Illegal Drugs. Should they be illegal ?

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Should illegal drugs be illegal?

Many of the problems associated with illegal drugs come from the fact that they are illegal. eg. Heroin, it causes many armed robberies (because it is expensive) and around half of the health problems that it causes are because it is impure. If it were legal these problems wouldn't be as bad. If the government sold it legally it would be cheaper, causing less armed robberies and only pure heroin would be sold, eliminating problems caused by impurities in it.

Yet if we legalize drugs would the present more of a problem, more people would have access to them, and their might be more instances of people dying from them.

Debate.

Personally I am on slightly leaning towards legalizing the illegal drugs, yet only slightly.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I still don't get how any person or group can justify claiming being the land of the free yet still tell their subordinates what to do with their body. The Government has no right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. It would only make them money if they sold it only through the government or if they heavily taxed it like nicotine.

 

[Skrah]

I still don't get how any person or group can justify claiming being the land of the free yet still tell their subordinates what to do with their body. The Government has no right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. It would only make them money if they sold it only through the government or if they heavily taxed it like nicotine.

It's called protecting their people. The government has the duty to guide their country. That's why there are laws. If there weren't, people would go around killing each other and commiting crimes.

 

[Aorist]

Yes, but assuming commonsense laws such as "No LSD while driving" and such, one citizen taking heroin doesn't break anyone else's rights. Murdering and such are all crimes because of the effect on other people, not the perpetrator.

 

[Skrah]

Common sense is what most people don't show. It is common sense to drive sober, yet there are crashes caused by alcohol. Laws are made so people obey. If there weren't a law that said "No drinking while driving" some people would still have the common sense to not do it, but the people that did do it wouldn't get punished, and thus it would increase the number of people drinking while driving.

Drugs can affect other people. One example is the drugs that make you aggressive. The drug itself might not turn you aggresive or even cloud your thoughts, but the addiction can. Once a person is addicted, he will do anything to get more of the substance. And since it is expensive, they will resort to robbery. They might try to rob someone with a firearm, and accidentally kill him. Do you get my point or am I rambling too much?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Drugs can affect other people. One example is the drugs that make you aggressive. The drug itself might not turn you aggresive or even cloud your thoughts, but the addiction can. Once a person is addicted, he will do anything to get more of the substance. And since it is expensive, they will resort to robbery. They might try to rob someone with a firearm, and accidentally kill him. Do you get my point or am I rambling too much?

Yep and the reason people need to conduct armed robbery, is because the drug is expensive, because it is illegal. So in this context legalizing it would stop the armed robbery. Also if we legalize it, we would know how many people would have addictions and we could help. For example: Alcoholics Anonymous.

I understand that the government should protect people, and that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I'm kinda undecided here so I would like to see your opinions in a bit more depth.

 

[Skrah]

Yep and the reason people need to conduct armed robbery, is because the drug is expensive, because it is illegal. So in this context legalizing it would stop the armed robbery. Also if we legalize it, we would know how many people would have addictions and we could help. For example: Alcoholics Anonymous.

I understand that the government should protect people, and that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I'm kinda undecided here so I would like to see your opinions in a bit more depth.

There are groups that help people that are addicted. It's not that hard to single out addicted people, especially when a family member notices.

Although legalizing drugs would definitely stop a percentage of armed robberies, if only for a while. Drugs would cause more car crashes, since its easier to get. They would get high, drive, and crash, just as alcohol. Children would be more exposed. It would just take a 15 year old to ask his adult friend to buy some joints for him. Again, same as alcohol and nicotine.

Drug dealers would be out of business. But that wouldn't last. They would only find another way to get easy money, like extortion, kidnap, prostitution, etc. It would be even worse in countries where the mafia is just swarming all over it. Example: Mexico, or various other latin countries. They would start shoot-outs and cause mayhem.

 

[Aorist]

There are groups that help people that are addicted. It's not that hard to single out addicted people, especially when a family member notices.

Although legalizing drugs would definitely stop a percentage of armed robberies, if only for a while. Drugs would cause more car crashes, since its easier to get. They would get high, drive, and crash, just as alcohol. Children would be more exposed. It would just take a 15 year old to ask his adult friend to buy some joints for him. Again, same as alcohol and nicotine.

Drug dealers would be out of business. But that wouldn't last. They would only find another way to get easy money, like extortion, kidnap, prostitution, etc. It would be even worse in countries where the mafia is just swarming all over it. Example: Mexico, or various other latin countries. They would start shoot-outs and cause mayhem.

I'm fairly sure that you're fearmongering. Do you have any basis for your claims? Have there been a ridiculous amount of robberies of cigarette or alcohol stores by people who need to get their fix?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Yes, but assuming commonsense laws such as "No LSD while driving" and such, one citizen taking heroin doesn't break anyone else's rights. Murdering and such are all crimes because of the effect on other people, not the perpetrator.

Drugs do affect people around the user, that's why they're dangerous not only to the people using them but also to other people.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yes, but assuming commonsense laws such as "No LSD while driving" and such, one citizen taking heroin doesn't break anyone else's rights. Murdering and such are all crimes because of the effect on other people, not the perpetrator.

Drugs do affect people around the user, that's why they're dangerous not only to the people using them but also to other people.

SOLID is exactly right; drugs effect not only the user but also the people around them and that is why they are outlawed.

While the actual use of the drug often does not effect others, it causes people to make bad decisions that effect others. It's kind of the same thing as not allowing somebody to get too much power, because they aren't hurting anybody initially, but often end up making the wrong decisions.

 

[Skrah]

I'm fairly sure that you're fearmongering. Do you have any basis for your claims? Have there been a ridiculous amount of robberies of cigarette or alcohol stores by people who need to get their fix?

I'm saying that legalizing drugs would probably lessen armed robberies. I'm not sure where you read that I said there are ridiculous amounts of cigarretes or alcohol robberies.

 

[Aesir]

Drugs do affect people around the user, that's why they're dangerous not only to the people using them but also to other people.

So would you be willing to illegalize Alcohol (again.) and Cigarettes? After all both of these are harmful to others around them as well, if not more so then most illegal drugs.

 

[Skrah]

So would you be willing to illegalize Alcohol (again.) and Cigarettes? After all both of these are harmful to others around them as well, if not more so then most illegal drugs.

My guess is that they're keeping it legal because a lot of people consume alcohol and cigarretes. The Church has ceremonies that involve wine. In other words it's too late.

 

[SkylerOcon]

You ban one thing, you ban it all.

You can't say that one thing should be banned, while another thing that is essentially the same (definitely not the best for one person, possibly harmful to others) isn't banned. It's just not fair.

In fact, there's some research that suggests that drugs such as marijuana... most of it is in an old thread from the DH so let me dig it out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8246462
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html

Those sources show how marijuana could be potentially helpful and how it is be healthier than Tobacco.

Now then, the other advantages. There are giant amounts of Marijuana related arrests in the US (http://blog.norml.org/2008/09/15/872721-marijuana-arrests-in-2007-up-52-from-2006/). If we were to make Marijuana legal, not only would we have a lot less people in jail, it would free up our police force to focus more on other things. This would save us a lot of money.

And, as another way to make it in favor of the US, they could make it only availiable through the government. The farmers sell it to the Government, and the Government proceeds to sell it, giving them a large cash influx. The netherlands marijuana industry had an income of 2.7b dollars (http://current.com/items/89422786_netherlands_cannabis_growers_yearly_net_2_7b).

Pretty much what I'm saying there is that tobacco hasn't hurt the country (in fact, it has economically helped us) and that there is evidence to suggest that marijuana isn't as bad as tobacco, so that won't harm us either (and will also probably help us economically).

 

[Spire]

I'm not an advocate of drugs usage at all, and I never have been, but in the best interest of national security, I think the government needs to tax drugs, and on a much stricter level than alcohol. While Americans can legally brew a limited amount of beer, they should not be permitted to grow and process their own drugs to refrain from potentially upstarting micro illegal-drug trafficking (in comparison to what we have now).

In order to cut down greatly on gang-related warfare within our country, drugs should be taxed and distributed with limitations to the individual consumer.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So would you be willing to illegalize Alcohol (again.) and Cigarettes? After all both of these are harmful to others around them as well, if not more so then most illegal drugs.

This is a good point, but we all know that if we did, there would be a very angry and violent response. People aren't going to suddenly get angry because illegal drugs are kept illegal. It's all about taking it one step at a time and avoiding violence. Perhaps when the use of cigarettes has decreased (far in the future), that can be outlawed as well. I don't see alcohol becoming illegal anytime soon. Too many people consume it for that to be possible.

You ban one thing, you ban it all.

You can't say that one thing should be banned, while another thing that is essentially the same (definitely not the best for one person, possibly harmful to others) isn't banned. It's just not fair.Pretty much what I'm saying there is that tobacco hasn't hurt the country (in fact, it has economically helped us) and that there is evidence to suggest that marijuana isn't as bad as tobacco, so that won't harm us either (and will also probably help us economically).

I feel that marijuana is a somewhat different debate. This thread is about illegal drugs in general, some of them with little or no known benefits.

And (going back to the ban one, ban all idea) like I said, it all depends on the response from the people, not whether it's fair or not. People are not being fair to themselves and those around them if they are using illegal drugs.

I'm not an advocate of drugs usage at all, and I never have been, but in the best interest of national security, I think the government needs to tax drugs, and on a much stricter level than alcohol. While Americans can legally brew a limited amount of beer, they should not be permitted to grow and process their own drugs to refrain from potentially upstarting micro illegal-drug trafficking (in comparison to what we have now).

In order to cut down greatly on gang-related warfare within our country, drugs should be taxed and distributed with limitations to the individual consumer.

I wasn't completely clear on this statement. Is your suggestion that we legalize illegal drugs and then distribute them with taxes and limitations? If that was the case, what kind of limitations would be in place?

 

[Narukari]

This is a good point, but we all know that if we did, there would be a very angry and violent response. People aren't going to suddenly get angry because illegal drugs are kept illegal. It's all about taking it one step at a time and avoiding violence. Perhaps when the use of cigarettes has decreased (far in the future), that can be outlawed as well. I don't see alcohol becoming illegal anytime soon. Too many people consume it for that to be possible.

There wouldn't be an angry mob with pitchforks if we illegalized alcohol and cigarrettes. They would just become what marijuana and other drugs are today. People would continue to make moonshine, and roll their own cigarettes and sell those. When America banned them, all it did was make people criminals for an action that wasn't wrong by itself.

Drinking alcohol is fine, but if you get into a fight, you can be charged for battery. If you drive a car, you can be charged with DUI. The only thing that is accomplished by making any substance illegal is to punish the people who use it responsibly.

If someone takes any sort of drug, then breaks a bar stool on someone else's back, then they will be incriminated for that. Hitting people is illegal no matter what state of mind you are in, so why do we need to make the substance illegal. If people are less likely to use their better judgment while intoxicated, then they assume that risk when they take any sort of mind altering substance.

 

[KrazyGlue]

There wouldn't be an angry mob with pitchforks if we illegalized alcohol and cigarrettes. They would just become what marijuana and other drugs are today.

Perhaps, but it would be to a much larger extent. If illegal alcohol and tobacco were only as common as other illegal drugs, then the prohibition amendment would have worked. There would be so many arrests for illegal drugs that people would become angry, not necessarily as a mob, but just in general. Then there would be an even more fierce debate to legalize them again. My point is, there's no point in trying to illegalize them because there will be little or no benefit to society.

Drinking alcohol is fine, but if you get into a fight, you can be charged for battery. If you drive a car, you can be charged with DUI. The only thing that is accomplished by making any substance illegal is to punish the people who use it responsibly.

If someone takes any sort of drug, then breaks a bar stool on someone else's back, then they will be incriminated for that. Hitting people is illegal no matter what state of mind you are in, so why do we need to make the substance illegal. If people are less likely to use their better judgment while intoxicated, then they assume that risk when they take any sort of mind altering substance.

So your case for making every drug legal is that people realize the consequences of using the drug before taking it and that most people will be responsible?

Here's the main problem: there's no way to use drugs such as heroin responsibly. There's no way to use roofies responsibly. So why make them legal?

Just because people have a chance to consider the consequences of taking a drug doesn't mean they will. It also doesn't necessarily mean they care. Say someone takes a lot of some kind of illegal drug and isn't in their right mind, then ends up killing somebody. Hey, they knew there were risks, and probably got caught, but does that make it ok? No. Again, as stated before, it's more about what happens to innocent people than what happens to the user. Whether or not the person was aware of the risks of taking a particular drug is much less important than what happens to the people around them because of these risks.

And personally, I believe that any adult with strong enough morals to use one of those illegal drugs responsibly would avoid them in the first place. They would know that these drugs will always do more harm than good.

 

[Narukari]

So your case for making every drug legal is that people realize the consequences of using the drug before taking it and that most people will be responsible?

Here's the main problem: there's no way to use drugs such as heroin responsibly. There's no way to use roofies responsibly. So why make them legal?

Sorry, I always feel like I'm debating about marijuana whenever I get into these illegal drug debates. Heroin, LCD, and many of the harder drugs are on a whole other level than marijuana. I agree that there is no way to use heroin/roofies responsibly.

Just because people have a chance to consider the consequences of taking a drug doesn't mean they will. It also doesn't necessarily mean they care. Say someone takes a lot of some kind of illegal drug and isn't in their right mind, then ends up killing somebody. Hey, they knew there were risks, and probably got caught, but does that make it ok? No. Again, as stated before, it's more about what happens to innocent people than what happens to the user. Whether or not the person was aware of the risks of taking a particular drug is much less important than what happens to the people around them because of these risks.

Of course that doesn't make it ok. My whole point was that being intoxicated doesn't excuse you from following other laws. Killing someone is against the law. It doesn't matter if your drunk, high, or under the influence of any drug.

By considering the consequences, I mean that if a person knows they won't be able to restrain themselves from driving when they get drunk, they should give their keys to a friend, or make arrangements before they get drunk. Banning marijuana is like preemptively punishing someone for actions they never did. All it does is punish the people who do use it responsibly.

And personally, I believe that any adult with strong enough morals to use one of those illegal drugs responsibly would avoid them in the first place. They would know that these drugs will always do more harm than good.

Your beliefs should not be enforced upon everyone. Just because you would never use drugs doesn't mean that everyone should be punished just for the act of using them.

Debating law is different from debating morality. Lots of people (including myself) would agree that excessive drinking, smoking, getting high is immoral and should be avoided by everyone. But when the question turns to "Should it be illegal?" I don't believe that the act of doing soft drugs should be illegal by itself. I'm all for increasing the consequences of breaking the law while under the influence of a drug though.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Of course that doesn't make it ok. My whole point was that being intoxicated doesn't excuse you from following other laws. Killing someone is against the law. It doesn't matter if your drunk, high, or under the influence of any drug.

By considering the consequences, I mean that if a person knows they won't be able to restrain themselves from driving when they get drunk, they should give their keys to a friend, or make arrangements before they get drunk.

I understood your point; perhaps I should clarify mine. My point is not everybody will be responsible when using drugs and many of them will end up committing a crime, whether or not consequences are involved. And whether or not they get punished for breaking the law is unimportant when compared to the lives that they might take.

Banning marijuana is like preemptively punishing someone for actions they never did. All it does is punish the people who do use it responsibly.

Again, marijuana is not the sole drug being discussed.

Your beliefs should not be enforced upon everyone. Just because you would never use drugs doesn't mean that everyone should be punished just for the act of using them.

Debating law is different from debating morality. Lots of people (including myself) would agree that excessive drinking, smoking, getting high is immoral and should be avoided by everyone.

I wasn't trying to "enforce" it upon everyone. Just throwing it out there.

But when the question turns to "Should it be illegal?" I don't believe that the act of doing soft drugs should be illegal by itself. I'm all for increasing the consequences of breaking the law while under the influence of a drug though.

Again, the consequences should matter less than the fact that innocents are getting killed by these drugs. With the possible exception of marijuana, there is no real benefit to legalizing these drugs.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You ban one thing, you ban it all.

You can't say that one thing should be banned, while another thing that is essentially the same (definitely not the best for one person, possibly harmful to others) isn't banned. It's just not fair.

In fact, there's some research that suggests that drugs such as marijuana... most of it is in an old thread from the DH so let me dig it out.



Pretty much what I'm saying there is that tobacco hasn't hurt the country (in fact, it has economically helped us) and that there is evidence to suggest that marijuana isn't as bad as tobacco, so that won't harm us either (and will also probably help us economically).

I support most of your post, especially about being consistent. Ban one thing, ban it all. I support this because all recreational drugs damage people.

However I disagree with the last paragraph, about the tobacco industry economically helping your country (I live in Australia, and no I don't ride a kangaroo to school, and no Australia day doesn't celebrate the invention of the Lamington.). I think that the amount of taxpayer money lost in attempting to cure preventable diseases caused by tobacco damages the economy. Sick people can't work, so tobacco related illnesses create a burden on the economy. Also dead people don't create demand or work, both of which keep the economy moving.

There are groups that help people that are addicted. It's not that hard to single out addicted people, especially when a family member notices.

There have been several cases of people dying from illegal drugs because their friends were worried they would get into trouble, for calling the ambulance to treat the person, or taking him/her to hospital. I just thought I should point this out, because Skrah says (or seems to be saying) that help for illegal drug users is adequate.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I support most of your post, especially about being consistent. Ban one thing, ban it all. I support this because all recreational drugs damage people.

Again, this idea raises the question: How do you ban alcohol and tobacco without there being some sort of angry revolt from the people? How would it be different from the prohibition amendment?

However I disagree with the last paragraph, about the tobacco industry economically helping your country (I live in Australia, and no I don't ride a kangaroo to school, and no Australia day doesn't celebrate the invention of the Lamington.). I think that the amount of taxpayer money lost in attempting to cure preventable diseases caused by tobacco damages the economy. Sick people can't work, so tobacco related illnesses create a burden on the economy. Also dead people don't create demand or work, both of which keep the economy moving.

I agree.

There have been several cases of people dying from illegal drugs because their friends were worried they would get into trouble, for calling the ambulance to treat the person, or taking him/her to hospital. I just thought I should point this out, because Skrah says (or seems to be saying) that help for illegal drug users is adequate.

Based on the above three quotes, it seems you're in favor of banning all drugs, alcohol, and tobacco (if I'm incorrect, please tell me). While I'm not entirely against this idea, because banning all drugs would be good for society, I'm just wondering how you believe this is possible. It seems to me that there would just be be violence and racketeering in response.

 

[Palpi]

Cigarettes and Alcohol should be outlawed, but it will never happen revolts and underground bars will form. Doing what is ultimately right will never do any good in modern day society.

 

[GSUB]

Many great points have been brought up.

I agree with everything Palpi has said.

But like Palpi said, outlawing these things will never happen. So the best thing to do is to tax them and only allow the use of it in designated areas. And you'd basically be signing your life away to go to these places for however long you stay there. No one is responsible for anything that happens there. Which is also what happens when someone chooses to use illegal narcotics.

And the only way people would be motivated to go these confined places would be through stricter laws on drug usage.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I agree with everything Palpi has said.

He only said 2 sentences that had already been said anyway, but I guess I agree with what he did write.

But like Palpi said, outlawing these things will never happen. So the best thing to do is to tax them and only allow the use of it in designated areas. And you'd basically be signing your life away to go to these places for however long you stay there. No one is responsible for anything that happens there. Which is also what happens when someone chooses to use illegal narcotics.

And the only way people would be motivated to go these confined places would be through stricter laws on drug usage.

By "designated areas" I assume you mean inside their own house, correct? That could work for smoking (although that's banned in lots of public places already), but people aren't going to like it if you close down all the pubs and bars. It's never going to be possible to restrict alcohol usage to the degree that you can only use them in private residences.

 

[GSUB]

He only said 2 sentences that had already been said anyway, but I guess I agree with what he did write.

ha, you're right. I confused him from another thread. But I still agree.

By "designated areas" I assume you mean inside their own house, correct? That could work for smoking (although that's banned in lots of public places already), but people aren't going to like it if you close down all the pubs and bars.

Oh, I'm sorry. i meant designated areas for more of the hardcore drugs. Like maybe some kind of facility. And I could see marijuana being allowed to be smoked in one's own residence.

It's never going to be possible to restrict alcohol usage to the degree that you can only use them in private residences.

I totally agree with that. I just failed to fully explain myself in my previous post.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I totally agree with that. I just failed to fully explain myself in my previous post.

Ok, gotcha. No problem.

Oh, I'm sorry. i meant designated areas for more of the hardcore drugs. Like maybe some kind of facility. And I could see marijuana being allowed to be smoked in one's own residence.

Hmmm... interesting idea. So then the person would have to stay in the facility until they were deemed to be no longer intoxicated? How could that be accurately determined? How could you insure the safety of the other people in the facility?

If it could work, that would be great, but I'm just not sure how realistic it would be to build facilities all across the country where intoxicated people would be wandering around for hours.

 

[GSUB]

Hmmm... interesting idea. So then the person would have to stay in the facility until they were deemed to be no longer intoxicated? How could that be accurately determined? How could you insure the safety of the other people in the facility?

I'm not sure. it was just an idea. I can't really provide any further information for it. Because I don't know. Would you know of any possibilities?

If it could work, that would be great, but I'm just not sure how realistic it would be to build facilities all across the country where intoxicated people would be wandering around for hours.

Hahahaha. This is true. But at least they're not on the street. I'm only afraid that these facilities would somehow promote drug usage. That would be bad.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Based on the above three quotes, it seems you're in favor of banning all drugs, alcohol, and tobacco (if I'm incorrect, please tell me). While I'm not entirely against this idea, because banning all drugs would be good for society, I'm just wondering how you believe this is possible. It seems to me that there would just be be violence and racketeering in response.

KrazyGlue

I honestly think that legalizing the drugs that are illegal, would solve many of those drugs' problems. I'm pretty much sitting on the fence here, this is why I made this topic I wanted to find out what other people think of this issue.

However I would like to the government to be consistent on the issue of drug use ie. if you ban one drug you should ban the rest or not ban at all. This is because all non-medicinal drugs are damaging and the government hasn't stated what makes a legal drug legal and what makes an illegal drug illegal. Banning tobacco and alcohol sounds tricky, no-one has any idea what the public response would be. Perhaps they could phase those drugs out, to give smokers and drinkers a chance to quit.

Those "facilities" GSUB sound like a very good idea, because it could contain drug use and make it easy to control. However I'm not sure whether they are realistic, just like KrazyGlue.

 

[LLDL]

I like to think of the issue as such: Drug's generally don't have a positive influence on a person's body. It only harms them while possibly giving them a temporary good feeling. Promoting drug usage, meaning that under age children could possibly have access to them, would kill off all of our potential citizens that might have had a chance doing something successfull in their future and help society. While doctors do use it for soem cures, they only use small amounts of it. Plus, they are the ones treating you and they can predict the effect it will have on your body in the long-run. Legalized drugs would slowly dwindle the quality of life as we know it until, eventually everyone does drugs. You can only guess what would happen from there-on-end.

 

[Aesir]

I like to think of the issue as such: Drug's generally don't have a positive influence on a person's body. It only harms them while possibly giving them a temporary good feeling. Promoting drug usage, meaning that under age children could possibly have access to them, would kill off all of our potential citizens that might have had a chance doing something successfull in their future and help society. While doctors do use it for soem cures, they only use small amounts of it. Plus, they are the ones treating you and they can predict the effect it will have on your body in the long-run. Legalized drugs would slowly dwindle the quality of life as we know it until, eventually everyone does drugs. You can only guess what would happen from there-on-end.

Right as opposed to incriminating a habit that doesn't harm anyone else but the user. You say that these drugs harm the user, however what you don't seem to understand is, putting a kid in jail for possession of Pot is just as if not more damaging then the pot it's self.

Also I'd like to point out that Tobacco and Alcohol are exponentially more harmful then Pot.

 

[|RK|]

The government should not legalize drugs for the very reasons that they are illegal. Obviously these drugs kill, but then again, so do cigarettes. Legalizing these drugs will increase public safety, somewhat, however, these illegal drugs influence the mind in many ways. Some people who fear illegal acts would say "hey, they aren't illegal, let me give them a try," then more people actually end up dying. They could become more suicidal and possibly homicidal. The fact is that making these drugs easier and less legally detrimental to access has the possibility of causing more problems than it would help. Normally calm people, too ethical to break the law, could end up addicted, insane, and hurting everyone around them.

 

[Aesir]

The government should not legalize drugs for the very reasons that they are illegal. Obviously these drugs kill, but then again, so do cigarettes. Legalizing these drugs will increase public safety, somewhat, however, these illegal drugs influence the mind in many ways. Some people who fear illegal acts would say "hey, they aren't illegal, let me give them a try," then more people actually end up dying. They could become more suicidal and possibly homicidal. The fact is that making these drugs easier and less legally detrimental to access has the possibility of causing more problems than it would help. Normally calm people, too ethical to break the law, could end up addicted, insane, and hurting everyone around them.

Cool however you're treading on the Fallacy of Probability, just because something could happen doesn't mean it would happen.

You're not going to find a perfect solution to this though and I think a lot of you are making that assumption that a perfect solution exists. Frankly keeping them Illegal is doing more harm then good and I don't want my tax dollars incriminating a kid doing pot, especially since he isn't harming anyone.

There are more non-violent drug offenders in prison then any other demographic, that should give you an idea what our drug policies are doing to a lot of kids lives.

Everyone speaks about keeping kids away from drugs, but what happens when a kid is sent to jail because he's doing pot and gets hook on heroin because of his time in jail? (which is a very real thing that happens.) What then? you've effectively ruined someones life because of your own personal ethics and morals.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Cool however you're treading on the Fallacy of Probability, just because something could happen doesn't mean it would happen.

You're not going to find a perfect solution to this though and I think a lot of you are making that assumption that a perfect solution exists. Frankly keeping them Illegal is doing more harm then good and I don't want my tax dollars incriminating a kid doing pot, especially since he isn't harming anyone.

There are more non-violent drug offenders in prison then any other demographic, that should give you an idea what our drug policies are doing to a lot of kids lives.

Everyone speaks about keeping kids away from drugs, but what happens when a kid is sent to jail because he's doing pot and gets hook on heroin because of his time in jail? (which is a very real thing that happens.) What then? you've effectively ruined someones life because of your own personal ethics and morals.

I really don't see why legalizing all the illegal drugs helps at all. You focused a lot on marijuana, which is almost an entirely different debate. There is a specific thread for marijuana; this one is about all drugs.

Just because the kid in the example you gave is being nonviolent, that doesn't mean everybody will be. Also, the kid would be suffering permanent brain damage. Yes, he could potentially get hooked on heroin in jail, but that's even more likely to happen if the kid is on the streets and heroin is legal. So you're not helping anyone by making them legal.
___________________________________

And to all the people who are in favor of banning or legalizing all drugs because the government "isn't being consistent":

If you're in favor of banning everything: I'm sure they wish they could be banning all drugs and alcohol, but they already tried the prohibition amendment which was a complete failure. So you can't ban everything. Too many people smoke and drink for it to be possible anytime soon.


If you're in favor of legalizing all drugs:

1. See the above argument (above the dividing line).

2. It's not right for the government to put its people at risk just for the sake of being consistent.

3. How would you feel if you were a parent and you had a kid who was going to a party that allows crack, pot, roofies, LSD, ecstasy, and all the other terrible drugs out there?

 

[Aesir]

I really don't see why legalizing all the illegal drugs helps at all. You focused a lot on marijuana, which is almost an entirely different debate. There is a specific thread for marijuana; this one is about all drugs.

I give Pot as an example I'm speaking about all drugs.

Just because the kid in the example you gave is being nonviolent, that doesn't mean everybody will be. Also, the kid would be suffering permanent brain damage. Yes, he could potentially get hooked on heroin in jail, but that's even more likely to happen if the kid is on the streets and heroin is legal. So you're not helping anyone by making them legal.

Again any drug you bring up will not be as harmful as Tobacco or Alcohol. Also I don't think you read my post completely or you just skimmed it. non-violent drug offenders are the bulk of people serving prison time. These are people who are caught just doing the drug and nothing else.

Also how am I not helping anyone? legalization means safer consumer practices. Gangs and drug syndicates will no longer have a monopoly on illegal substances, eventually their presence would be so small it wouldn't really matter.

I'd say that's helpful, plus it'll keep kids out of jail where they can get stuck on harder drugs. The money you could be saving from legalization could be used for rehabilitation which is what you should be doing in the first place.

 

[|RK|]

Ah, but when the probability is high, considering the effects of these illegal drugs, it has a better chance of happening than whatever "better" legalizing illegal drugs can bring. Either way, the drugs damage a member of society, physical of mental, no? As it currently stands, many kids who don't feel like committing illegal acts take prescription substances. When it comes to the point that these acts are no longer illegal, they WILL go and get these unillegal drugs. There is no fallacy of probability, merely fact.

Gangs do more than monopolize drugs, you know. Gangs can easily thrive on other things. Without drugs, worse options open. Increased human trafficking and the like. To stay alive and to keep the money flowing, don't you think that gangs will go further rather than just stop? It is more than likely to happen than the smaller gang presence theory. Legalizing drugs does NOT help. More people WILL die, one way or the other. Also, these gangs could attempt growth to prevent the unillegal drugs from shipping. Maybe even take advantage of the corrupt human spirit.

 

[Aesir]

Ah, but when the probability is high, considering the effects of these illegal drugs, it has a better chance of happening than whatever "better" legalizing illegal drugs can bring. Either way, the drugs damage a member of society, physical of mental, no? As it currently stands, many kids who don't feel like committing illegal acts take prescription substances. When it comes to the point that these acts are no longer illegal, they WILL go and get these unillegal drugs. There is no fallacy of probability, merely fact.

One single member of society is "harming" himself. You keep looking over the fact that Cigarettes and Alcohol are more harmful then most illegal substances and they're legal. What prohibition does is criminalizes an act, making the consumers get their fix another way.

And again it's not the governments job to tell me what I can or can't put in my body. It's my money if I want to pump substances into my body that's my own choice. Only when do I start becoming a burden on society should the government step in.

Gangs do more than monopolize drugs, you know. Gangs can easily thrive on other things. Without drugs, worse options open. Increased human trafficking and the like. To stay alive and to keep the money flowing, don't you think that gangs will go further rather than just stop? It is more than likely to happen than the smaller gang presence theory. Legalizing drugs does NOT help. More people WILL die, one way or the other. Also, these gangs could attempt growth to prevent the unillegal drugs from shipping. Maybe even take advantage of the corrupt human spirit.

Those gangs would be doing those things regardless, with or without drugs so your point is moot.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Again any drug you bring up will not be as harmful as Tobacco or Alcohol.

I highly doubt that marijuana, heroin, ecstasy, LSD, etc. are less harmful than alcohol. Tobacco, is one thing, but alcohol is definitely safer than those. Unless you have some sort of source to look over, there's not much backing this statement up.

Also I don't think you read my post completely or you just skimmed it. non-violent drug offenders are the bulk of people serving prison time. These are people who are caught just doing the drug and nothing else.

Actually, I did read your post. I saw the part about the demographic showing that more people are non-violent. Well, that's not really that reassuring, unless the non-violent users are a huge majority. If, say, 5 million people use illegal drugs, and 1 million are violent, I still wouldn't feel safe around those people. Plus, I'm not sure how you could prove the accuracy of this demographic, considering so much drug usage is under the radar.

Also, just because the person is busted only for doing the drug doesn't mean they hadn't done something violent before and it doesn't mean they wouldn't do something violent in the future.

Also how am I not helping anyone? legalization means safer consumer practices. Gangs and drug syndicates will no longer have a monopoly on illegal substances, eventually their presence would be so small it wouldn't really matter.

You'd probably lose more lives to overusage of dangerous drugs such as ecstasy, roofies, etc. than you'd save from gang violence. Plus, there would be lots more DUI car accidents.

I'd say that's helpful, plus it'll keep kids out of jail where they can get stuck on harder drugs.

You would also get lots of people in jail that belong there. People who were DUI and being violent would get stuck there as well. The kid used in the example was deliberately breaking the law and knowingly doing something that could cause him/her permanent brain damage and endanger the people around him/her. They should know not to do that. If they're willing to break drug laws, they could be willing to break tons of other laws as well.

 

[LLDL]

Right as opposed to incriminating a habit that doesn't harm anyone else but the user. You say that these drugs harm the user, however what you don't seem to understand is, putting a kid in jail for possession of Pot is just as if not more damaging then the pot it's self.

Also I'd like to point out that Tobacco and Alcohol are exponentially more harmful then Pot.

While that may be true, also this may sound a bit frank, what are the consequences of one kid (I know alot of kids do drugs, but since it is illegal there are alot less doing drugs than if it was legalized) sacrafice to the possibility of, lets say, an epidemic. I believe that the entire consequence as a whole is bigger than we realize. If drugs were realized the effect will be bigger on the entire community than just the "individuals" that go to jail for possessing it as of now.

 

[Aesir]

I highly doubt that marijuana, heroin, ecstasy, LSD, etc. are less harmful than alcohol. Tobacco, is one thing, but alcohol is definitely safer than those. Unless you have some sort of source to look over, there's not much backing this statement up.

Wrong, Alcohol has very harmful long term effects on the body, not only that you become a danger to others when you're drunk as well. Anyone who's been to a bar or house party will tell you this. Violent alcohol users are quite possibly the worst people to be around.

Actually, I did read your post. I saw the part about the demographic showing that more people are non-violent. Well, that's not really that reassuring, unless the non-violent users are a huge majority. If, say, 5 million people use illegal drugs, and 1 million are violent, I still wouldn't feel safe around those people. Plus, I'm not sure how you could prove the accuracy of this demographic, considering so much drug usage is under the radar.

What are you talking about? When you're caught with an illegal substance you have to serve a sentence. Doesn't matter if you were just in the park smoking a joint an enjoying the sunset. If you're caught with it you're going to court and you're going to serve a sentence.

All you have to do is look at why those people are in jail and you have the demographic.

Also, just because the person is busted only for doing the drug doesn't mean they hadn't done something violent before and it doesn't mean they wouldn't do something violent in the future.

This defies the logic of our legal system. If they have no prior history of violence with or without drugs then why should we consider they might be violent?

You'd probably lose more lives to overusage of dangerous drugs such as ecstasy, roofies, etc. than you'd save from gang violence. Plus, there would be lots more DUI car accidents.

Then why don't you ban alcohol too? Oh wait we tried that before.. Also your correlation lacks evidence.

You would also get lots of people in jail that belong there. People who were DUI and being violent would get stuck there as well. The kid used in the example was deliberately breaking the law and knowingly doing something that could cause him/her permanent brain damage and endanger the people around him/her. They should know not to do that. If they're willing to break drug laws, they could be willing to break tons of other laws as well.

The thing is that kid shouldn't be in jail for doing drugs, if he's becoming a burden on society he should be given help not punished. It's not the states job to tell me whats morally or ethically right. It's the states job to protect my rights and maintain a stable society. Drug usage doesn't effect that.

While that may be true, also this may sound a bit frank, what are the consequences of one kid (I know alot of kids do drugs, but since it is illegal there are alot less doing drugs than if it was legalized) sacrafice to the possibility of, lets say, an epidemic. I believe that the entire consequence as a whole is bigger than we realize. If drugs were realized the effect will be bigger on the entire community than just the "individuals" that go to jail for possessing it as of now.

Wrong other countries who have tried legalization notice a decrease in child drug usage. As your assumption is already wrong.

You're thinking that once they're legal they'll do it. Which isn't exactly true, kids do drugs because it's illegal, they're told it's bad so they want to do it more.

Look it underage drinking, I remember when I was 18 I was always saying "WEEE ALCOHOL!" Now that I'm 21 and it's no longer illegal for me and it's actually more acceptable that I drink, it's lost it's edge it's cool status is now gone. So my desire to drink is a lot less.