Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

[amicus]

Weird Harold...how truly pleasing to meet someone who actually 'thinks' about issues and has even read, Jean Auel's works...a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

It has been many years since I first read the Earth's Children series, I was disappointed in the last volume, one I waited upon for over four years, if I remember correctly...

I understand and agree with everything you said in your last post, (just went back and browsed it again), but still, that is not the quintessential quest of this post...

Governments all over the world, in the past century have forbidden people access to certain substances. Why?

I love pickin' on the ladies as they scream so nicely, but it is possible that the emancipation of women, throughout the late 19th century and culminating in 1929, had a lot to do, and still does, with the continuing attempts to control what men do.

On the wider stage, a metaphysical view, that man is basically evil and must be controlled, either by an all powerful church, or a benificent ruler or state, (for their own good) seems to be the prevailing attitude in this thread.

Would you care to offer your thoughts along those lines? I would be interested to hear them.

If you have stories posted on Lit, I look forward to reading them, and I have had that feeling for only a few that visit this forum.

regards....amicus...

 

[Liar]

I'm sure that any teenager who really wants drugs can get them -- it's just a bit harder in some plces than others.

This is where I beg to differ. It is not a piece of cake to get hold of narctics for most teens. Ok, if your classmate is the pusher, yes. But far from everyone has that 'luxury'. Sure, I guess I to could had gotten hold of the stuff if I had been bold and persistant enough. But the effort and the risk involved in doing so discouraged me.

And that is the core point. Finding and doing drugs is not impossible for anyone, but it's still difficult / illegal / expensive / risky enough for many teens (and adults) to be discouraged from trying in the first place anyway. So they never become addicted to the shit.

And for most kids, there is still a world of difference between alchohol and drugs. Go to a party and get drunk and you'll get a slap on the wrist from the adult world. Get caught doing drugs, and you're in a world of poop.

I'll bet that many more of your daughter's schoolmates drank themselves silly than snorted crack on the weekends.

#L

 

[gauchecritic]

There's a rambling post, above, asserting that heroin was not legalized in England, but offering no evidence.

Don't you just love not being quoted and slated at the same time?

Offering unsupported opinion and then claiming unsupported opposition under the guise of 'no evidence' is a doozy too.

There is some evidence that 'legalization' has no encouraging effect (i.e, atworst, is neutral, in impact), as for instance heroin, in Britain.

The implication behind this claim is that heroin was freely available and was no longer a Class A (restricted) drug. That's where the capital NO came in. So, not actually unsupported merely aimed at the implication rather than the technicality

And then (as often happens) evidence is produced by the proponent which comes out flatly against its own proposition.

<snip>Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.<snip>

<snip>according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.<snip>

<snip> by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.<snip>

<snip> the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population.<snip>

<snip>Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.<snip>

Next point (sorry about the rambling).

I don't believe Liar or several others have 'gotten' this point. To them it's obvious law and jails 'fix' (reduce) an evil, like water quenches a fire. It's so 'obvious' that no evidence is ever offered.

Rather large assumption there about what people believe about law and order. If you recall I did address the issue in a much wider context and offered an (ignored but implied) solution. But broadening the issue is obviously not my prerogative because the 'logicians' haven't needed to backtrack yet. Why? Because even though this is a thread about opinion, which necessarily involves judgement and belief, the 'yea' sayers can produce evidence to back up their opinions, whereas the majority of 'nay' sayers are going with bad experience and feelings.

So OK, you won't take up my 'solutions' nor give my refutations any credence and, as happens so often in debate, those who know the words which define and describe the 'art' of logic would have themselves as logicians and any opposition as unsupported or emotional.

Tendentious. Now there's a word.

Research is another good word and (un)fortunately covers the idea of actually reading and attempting to make sense of other's material, inference and implication notwithstanding, subtle and vague are leagues apart.

Gauche

 

[cloudy]

One advantage of legal and regulated drugs that isn't often mentioned is quality control -- many illegal drugs are cut with strychnine or other poisons and that too would mostly be a thing of the past. The variable quality of illegal drugs results in many cases of Overdosing because of the difficulty in determining the correct dosage.

A similar problem was common during Prohibition -- lethal "bathtub gin" made with wood alchohol or anti-freeze. It hasn't completely disappeared because moonshiners dont always have the best equipment or quality control, but it is very much reduced by the availability of legal, safe, booze from reputable distillers and brewers.

People who want to use drugs should at least have access to safe, consistent chemicals so they don't kill themselves by mistake. There will still be ODs by stupid people looking for a bigger high, but at least they'll OD on what they intended to.

I forgot to mention this in my post...so, thank you, Harold.

Another family member (I know, dysfunctional as hell) killed himself years ago by injecting what he thought was cocaine, but it was a small amount of cocaine mixed with something like drain cleaner. He died so quickly that by the time we got to the hospital, he was brain-dead, and kept alive so that we could say goodbye.

Would he eventually have OD'd anyway? Possibly. He might also have possibly managed to eventually get treatment that worked - he'd been in rehab before - and been a productive person, but we'll never know.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I've interviewed some former drug addicts about their old habits. Everyone of them said that they wished it had been much more difficult for them to get hold of drugs.

Will a law against all forms of drugs help fight drug abuse? Maybe, maybe not. But making every drug legal and easy to obtain certainly will NOT!

Every little stone we can put in the way between drugs and potential addicts, the better. The more difficult we make it, or atleast try to make it, the less minimal are the chance that they will persist in using it anyway.

 

[cloudy]

I've interviewed some former drug addicts about their old habits. Everyone of them said that they wished it had been much more difficult for them to get hold of drugs.

Will a law against all forms of drugs help fight drug abuse? Maybe, maybe not. But making every drug legal and easy to obtain certainly will NOT!

Every little stone we can put in the way between drugs and potential addicts, the better. The more difficult we make it, or atleast try to make it, the less minimal are the chance that they will persist in using it anyway.

I don't know about there, Svenska, but here the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. To my way of thinking, that means it's time to try something else.

Sorry...thought of something else...

It may have been hard for some of you to find drugs, but for me it was pitifully easy. And to be honest, if I wanted it today, right now, all I'd have to do is pick up the phone, and call.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Well, Swedish punishments are a joke. The guy who murdered foreign minister Anna Lindh may be out of prison as early as in 2 years. A guy who raped a minor was never convicted, because the girl "didn't protest enough" - as if a 10-year-old would actually WANT to have sex with a man in his 40'ies! - a man who had buried an axe in his wife's head in front of their son got custody over the kid, because the judge felt that "it's best for a child to be with his biological parent", and a guy who demonstrated against politics and threw a rock at a policeman, was sentenced to 2 years in prison, very much like Anna Lindh's murderer.

Sweden.





When's the revolution?

 

[cloudy]

Well, Swedish punishments are a joke. The guy who murdered foreign minister Anna Lindh may be out of prison as early as in 2 years. A guy who raped a minor was never convicted, because the girl "didn't protest enough" - as if a 10-year-old would actually WANT to have sex with a man in his 40'ies! - a man who had buried an axe in his wife's head in front of their son got custody over the kid, because the judge felt that "it's best for a child to be with his biological parent", and a guy who demonstrated against politics and threw a rock at a policeman, was sentenced to 2 years in prison, very much like Anna Lindh's murderer.

Sweden.





When's the revolution?

Sadly enough, I can't say it's any better here.

 

[RenzaJones]

unfourtunately there is no real war on drugs I can name 20 dealers of the top of my head and 90 % of them are dealing out of their houses and of that 90% more than half live in what would be considered upper class neighboorhoods and I know for a fact that at least four of the dealers are big time and have yet to be aressted although it's obvious what they're doing

 

[Teenage Venus]

So, okay. So say we accept that drugs should be legal, and governments should not be allowed to legislate about them. So let's take it a step further:

Many murders, rapes, crimes of violence, theft, etc are a direct result of wanting to procure drugs, or having used them, so:

Should governments have the right to legislate and make rape, murder, or any other crime an offence? Come to think of it, should they have any rights at all?

Do we need a government?

Should we all revert to the year dot, survival of the fittest?

 

[cloudy]

So, okay. So say we accept that drugs should be legal, and governments should not be allowed to legislate about them. So let's take it a step further:

Many murders, rapes, crimes of violence, theft, etc are a direct result of wanting to procure drugs, or having used them, so:

Should governments have the right to legislate and make rape, murder, or any other crime an offence? Come to think of it, should they have any rights at all?

Do we need a government?

Should we all revert to the year dot, survival of the fittest?

Legalizing drugs would, most likely, eliminate most of the theft that goes with addiction...the violence, too.

Sure people get violent sometimes when under the influence. Doesn't that happen already while they're illegal?

 

[RenzaJones]

So, okay. So say we accept that drugs should be legal, and governments should not be allowed to legislate about them. So let's take it a step further:

Many murders, rapes, crimes of violence, theft, etc are a direct result of wanting to procure drugs, or having used them, so:

Should governments have the right to legislate and make rape, murder, or any other crime an offence? Come to think of it, should they have any rights at all?

Do we need a government?

Should we all revert to the year dot, survival of the fittest?

It's the governments job to protect the public in theory that's just what their doing with the laws against drugs. I agree that some drug related violence would stop if drugs were legalized however at first I believe their would be a backlash that no one would want especially with the drugs that are beyond "gateway drugs" I fuly believe that weed can me used recreationally without problem however crack isn't really the kind of drug you can use in that manner which is why you have crack heads willing to sell you a stolen vcr for 3$

 

[Torg]

Originally posted by amicus

1. By what right does Government restrict, regulate and ban what substances people use?

2. Do you agree that Government should regulate/forbid some substances? Why?

1. The Constitution says they can pass the laws and enforce them. If we don't like it, we vote them out. The government does it because of a paternalistic need to protect its citizens from themselves, and because they think they know better than the people do.

In a perfect world, I'm a libertarian. Laws are meant to protect people from each other, not themselves. This not being a perfect world, I'm aligned with the Democrats and the Greens.

2. Regulate, yes. Forbid? Sometimes. Marijuana, no.

Let's compare alcohol and marijuana. Both are intoxicants. Both cause some problems. Alcohol can be very addictive, marijuana is much less so, if at all. People don't smoke a joint and then go beat people up. People don't take a hit off a bong and then shoot someone. People get high and then raid the fridge for Mountain Dew and Ho-Hos. Potheads get lazy. More injuries and deaths occur because of alcohol than all other drugs combined. Very few injuries and deaths occur because of marijuana. Marijuana is not a dangerous drug.

Alcohol is regulated. Marijuana should be regulated in a similar manner. You can buy it, you can grow it (similar to home brewing laws), you need a license to sell it. This would take a huge amount of pressure off prison populations which have a large number of marijuana offenders, often in for long sentences. It would bring in tax revenue. It would get some money out of the hands of criminals.

The War on Drugs has not been effective in reducing drug abuse or drug-related crime. It has filled our prisons with minor drug offenders, but it doesn't do enough to address getting people off the addiction.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Pure]

Svenska said,

Originally posted by Svenskaflicka
Well, Swedish punishments are a joke. The guy who murdered foreign minister Anna Lindh may be out of prison as early as in 2 years. A guy who raped a minor was never convicted, because the girl "didn't protest enough" - as if a 10-year-old would actually WANT to have sex with a man in his 40'ies! - a man who had buried an axe in his wife's head in front of their son got custody over the kid, because the judge felt that "it's best for a child to be with his biological parent", and a guy who demonstrated against politics and threw a rock at a policeman, was sentenced to 2 years in prison, very much like Anna Lindh's murderer.

It's good to hear from a Swedish 'law and order' type. My impression in that the Swedish penal system works a lot better than the American one, where penalties Svenska would approve of, are common. Also the US has high incarceration rates, far above Sweden, and that too, would, I suppose please Svenska.

And it fails to control crime, but hey "Long Sentences" are morally appropriate, so there.

LOTS of incarcerations for drugs, and-- interestingly-- a flourishing drug use in every prison. Prison records, disproportionately for Black people etc.

But to focus on the drug issue, the "toughening" of sentencing, the long prision terms for dealers, etc are NOT working; the war on drugs is a fake and corrupt entity encouraging the supply of illegal drugs, raising dealers' profits, and corrupting gov. officials.

Svenska (echoed by a few others)
Every little stone we can put in the way between drugs and potential addicts, the better. The more difficult we make it, or at least try to make it, the less minimal are the chance that they will persist in using it anyway. {my bold}

Liar, in a similar vein, seems to think the laws keep drugs from teenagers

And for most kids, there is still a world of difference between alchohol and drugs. Go to a party and get drunk and you'll get a slap on the wrist from the adult world. Get caught doing drugs, and you're in a world of poop.

I'll bet that many more of your daughter's schoolmates drank themselves silly than snorted crack on the weekends.

"Get caught doing drugs and you're in a world of poop."
Is this generally true? Probably depends on the household. In any case, the operative phrase is "getting caught." Simply put, most teenage users are not 'caught' in any significant sense.
---

Consider Svenska's "every little stone" argument. Essentially it declares it good and desirable to put a barriers/impediments arising from the law, between drugs and "potential addicts."

This is an essentially 'moral' argument, of the type emanating from Ashcroft, this side of the Atlantic. Why not put impediments between porn and users? Why not put impediments between prostitutes and users?

Jeezus, why not put impediments in the way of those who want to sleep in on Sunday, instead of going to church? (There WAS a law against *not attending church, the right church, in puritan New England.) Why not put impediments in the way of those who commit adultery? (Say, send adulterers to jail, for a bit).

Here, I must agree with amicus. Some principle as to what a goverment is supposed to do, is called for. This idea is apparently foreign to Svenska, since it's so *obvious* that the gov should somehow make it more difficult to get drugs. Note too that she covers herself in saying the gov should at least 'try' to make it difficult! IOW, she probably knows it doesn't work too well. But somehow the *moral benefit* is key; the gov. is *trying to stop an evil, and that's a moral good, so do it.

In a word, there are a myriad of evils out there, some are best addressed with legislation and imprisonment, AND SOME ARE NOT.

Most advanced countried no longer prosecute adultery, 'breach of promise' and simple 'bad debt'. Many, like Sweden iirc, and certainly Germany, do not prosecute prostitutes or clients for simple 'commercial sex.'

Why? Because it's agreed that's NOT the function of government. Further, a number of evils ARE produced by such legislation, ie. where prostitutes break the law, the vice squads 'shake them down' for money and sexual favors.
I.e., there is corruption.

Now to the last point, of liar and some others. They claim that the issue is "victimless crimes." I.e., they may concede the gov shouldn't prosecute adult porn users, but this is because there are no victims.

BUT: there being "victims" is NOT a good criterion for invoking the law and courts, outside the really obvious and extreme cases like murder, theft, etc. Further it's not a good criterion for deciding on imprisonment either, except in these cases.

Consider "breach of promise." Is there not a victim? A woman hopes to be married, and that hope is cruelly dashed. Why not jail the bugger? Well, it's just not done in this century, in Western countries. It's felt the injury is private, AND society itself is not sufficiently harmed to warrant intervention.

Turning to drugs and alcohol, the "make laws" approach was, as several posters have said, adopted for alcohol. As amicus suggested, in his diplomatic way, the 'women' issue was involved.


There is a certain "moral" subgroup among feminists that's been around for ages and they argued "Look at the victims of demon rum: wives left; children starving." And they had political clout (an offshoot of giving women basic political rights, like that to vote). So the "moral" types, men and women, foolishly proceeded to pass the Prohibition laws in the US.

What was their error? ASSUMING that laws and courts could fix something like alcoholism, admittedly a "social evil". But that is simply NOT the case where demand is high. Illegal suppliers and corrupt cops are the effect. AND no diminution of drinking, I'll wager.

So the 'victim' argument is simply insufficient and inadequate as a basis for criminalizing certain acts. It must be shown ADDITIONALLY, that the law won't exacerbate the problem and create more evils overall.

That's my 3 cents.

 

[Teenage Venus]

By what right does Government restrict, regulate and ban what substances people use?

This was of course the original question. It was - I'm sure framed that way for a specific reason.

HOWEVER, I think to pick out ONE thing in particular , is a red herring. If they REALLY want to know, "By what right does the Government...?" they should follow it by "do anything?" - Maybe it would not result in the emotive answers they want, though

 

[Pure]

Gauche essentially presented a false or distorted picture of the British legal situation:

Originally posted by Pure
"There is some evidence that 'legalization' has no encouraging effect (i.e, atworst, is neutral, in impact), as for instance heroin, in Britain."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Erm no. I mean NO. Maybe declassification (which I seriously doubt) but legal? Where do you get your information?
----

By clear inference, Gauche says, _no it (heroin) was not legal_.

It's a separate question whether the British experiment succeeded or failed, and why, and what's to be done.

My reference from the DEA clearly states that for a period, in England, you could register in a program, and get heroin by prescription from a dr. That sounds like "legalization" to me, although not so far at the OTC situation amicus raised for debate.
You want heroin. You jump through certain hoops. You see a dr., get a prescription, take it to the pharmacist, and you get heroin.

I call that a legalized--and clearly decriminalized-- situation, if hedged in by various bureaucratic rules, attempts to induce the addict to get 'treatment.' etc.

Gauche now wants to shift the argument to the issue of the merits (or lack thereof) of the British program, on the basis of some stats in the material I produced (supposedly without realizing they were harmful to my position). Since he's too lazy to do any research of his own, I decline this debate.

I simply say the DEA position is pretty discredited, and their selective stats for England, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. in the pamphlet, are not presented in good faith, or in any attempt to rationally debate the issue.

Indeed, there is another DEA pamphlet suggesting that even to debate the issue is to lean toward, be soft on, or cozen criminality.

Further, the DEA clearly implies that because certain 'legalization' efforts misfired--as in the needle park in Switzerland-- that the countries have swung toward the DEA view. A pure falsehood. Even given the 'failures', England, Sweden, and Switzerland--West Europe generally, and Canada-- have had the good sense not to go down the US 'send 'em to prison' pathway of futility and corruption, despite intense US pressure. (Applied to Canada recently to prevent a decriminalization of marijuana law from going through.)

 

[Liar]

Sure people get violent sometimes when under the influence. Doesn't that happen already while they're illegal?

Yes. Your point being?

My pint being: Wouldn't many more people be under the influence if it was easily accessible and legal?

The question is: Are we in agreement that it is a bad thing that people are drug addicts, and that in a perfect world, noone would have the need for drugs, but get high on love and life instead?

Yes? Good. Now: What what can we do to make as few people as possible drug addicts?

Legalising drugs would ease, but not solve some problems, like the circulation of bad drugs and the criminality that follows drug traffic. If you put any kind of regulation on it, a black market for those who want more and heavier stuff than their dose, would pop up like whack-a-moles.

But de-criminalising would do shit to reduce the number of substance abusers. If you could get a frappuchino sprinkled with stardust at the 7-11, (ok, exagerration, but you get the point) I firmly believe that the number of drug addicts would escalate immensely.

#L

 

[Somme]

Real, honest edumacshun?

 

[cloudy]

Yes. Your point being?

My pint being: Wouldn't many more people be under the influence if it was easily accessible and legal?

The question is: Are we in agreement that it is a bad thing that people are drug addicts, and that in a perfect world, noone would have the need for drugs, but get high on love and life instead?

Yes? Good. Now: What what can we do to make as few people as possible drug addicts?

Legalising drugs would ease, but not solve some problems, like the circulation of bad drugs and the criminality that follows drug traffic. If you put any kind of regulation on it, a black market for those who want more and heavier stuff than their dose, would pop up like whack-a-moles.

But de-criminalising would do shit to reduce the number of substance abusers. If you could get a frappuchino sprinkled with stardust at the 7-11, (ok, exagerration, but you get the point) I firmly believe that the number of drug addicts would escalate immensely.

#L

Sorry, Liar, my post was in reference to TV, when she said "Many murders, rapes, crimes of violence, theft, etc are a direct result of wanting to procure drugs, or having used them, so:

Should governments have the right to legislate and make rape, murder, or any other crime an offence? Come to think of it, should they have any rights at all?"

I guess my problem is I can see both sides of the issue, and also see no clear cut way to resolve it.

The current system doesn't do shit to help, but merely puts casual users into the prison system, clogging it up, while the dealers make enough money to afford second homes. Not a good solution.

Regulating them, on the other hand....I'm not sure, but I think it would reduce the amount of violence linked to drug dealers and addicts. Maybe not, it's all conjecture at this point.

The problem lies, I think, with society as a whole. Why do those that use them feel the need to do so to begin with? I smoked a helluva lot of pot, but it was also something I could put down, and did, when I wanted to.

My brother, on the other hand, became a heroin addict. Both raised in the same household by the same parents, and only two years apart in age. Granted, my father and my grandfather (my mom's father) were both alcoholics, so undoubtedly we both inherited the "addict" gene, but why him and not me?

There's so many questions surrounding the whole process, it's impossible to come up with one solution, I think.

Maybe the answer would be more and better treatment options. Make rehab affordable and accessible to those that need it. As it stands now, unless you've been arrested already, it's nearly impossible for someone to receive the treatment (in-house is almost always necessary) that they need.

It is a problem, I agree, but I don't think that tightening the laws is the answer.

 

[Pure]

Liar said,

//de-criminalising would do shit to reduce the number of substance abusers.//

But the argument is not "eliminate laws about X, and the social evils connected with X will all be reduced or eliminated."

The *solutions* to problems like alcoholism and drug abuse are *very difficult, esp. if the gov gives no shit about kids, the poor or the (not so) minorities.

The position of the "yes" (legalize) folks, here, including myself, is that the laws, courts, and prison terms applied to 'drug use' and related offenses WORSEN the general situation for all, in terms, for example, of corrupting police, enriching suppliers, etc. That government "intrusion" in this area, as in areas of adultery and prostitution and porn, is unwarranted, illegitimate, and generally ineffectual.

 

[Liar]

Liar said,

//de-criminalising would do shit to reduce the number of substance abusers.//

But the argument is not "eliminate laws about X, and the social evils connected with X will all be reduced or eliminated."

The *solutions* to problems like alcoholism and drug abuse are *very difficult, esp. if the gov gives no shit about kids, the poor or the (not so) minorities.

The position of the "yes" (legalize) folks, here, including myself, is that the laws, courts, and prison terms applied to 'drug use' and related offenses WORSEN the general situation for all, in terms, for example, of corrupting police, enriching suppliers, etc. That government "intrusion" in this area, as in areas of adultery and prostitution and porn, is unwarranted, illegitimate, and generally ineffectual.

Ok then.

I'm in a hurry, so I'll keep this short...

Legal grugs or no legal drugs -- Is drug abuse a problem (alcohol included)? Or is it ok for people who other people may depend on to fuck up their brains with chemicals?

If the answer is that it is a problem: How is making drugs legal and accessible going to help that problem? it would adress the issue of some drug-related crimes, but not to the utopian extent that you envision.

I see you constantly aiming shots at the arguemnt that the drug abuse levels would be even worse if it was all let free, but what is your sceario of what WOULD happen?

A shiny happy world? What? Stop mucking about and give me some straight answers, please.

But the argument is not "eliminate laws about X, and the social evils connected with X will all be reduced or eliminated."

What IS the argument then? You've completely lost me here.

until later,
#L

 

[Teenage Venus]

Maybe the answer would be more and better treatment options.

My own feeling is that the more money you threw at it to do that, the more likely more would risk it.

If you know 'using' may put you up the creek without a paddle, just maybe, you would think a bit harder than if you knew you could take the risk, and if you lost your 'paddle', somebody would toss a free lifeline.

I think we all agree that the present system don't help much - if any. (Only the dealers usually gain.)

Anybody should have the choice of being a user - be it cigarettes or heroin. However, when their using it affects others, perhaps some basic safeguards could be put in place.

We don't normally let drivers drive without taking a test. (Hopefully to protect them and others!) They are required to take out insurance to cover for any mishaps. I could name other restrictions.

Perhaps something similar may work! Whilst nobody in general wants to put restrictions on anybody or anything encroaching on what are seen as personal choices, by the same token, those same people don't want to have to foot the fall-out costs incurred by others.

Maybe make drugs legal, and tax them like tobacco or alcohol, in proportion to the costs incurred by them to the general public.

The other way is to shoot all users. That would help cut down consumption. We could then do the same to big fat slobs that are merely that way from over-eating. Then maybe we could make a start on other felons. With any luck, in the not too distant future, there would be just a few prudes, and 'holier than thou's' on here then.

Once that stage was reached, we could shoot them religious freaks too, and the two of us left could go fuck ourselves.

 

[Pure]

Liar,
//What IS the argument then? You've completely lost me here.//

The argument is in the last para of the posting you quoted from.
In a word, the 'cure' (through laws, prisons, etc) for certain social ills is worse than the disease.

 

[Weird Harold]

Governments all over the world, in the past century have forbidden people access to certain substances. Why?

I suspect that the influence of the US has lot to do with other countries' push to ban drugs around the world -- the payoffs to afghan poppy growers to burn their crops is a recent exmple.

Additionally, the rise of Socialism around the turn of the 19th century influenced a lot of law-makers around the world. Socialism preaches -- among other things -- that "the State knows best" and has the responsibility to protect citizens from themselves.

I love pickin' on the ladies as they scream so nicely, but it is possible that the emancipation of women, throughout the late 19th century and culminating in 1929, had a lot to do, and still does, with the continuing attempts to control what men do.

There were lot of women's organizations as the driving force behind Prohibition, but they didn't do it alone -- they convinced a lot of men to vote with them. Still, anti-drug laws exist in a lot of places where women are nominally second-class citizens.

On the wider stage, a metaphysical view, that man is basically evil and must be controlled, either by an all powerful church, or a benificent ruler or state, (for their own good) seems to be the prevailing attitude in this thread.

Would you care to offer your thoughts along those lines? I would be interested to hear them.

I think it would be a lifetime's study to unravel all of the motivations and "justifictions" for the rise of the "Nanny State" around the world. Communism and Socialism sound like good ideas on paper, but they seldom work out as predicted in the real world, but governments keep trying.

I think The_Old_Man has at last part of th answer -- Prohibition created a large organization (what is now the BATF) to enforce the dry laws; when it was repealed, that organization needed a job (it would be unthinkable to put all of those enforcers out of work after all.) Since not as many people use drugs as drink alcohol, there wasn't any organized resistance to giving them drug laws to enforce.

If you have stories posted on Lit, I look forward to reading them, and I have had that feeling for only a few that visit this forum.

You have a PM with the link to my stories.

Teenage Venus:
We don't normally let drivers drive without taking a test. (Hopefully to protect them and others!) They are required to take out insurance to cover for any mishaps. I could name other restrictions.

Perhaps something similar may work! Whilst nobody in general wants to put restrictions on anybody or anything encroaching on what are seen as personal choices, by the same token, those same people don't want to have to foot the fall-out costs incurred by others.

Maybe make drugs legal, and tax them like tobacco or alcohol, in proportion to the costs incurred by them to the general public.

TV, you've hit upon the biggest reason for legalizing, or at least criminalizing, drugs -- cost vs income.

The US spends billions of dollars from the "general fund" to fund the war on drugs. Billions more is spent on prosecuting and incarcerating casual users. Billions more are spent on bribing other governments to fight drugs "at the source." In short, the DEA and the "War on Drugs" is a futile excercise that is all cost and no income.

However, enforcment of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms regulations is paid for -- in large part -- by the taxes and license fees those regulations prescribe.

If nothing else, regulation and taxation of drugs would provide some income and reduce the tax burden a bit on those of us who aren't involved.

Liar:
Legal grugs or no legal drugs -- Is drug abuse a problem (alcohol included)? Or is it ok for people who other people may depend on to fuck up their brains with chemicals?

If the answer is that it is a problem: How is making drugs legal and accessible going to help that problem? it would adress the issue of some drug-related crimes, but not to the utopian extent that you envision.

I can't speak for others, but I don't see a "utopia" arising if drugs are legalized. Drug use -- primarily in the form of alcoholism and DUI -- is a problem that affects society and the safety of innocents. The current situation isn't solving that problem and it IS adding additional problems and horrendous expenses to them.

What I do foresee is a slight rise in drug use at first -- which if properly countered by education and laws against endangering others through drug use will taper off to levels of use at or near current levels. When things stabilize into a new equalibrium, the average man-on-the-street won't notice anything substantially different -- except a lack of news about drug-related shooting on the evening news. (and theoretically a lower tax bill, but I wouldn't hold my breath.)

 

[gauchecritic]

Decline away

Originally posted by it.

By clear inference, Gauche says, _no it (heroin) was not legal_.

and obviously by clear intent and constant specific and parochial use of the word 'legal' by those who would research things, I am made to look a fool once more.

The trouble is, I can't but help take up intent of usage and make apparently specious arguements about their implied usage. (If I was less of a fool I wouldn't have mentioned intent because I can't actually read minds, only words on the page)

Here's another interesting word: context. (arguement of)

Whether my (non) research or yours the phrase "No encouraging effects" and "addicts increased 100%" do not constitute a substantiated arguement. Your choice of debate, decline all you want. (does this mean I win or I'm just a troll? (fool))

Venus has a good point relating to why the arguement shifts from the stated question. I mentioned it before but was being not only ingenuous but also capricious.

However, since I detect a trend towards the question of "what has the Government ever done for us?" I would like to address a couple of political points (small p, no partizan shots).

A 'government', as a body, legislates over a 'people', so individuals don't actually come into any equation about laws or their enforcement. People die or are killed or made unproductive every day, so as long as this group remains manageable and has no deleterious effects on the economy of a country and as long as the flow of currency remains unchecked governments have no real reason or interest in changing the status quo.

Unfortunately when such situations do affect the economy it is/will be already too late to make any meaningful change politically or socially.

The war on drugs amounts to about the same as the war on terrorism and essentially with the same outcome.

And so, because I can't resist it I will say once more: the less that people 'know' about what other people do, the easier it is for society to conform to itself. I'll spell that out for those that missed the rant before.

If people in Bulgaria are not aware of a drug which gets you higher than you've ever been drunk which is all the rage in America (because they've seen it at the movies) then they have no identifiable urge to find it and try it.

If gangs in Pasadena haven't seen "Law & Order" on TV or heard Eminem: "I can't describe the vibe I get, when I drive by six people and five I hit" then the chances of them emulating such antics are lessened.

As any war addict will tell you, communications is key. So it is in social order and law and order. Inevitably, in a technological society communications is the necessary evil which contains the seeds of its (society's) own destruction.

Information is fine, dissemination is a party trick.

Gauche