily available field test

I would think it happens more than you or I would think.

[the_idle_threat]

I could support legalization for marijuana, but not for the "hard" drugs. Legalizing "hard" drugs and supplying them to addicts strikes me as a horrible idea.

The drug problem is unsolvable because it is a result of bad individual choices (trying highly addictive drugs) leading to worse and worse choices (turning to crime/prostitution to fund the habit once it becomes an addiction). You can't force free people to make good choices no matter what you do. All you can do is provide positive and negative incentives.

A system where addicts are given drugs might reduce the incentive to make the "worse and worse" choices which come from feeding the addiction, but it does nothing to decrease the initial bad choice of trying highly addictive drugs in the first place. If anything, it provides further incentive to make that bad choice (as if the promise of a mind-blowing high is not enough), by providing the promise of free and unlimited future supply if you happen to get hooked.

It seems to me that this idea would create an enormous and growing underclass of government-funded addicts if implemented on a nationwide scale.

Meanwhile, the drug kingpins still become rich by providing legal product to consumers and the government (to supply the addicts), and instead of an expensive war on drugs and overcrowded prison system, we have an expensive government supply program and overcrowded "legal" drug ghettos.

I don't see this as an improvement.

[MJZiggy]

I think Tarlam's suggesting putting the drug kingpins out of business by producing the drugs ourselves and eliminating the need for their services...what there also needs to be is more of a disincentive for people to try very addictive drugs in the first place. I'm not sure what that might be, but somehow it has to become incredibly uncool. Maybe they need to start announcing it whenever some geek gets hooked...(that's just a joke, people, don't get your panties all in a bunch.)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I could support legalization for marijuana, but not for the "hard" drugs. Legalizing "hard" drugs and supplying them to addicts strikes me as a horrible idea.

The drug problem is unsolvable because it is a result of bad individual choices (trying highly addictive drugs) leading to worse and worse choices (turning to crime/prostitution to fund the habit once it becomes an addiction). You can't force free people to make good choices no matter what you do. All you can do is provide positive and negative incentives.

A system where addicts are given drugs might reduce the incentive to make the "worse and worse" choices which come from feeding the addiction, but it does nothing to decrease the initial bad choice of trying highly addictive drugs in the first place. If anything, it provides further incentive to make that bad choice (as if the promise of a mind-blowing high is not enough), by providing the promise of free and unlimited future supply if you happen to get hooked.

It seems to me that this idea would create an enormous and growing underclass of government-funded addicts if implemented on a nationwide scale.

Meanwhile, the drug kingpins still become rich by providing legal product to consumers and the government (to supply the addicts), and instead of an expensive war on drugs and overcrowded prison system, we have an expensive government supply program and overcrowded "legal" drug ghettos.

I don't see this as an improvement.

Drug addicts can still be productive members of society. It is possible to have a habit and still work. Plenty of functioning heroin addicts on methadone.

Incentive: That is just a bunch of crap. Same ol bs as saying that sex ed/condoms gives someone the incentive to try sex. People are gonna do it regardless.

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.

Again, I repeat, look at our history. We are a drug loving people...legal or illegal. What do you think all those cure alls were made of in the 1800s? You think it is called Coca cola by accident? Read de toqueville. This country has always and will always have a percentage of people on drugs.

Furthermore, there is probably a reason for drugs on the planet.

[Partial]

Are we in agreeing that marijuana is a gateway drug? From my experience, I have found current users to say that its not, but most people once they give it up agree that it has led to them using other substances.

[BallHawk]

Are we in agreeing that marijuana is a gateway drug? From my experience, I have found current users to say that its not, but most people once they give it up agree that it has led to them using other substances.

I think that it does heighten people's curiosity. "If pot makes me feel this way, how will ecstasy make me feel?"

[Partial]

Are we in agreeing that marijuana is a gateway drug? From my experience, I have found current users to say that its not, but most people once they give it up agree that it has led to them using other substances.

I think that it does heighten people's curiosity. "If pot makes me feel this way, how will ecstasy make me feel?"

When I have done pot that is not at all what I thought, though. I just wanted to sit there. Not eat or any of the stereotypical things. I just wanted to chill out and relax in my chair by myself.

[the_idle_threat]

I could support legalization for marijuana, but not for the "hard" drugs. Legalizing "hard" drugs and supplying them to addicts strikes me as a horrible idea.

The drug problem is unsolvable because it is a result of bad individual choices (trying highly addictive drugs) leading to worse and worse choices (turning to crime/prostitution to fund the habit once it becomes an addiction). You can't force free people to make good choices no matter what you do. All you can do is provide positive and negative incentives.

A system where addicts are given drugs might reduce the incentive to make the "worse and worse" choices which come from feeding the addiction, but it does nothing to decrease the initial bad choice of trying highly addictive drugs in the first place. If anything, it provides further incentive to make that bad choice (as if the promise of a mind-blowing high is not enough), by providing the promise of free and unlimited future supply if you happen to get hooked.

It seems to me that this idea would create an enormous and growing underclass of government-funded addicts if implemented on a nationwide scale.

Meanwhile, the drug kingpins still become rich by providing legal product to consumers and the government (to supply the addicts), and instead of an expensive war on drugs and overcrowded prison system, we have an expensive government supply program and overcrowded "legal" drug ghettos.

I don't see this as an improvement.

Drug addicts can still be productive members of society. It is possible to have a habit and still work. Plenty of functioning heroin addicts on methadone.

Incentive: That is just a bunch of crap. Same ol bs as saying that sex ed/condoms gives someone the incentive to try sex. People are gonna do it regardless.

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.

Again, I repeat, look at our history. We are a drug loving people...legal or illegal. What do you think all those cure alls were made of in the 1800s? You think it is called Coca cola by accident? Read de toqueville. This country has always and will always have a percentage of people on drugs.

Furthermore, there is probably a reason for drugs on the planet.

Not surprised at all that you don't get it. You want to make excuses for addicts, and I'm not buying it.

Sure, there are some people who can function while addicted to hard drugs, but you have to admit that many cannot. And what incentive is there for an addict to "function" when they don't have to do anything except get high all day and the government will take care of their needs? It's reinforcement of bad behavior.

You claim that people don't make decisions based upon incentives? That's a bunch of crap. You are right that some people will do "it" regardless, with no thoughts of consequences. But many others will not do "it" because there are negative consequences. Or is it your position that nobody at all considers consequences when making decisions?

I'd love to get high as a kite, but I don't want to run afoul of the law, nor do I want to become addicted, so that my only thought each moment is how I can get high again. (You seem to think crack cocaine addiction is funny, but in fact it is a tragic, constant and insatiable addiction.)

Take away the negative consequences (make it legal) and replace them with positive consequences (coddle addicts as "victims" and ensure they will always have free unlimited supply), and people will act accordingly. Not everyone, but some.

Why do we want to make it more attractive to become an addict? And why do we as taxpayers want to subsidize it?

[GrnBay007]

MTP, the reason their is never anyone ever noted for being high off of pot and smashing their car into someone as it is:
A. not illegal to have smoked, only to have posessed
B. no readily available field test

I would think it happens more than you or I would think.

There are officers specially trained to conduct field sobriety tests for Driving While Drugged cases. Apparently the specialized officers can tell which drug through this field testing. I believe I've heard certain drugs are easier to determine through these tests and I don't know where weed falls into this range. Bearman would probably know.

[GrnBay007]

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.

Does it really matter if it's treated as a criminal problem vs. a medical one? Everyone knows an addict (drugs or alcohol) won't stop until THEY make the decision to do so.

[the_idle_threat]

I think Tarlam's suggesting putting the drug kingpins out of business by producing the drugs ourselves and eliminating the need for their services...

I don't think that's so easily done as said.

Are we proposing producing all of the drugs that Americans consume, from marijuana to cocaine and opiates? Plus the additional amount that Americans will consume when we make it legal and "ok" to be an addict, and subsidize the activity?

How will we prevent foreign economies from competing for this massive demand, legally or otherwise?

Either the kingpins go "legit" and compete in the marketplace for a piece of this demand, or---if imports are made illegal---they continue to bring it in illegally. In other words, business as usual. They will surely do this if we legalize and tax prohibitively, because a tax that is high enough to be prohibitive calls for an untaxed black market.

Or better yet---the drug kingpins go "legit" & switch to producing food crops, and sell us all our food because we have dedicated all of our cropland to producing drug crops.

[Kiwon]

Example of one of those "productive members of society"
.................................................. .........
Friday, 8 June 2007

Man sentenced for driving wheelchair drunk

A Canadian man was sentenced for drunk driving after being pulled over on his way home from the pub in his mother's motorized wheelchair, police said.

Patrick Shanahan, 35, was fined and placed on probation by a Toronto-area court in the impaired driving case.

"I don't need a licence to operate it, I don't need insurance and I don't need licence plates to operate it," Shanahan was quoted by the Torstar News Service.

"So how can I be charged with drunk driving?"

The charge stems back to December 2004, when an officer saw Shanahan driving the wheelchair at around 1:15 a.m. and assessed that he was drunk, a police spokesman said.

The self-described alcoholic, who has a prior impaired driving conviction – though not in a wheelchair – later admitted he shouldn't have been driving the three-wheeler at the time, Torstar reported.

Shanahan was prohibited from driving any motorised vehicle for one year, was fined C$600 (286 pounds), given 18 months probation, and ordered to seek counselling.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.

Does it really matter if it's treated as a criminal problem vs. a medical one? Everyone knows an addict (drugs or alcohol) won't stop until THEY make the decision to do so.

Of course it makes a difference. If you treat it as a medical problem...rehab, therapy, whatever is alot different than incarcerating.