Should drugs stay illegal in America?

[riboflavinbob]

Despite these arguments being a prime example of slippery slope, you can say the same exact things about alcohol and tobacco.

If drugs were legalized in America, the FDA would regulate their potency and quality, which means--guess what--no dying from poisoned sources or a "bad batch". If legalized, they would obviously be taxed, which means more money for the government to use towards things that matter and less money wasted on a ridiculous drug war every year.

Not to mention things like marijuana are less detrimental to your body than both alcohol and tobacco.

Edit: also, saying they shouldn't give it to us because we can hurt ourselves with it is like saying pencils should be illegalized because some bozo out there might buy one and stab himself in the eye with it.

But do we really need another way to hurt our health on the market? Though cannibis and LSD isn't as harmful to your health as tobacco and alcohol, cocaine and heroin are far more dangerous than anything else. Simply allowing these drugs, through the supposed support of the government, would provide the public with a generous supply just begging to be modified and augmented.

This obviously will cause more drug related deaths. And what can the government say for itself when it's asked, "Was this done because of money?". It will have to say "Yes, we did it for our own greed, because we were too lazy to truly enforce drug laws and also saw drugs as a new source of income". This is corruption at its peak. We already have dangerous products on the market, why do we need more? Because the government got lazy?

And your last statement was completely off. This situation is entirely different. Drug related deaths are on a totally different scale. Drugs cause addictions, addictions cause more and more drug related injuries as the addictions amplify the influenced actions. If you tell a child not to stab his other eye out he/she will listen, because he/she is most likely not addicted to self-mutilation. If you tell a drug user not to overdose again, he/she won't listen because he/she is addicted... unless he/she is not listening because he/she is a rare case that likes to be in near-death situations. It's not a matter of intelligence and chance.

 

[RDK]

This obviously will cause more drug related deaths. And what can the government say for itself when it's asked, "Was this done because of money?". It will have to say "Yes, we did it for our own greed, because we were too lazy to truly enforce drug laws and also saw drugs as a new source of income". This is extreme corruption. We already have dangerous products on the market, why do we need more? Because the government got lazy?

It has nothing to do with whether or not it's good for us and everything to do with stripping Americans of their right to do what they please with their own bodies.

It's not the government's job to wash me or feed me. Why should it feel obliged to look after my health?

And it wouldn't benefit the government that much anyway; not by a long shot. In any case, that wouldn't be the sole reason for legalizing it; the biggie should be because it was a stupid policy to begin with, and the quicker they reverse it the better for all parties involved.

And your last statement was completely off. This situation is entirely different. Drug related deaths are on a totally different scale. Drugs cause addictions, addictions cause more and more drug related injuries as the addictions amplify the influenced actions. If you tell a child not to stab his other eye out he/she will listen, because he/she is most likely not addicted to self-mutilation. If you tell a drug user not to overdose again, he/she won't listen because he/she is addicted... unless he/she is a rare case that likes to be in near-death situations. It's not a matter of intelligence and chance.

So what? It's not the government's fault, nor is it the fault of the private organization that sells the product. Consumers aren't forced at gunpoint to buy things; they buy things out of their own free will, with full knowledge of the ramifications.

Let's again look back to alcohol and tobacco, both very detrimental and addictive. Should we ban those, too? Because they seem to fit snugly into your criteria.

Yay! Prohibition 2.0.

 

[manhunter098]

I guess I sort of agree with you. But if we leave drugs to circulate freely, more and more people will become addicted and trapped in the cycle as their cravings grow stronger and stronger. This would probably cause another problem because as possession and usage laws are no longer preventing them from purchasing pounds of cocaine and shoving it up their nostrils in one sitting. These people will probably be stupid enough to do so, and their actions will probably result in accidental suicide due to overdosage.

Typically decriminalization laws dont simply allow you to have as much as you want. The law basically designates a reasonable amount to be in possession of for personal use. For the most part selling drugs is still kept illegal, but as its not incredibly important to actually enforce those laws they arent. Essentially decriminalization of marijuana for example might allow a person to have up to 100 grams and a small number of plants before they cross the line on what would be considered personal use.

I would say that it might still be good to have laws to fine people for possession of harder drugs like heroin and methamphetamine, cocaine isnt quite bad enough to merit a fine in my opinion though, crack possibly, but then you get into the whole war on the lower class because crack is cheap and so poor people who use drugs would still be doing plenty of that, but if marijuana was much cheaper and easier to obtain I would think that a lot of people who like to get high might turn to that, which isnt really all that bad.

 

[riboflavinbob]

It has nothing to do with whether or not it's good for us and everything to do with stripping Americans of their right to do what they please with their own bodies.

It's not the government's job to wash me or feed me. Why should it feel obliged to look after my health?

And it wouldn't benefit the government that much anyway; not by a long shot. In any case, that wouldn't be the sole reason for legalizing it; the biggie should be because it was a stupid policy to begin with, and the quicker they reverse it the better for all parties involved.



So what? It's not the government's fault, nor is it the fault of the private organization that sells the product. Consumers aren't forced at gunpoint to buy things; they buy things out of their own free will, with full knowledge of the ramifications.

Let's again look back to alcohol and tobacco, both very detrimental and addictive. Should we ban those, too? Because they seem to fit snugly into your criteria.

Yay! Prohibition 2.0.

So you're saying that because of money and pleasure, we should put another way to hurt ourselves on the the market, backed up by the government?

And YES consumers will be forced to after their first usage because of addiction. And who knows how fast "first usages" will spread after drugs are legalized.

Why should we put JUST ANOTHER WAY TO HURT OURSELVES onto the legal market? For money?

Parts of our economy are already dependent on the tobacco and alcohol industry, so it is too late to turn back. Do you want there to be another product yielding similar effects to that of alcohol and tobacco on the market? Killing tens of thousands more with substance abuse related deaths?

 

[RDK]

So you're saying that because of money and pleasure, we should put another way to hurt ourselves on the the market, backed up by the government?

And YES consumers will be forced to after their first usage because of addiction. And who knows how fast "first usages" will spread after drugs are legalized.

Why should we put JUST ANOTHER WAY TO HURT OURSELVES onto the legal market? For money?

Parts of our economy are already dependent on the tobacco and alcohol industry, so it is too late to turn back. Do you want there to be another product yielding similar effects to that of alcohol and tobacco on the market? Killing tens of thousands more with substance abuse related deaths?

Um, yes?

Do you know what the free market is?

Refer back to my pencil analogy. It's exactly the same thing as the argument you're using, whether addiction is factored in or not.

 

[manhunter098]

Well if you do think about it, with improving medical technology deaths from most drugs due to prolonged use might soon be able to be avoided. Of course its not necessarily good to rely on what might happen, but if we arent loosing as many lives to drugs, and people can still use those drugs as often as they like, then its a win-win situation for the economy.

 

[Lord Viper]

It's not like that at all actually. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, just a drug use is a RIGHT. With guns, they are needed because cops are not meant to protect people; they are meant to solve crimes after they happen. If someone breaks into your house, you are at their mercy. For drugs, it's your body to do with as you wish, not the government's. Marijuana doesn't kill people. Mushrooms and LSD don't kill people. There are quite a few drugs that do not kill a person. Learn your facts before arguing.

Hmm, maybe that was a bad comparison to say that it would be giving a gun to everybody, just a thought of this idea being a risk/reward. Well, all I have to say that the illegal drugs should be only for medical purposes, making it legal in the street's I will not support. But what ever makes people happy or help the United States I guess it wouldn't hurt to make it legal to see how it goes. Maybe it will make more money if the idea goes well.

 

[manhunter098]

Hmm, maybe that was a bad comparison to say that it would be giving a gun to everybody, just a thought of this idea being a risk/reward. Well, all I have to say that the illegal drugs should be only for medical purposes, making it legal in the street's I will not support. But what ever makes people happy or help the United States I guess it wouldn't hurt to make it legal to see how it goes. Maybe it will make more money if the idea goes well.

Its not if the idea goes well. If you legalize marijuana (along with LSD, Psylocybin, and all those other relatively safe and non addictive drugs) it WILL improve the economy and it WILL create a great deal of revenue for the government (to spend on things like education). As for other drugs, they might possibly cause more damage to the economy if you fully legalize them, but throwing people in jail for drug use is doing far more damage to the economy than drug use is.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Um, yes?

Do you know what the free market is?

Refer back to my pencil analogy. It's exactly the same thing as the argument you're using, whether addiction is factored in or not.

Addiction is THE most influential factor in this subject matter. If addiction were not a factor, I might begin to reconsider the legal status of drugs. Addiction spreads and is very difficult to dispel. Can you say the same about not having common sense? People can learn and stop when something is not an addiction.

We cannot allow any sort of dangerous addiction to spread compounded onto our already prevalant tobacco and alcohol problems.

The only reasons you are giving in support of legalizing drugs are:
-More money and a new industry
-Less expense on the government
-The freedom of trade permits us

BUT

We must then suffer:
-Tens of thousands of lives gone
-Hundreds of thousands of lifestyles changed for the worse
-A sickening national reputation

Money is not worth destroying lives. We cannot have another one of these industries added on to those industries already doing so.

It's not like legalizing drugs is going to get any support anyway. "Solutions" like the legalization-decriminalization of drugs and drug usage have already been attempted. And have all miserably failed with those who have attempted it.

 

[manhunter098]

Really now? All have failed? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Then let's say we do legalize drugs. Imagine this scenario:

Drugs traders, under new legality laws, begin to form companies to market these drugs, as they are now as legal as over the counter medicines.

Drug companies begin making unimaginable amounts of money because of their highly addictive (though dangerous) products.

Widespread advertising for drugs begin.

Then what? Drugs fed to infants in order to serve as pacifiers?

Mass genetic malignancies? Due to widespread drug usage?

Extreme hedonism because people have become addicted to legal chemicals?

What can drugs do for us if legalized?

Even if there were laws preventing commercial distribution of drugs, the usage would skyrocket and most likely yield the same results of hedonism and irresponsibility.

If drugs are kept illegal, who are we harming? The idiots who chose to use them and get caught by the police with no sense of responsibility or common sense? Some "innocent" people supposedly caught up in the trade? The black market?

We are better off with drugs like cocaine and w/e being illegal.

Minor thing: You're forgetting about the police men and women involved in the conflict losing their lives as well.

Continuing in response to no one in particular:

There would be no reason for violent conflict if:

1. They weren't found only among criminals
2. They weren't so valuable.

The ban on drugs assures that both conditions live on.

From a philosophical standpoint, the Government was created to protect the rights of the people, not the health of the people. The Government was created to prevent the enslavement of it's people, to protect their rights, not restrict them. The Government is a big, fat bureaucracy, and something that inefficient should NOT dictate our habits and our day-to-day actions. Leave that to the PARENTS. America needs to remember how important good parents are. I'd attribute that to most of our social and legal problems today.

 

[Dash_Fox]

Addiction is THE most influential factor in this subject matter. If addiction were not a factor, I might begin to reconsider the legal status of drugs. Addiction spreads and is very difficult to dispel. Can you say the same about not having common sense? People can learn and stop when something is not an addiction.

We cannot allow any sort of dangerous addiction to spread compounded onto our already prevalant tobacco and alcohol problems.

The only reasons you are giving in support of legalizing drugs are:
-More money and a new industry
-Less expense on the government
-The freedom of trade permits us

BUT

We must then suffer:
-Tens of thousands of lives gone
-Hundreds of thousands of lifestyles changed for the worse
-A sickening national reputation

Money is not worth destroying lives. We cannot have another one of these industries added on to those industries already doing so.

It's not like legalizing drugs is going to get any support anyway. "Solutions" like the legalization-decriminalization of drugs and drug usage have already been attempted. And have all miserably failed with those who have attempted it.

If addiction is the problem then World of Warcraft should be banned. How about video games in general or anything else that's a psychologically addictive habit like masturbation or eating McDonald's?

Addiction is a consequence of expressing your free will by using an addictive substance. Is it your job to tell others what they can do or not do with their free will and their bodies? If you want to help them that is fine, but you seem like you want to force your ideal life style upon others by using the government and laws. Only people that want protection are the ones who want their freedom lifted from their lives. I do not want my freedom taken away from me, so I would like the government out of my way.

By the way I do not do drugs and have only done alcohol and weed. I think it's not very smart to do drugs for pleasure because it hurts you in the end. Although I will not stop anyone from doing it, I will help them stop but I will not force it upon them. This goes for adults and not children, completely agree if that they where legal there should be an age requirement.

 

[Pr0phetic]

The thing is, drugs can kill you and WILL hook you, leading to a downfall. If your effected by games to do irrational things, then there's something up with YOU.

 

[Aesir]

The thing is, drugs can kill you and WILL hook you, leading to a downfall. If your effected by games to do irrational things, then there's something up with YOU.

Drugs don't kill you, if I started smoking pot today chances are I'll still die of natural causes. Even the hard drugs don't kill you, the most harmful thing about them is their addictive nature. Cigs and alcohol are more destructive than any recreational drug, so if our governments job really is to "protect our health" then it's doing a pretty poor job.

 

[cF=)]

Really now? All have failed? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

And it's now that you ask for evidence? I stopped debating 3 pages ago because it's soccer mom rambling with no backup facts.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Really now? All have failed? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

1995 netherlands.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg10.htm

drug legalization and decriminalization discussed and proved disasterous

 

[manhunter098]

1995 netherlands.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg10.htm

drug legalization and decriminalization discussed and proved disasterous

I see the opinions of a congressman citing statistics that may or may not be relevant and could have easily been skewed. Furthermore considering that he believes that marijuana shouldnt be medicinalized shows the he doesnt understand the effects of cannabinoids on the human body, and his support of the schedule 1 classification further shows his lack of medical knowledge about marijuana.

When I say evidence I dont mean the opinions of one man who thinks that marijuana is the antichrist, but a study performed by an unbiased organization, or several studies to compare the results of.

 

[Darxmarth23]

The way i see it is that drugs should not stay legal.

...yet...

Marijuana should stay legal in hospitals as an emergency/last minute pain killer.

but...im not too caring on this subject....you guys...take it away!

 

[manhunter098]

The way i see it is that drugs should not stay legal.

...yet...

Marijuana should stay legal in hospitals as an emergency/last minute pain killer.

but...im not too caring on this subject....you guys...take it away!

Marijuana is better for treating chronic conditions than it is as an emergency last ditch resort.

 

[riboflavinbob]

I see the opinions of a congressman citing statistics that may or may not be relevant and could have easily been skewed. Furthermore considering that he believes that marijuana shouldnt be medicinalized shows the he doesnt understand the effects of cannabinoids on the human body, and his support of the schedule 1 classification further shows his lack of medical knowledge about marijuana.

When I say evidence I dont mean the opinions of one man who thinks that marijuana is the antichrist, but a study performed by an unbiased organization, or several studies to compare the results of.

You're missing the point.

"Drug legalization has clearly been a disastrous mistake for the Netherlands"

It has been attempted, and it has failed. Why do you think it is now illegal? Why do you think there are no other countries in this world with a definite legal acceptance of drugs?
Any sort of drug legalization has failed and will continue to fail because of obvious reasons.

Know that this was given before the house of representatives.

Are you calling the entire chamber biased and with "skewed" data? Do you think data presented before the United States Congress would be simply fabricated or altered based on one man's bias?

 

[manhunter098]

You're missing the point.

"Drug legalization has clearly been a disastrous mistake for the Netherlands"

It has been attempted, and it has failed. Why do you think it is now illegal? Why do you think there are no other countries in this world with a definite legal acceptance of drugs?
Any sort of drug legalization has failed and will continue to fail because of obvious reasons.

Know that this was given before the house of representatives.

Are you calling the entire chamber biased and with "skewed" data? Do you think data presented before the United States Congress would be simply fabricated or altered based on one man's bias?

Yes, I do think that is possible. I just see one man with potentially fallacious data since I have no clue where its source is showing what he thinks the Netherlands policy has done. I want to be able to get the information to conclude for myself that it was a failure, and that is what you should be providing me with, not some speeches by a man who thinks that marijuana is highly addictive and has no medical value, which is absolutely untrue.

 

[SwordmasterXXXI]

I'm 50/50 on this one. Some drugs help us, while some kill us.

 

[cF=)]

while some kill us.

Tell me which ones and the dosage to do so. I know for a fact paracetamol will kill me if I ingest a whole bottle, yet it's legal. Where's your point in that?

 

[RDK]

You're missing the point.

"Drug legalization has clearly been a disastrous mistake for the Netherlands"

It has been attempted, and it has failed. Why do you think it is now illegal? Why do you think there are no other countries in this world with a definite legal acceptance of drugs?
Any sort of drug legalization has failed and will continue to fail because of obvious reasons.

Know that this was given before the house of representatives.

Are you calling the entire chamber biased and with "skewed" data? Do you think data presented before the United States Congress would be simply fabricated or altered based on one man's bias?

I find it odd that you think since something failed in one instance it's definetly going to fail in another.

Wait a minute--isn't that one of those logical fallacy thingies?

 

[lonejedi]

I find it odd that you think since something failed in one instance it's definetly going to fail in another.

Wait a minute--isn't that one of those logical fallacy thingies?

I just want to say, you're willing to take the risk that it does work? Do you know how much of a risk that is? Say we do legalize drugs, and it fails, and then we make it illegal again. Do you understand what would happen. First of all, it would open up drugs to EVERYONE. It would just be like alcohol, anyone who wanted it would get some. They would become addicted like any other drug, and then after a while, we would ban it again.

Now you have a huge amount of people who are addicted, and want their drug. Crime is going to skyrocket. Drug crimes are bad enough now, I don't even want to know what would happen if a bigger chunk of the United States got into it because we were curious to see if it would work out.

 

[Aesir]

I just want to say, you're willing to take the risk that it does work? Do you know how much of a risk that is? Say we do legalize drugs, and it fails, and then we make it illegal again. Do you understand what would happen. First of all, it would open up drugs to EVERYONE. It would just be like alcohol, anyone who wanted it would get some. They would become addicted like any other drug, and then after a while, we would ban it again.

Drugs are already open up to everyone, any college student will tell you they can get drugs easy. When I worked at Fedex a supposed "drug free environment" There were guys selling Acid.

At my high school back on 03' a kid was arrested for possession of pot. Middle School two girls were arrested for possession of alcohol.

Do I have to go on? People are going to do these things regardless, it doesn't matter if they're illegal or not.

The only thing that'll change is you won't be going to jail if you have them on you. Jails won't be full of non-violent drug offenders will have billions of dollars saved instead of wasting it on the drug war.

Now you have a huge amount of people who are addicted, and want their drug. Crime is going to skyrocket. Drug crimes are bad enough now, I don't even want to know what would happen if a bigger chunk of the United States got into it because we were curious to see if it would work out.

You realize we'd be making the same mistake, not twice but a third time if it happened like that?

Prohibition in of alcohol didn't work, prohibition of drugs clearly isn't working now. As it stands we lost the drug war long before we started the war on terrorism. If we legalized them, then went back to prohibition the problem still won't be solved.

Prohibition doesn't work, it never has and never will. Where there's a demand, there's a supplier, doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

It costs more money to jail one drug offender than it does to give 100 drug offenders treatment.

The war on drugs is a huge drain on our spending as well, the money we saved by abolishing that a long with taxes could get a lot of hooked addicts help.

 

[manhunter098]

I just want to say, you're willing to take the risk that it does work? Do you know how much of a risk that is? Say we do legalize drugs, and it fails, and then we make it illegal again. Do you understand what would happen. First of all, it would open up drugs to EVERYONE. It would just be like alcohol, anyone who wanted it would get some. They would become addicted like any other drug, and then after a while, we would ban it again.

Now you have a huge amount of people who are addicted, and want their drug. Crime is going to skyrocket. Drug crimes are bad enough now, I don't even want to know what would happen if a bigger chunk of the United States got into it because we were curious to see if it would work out.

Well thats why we have to be more careful with the more addictive drugs. But there are going to be direct benefits to drug legalization like having a lot more money for education, since we wont be spending so much on the drug war and will be getting taxes from the drugs, if we directed all of that toward our education systems, we could really make something great of it just because of the sheer amount of money that would be available for education.

On top of that we should be leaving this up to the states to decide without federal interference because something good can certainly come of this, and its something we WILL need to try to really know if its going to work.

 

[lonejedi]

Drugs are already open up to everyone, any college student will tell you they can get drugs easy. When I worked at Fedex a supposed "drug free environment" There were guys selling Acid.

At my high school back on 03' a kid was arrested for possession of pot. Middle School two girls were arrested for possession of alcohol.

Do I have to go on? People are going to do these things regardless, it doesn't matter if they're illegal or not.

The only thing that'll change is you won't be going to jail if you have them on you. Jails won't be full of non-violent drug offenders will have billions of dollars saved instead of wasting it on the drug war.

Yes it's very easy to get drugs now, but drugs will become vastly cheaper if we legalize them. When you drop the prices, you'll find a whole new market for it. It's just like alcohol. Why do high schoolers always buy cheap tasteless bear for parties? Because they don't have enough money to buy expensive alcohol, so they get cheap bear. The same thing will happen for drugs. Many people don't buy drugs now due to prices, but that will change if we make it legal. I'm saying this assuming something went wong and we had to ban it again.

I love how you use non-violent and drug war in the same sentence, pretty ironic.

You realize we'd be making the same mistake, not twice but a third time if it happened like that?

Prohibition in of alcohol didn't work, prohibition of drugs clearly isn't working now. As it stands we lost the drug war long before we started the war on terrorism. If we legalized them, then went back to prohibition the problem still won't be solved.

Prohibition doesn't work, it never has and never will. Where there's a demand, there's a supplier, doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

It costs more money to jail one drug offender than it does to give 100 drug offenders treatment.

The war on drugs is a huge drain on our spending as well, the money we saved by abolishing that a long with taxes could get a lot of hooked addicts help.

I can't believe we're basing this all on money, as long as the government saves a little dough, it's worth it. And how do we know this money spent on helping these people actually be useful. Today, Alcohol treatment is little close to useless. More people are becoming alcoholics than those who are dealing with their problem. When you legalize drugs, you open a whole new can of worms.



Sure most drugs won't kill people, but the bad outweights the good. How will drugs improve things? I've seen kids affected by drugs at my own school. Most of those who take drugs, aren't doing anything in school, and their education is taking a hit. I just don't see how the positives can outweight the negatives.

 

[RDK]

I can't believe we're basing this all on money, as long as the government saves a little dough, it's worth it. And how do we know this money spent on helping these people actually be useful. Today, Alcohol treatment is little close to useless. More people are becoming alcoholics than those who are dealing with their problem. When you legalize drugs, you open a whole new can of worms.

Sure most drugs won't kill people, but the bad outweights the good. How will drugs improve things? I've seen kids affected by drugs at my own school. Most of those who take drugs, aren't doing anything in school, and their education is taking a hit. I just don't see how the positives can outweight the negatives.

You have to reconcile why we even allow alcohol or tobacco in the first place. Saying yes to those things but no to things like marijuana or other drugs is inconsistent and downplays the intellegince of the majority of America (which I normally wouldn't have a problem with; Americans are predominantly stupid--but I'd rather not have to hide my marijuana).

So again: so what? The free market is filled with tons of things that could be harmful or dangerous. We don't base the sale of things on whether or not people will misuse it (or at least we shouldn't).

 

[Ref]

The danger of using drugs is much greater than using alcohol or tobacco. Drugs are illegal not because they are dangerous, but because it is the government's job to protect the people. The people are protected from Tobacco or alcohol because of the age limit on these products.

The age limit protects people because if someone doesn't do something all their childhood and were taught it was dangerous, would be less likely to do it even after the age limit. Even still thousands of people die from alcohol and tobacco.

Drugs are completely proven to do bad to the nation, it is already seen that way too many people abuse these substances. They became illegal because it was to protect people, if they were not illegal people would care less when using them, to the point where people abused it. Drugs aren't just revolved around marijuana, they also have much more toxic versions drugs.

Sure the market may sell things that are bad for us, but adding drugs to the market would be worse than alcohol and tobacco already exposed to people. Many people have drugs and if they become legal, people who be more prone to wanting to try them. Increasing the price will not help, the people who are really addicted will buy it anyway and become poorer.
Lowering it just temps people to buy it more... A lot of dangerous things come from drugs. Such as depending on what kind, people tend to inject it into their systems... This creates a Large number of bio hazards to sanitation men... I don't know about you but sometimes where there is alcohol there is sometimes drugs, this combination is horrible, imagine making both legal?

I don't believe Tobacco and Alcohol should be legal... Nor drugs be legal...

 

[marthanoob]

Drugs are completely proven to do bad to the nation...

I think you mean drugs do bad to a nation with government provided healthcare.
China has a multi-billion dollar industry on tobacco. They aren't going to give that up anytime soon.

 

[SuperBowser]

You have to reconcile why we even allow alcohol or tobacco in the first place.

The difference is that these two were commonly used by the mass population before health implications were apparent. Just about everything is worse for you than smoking and I really don't think it's an appropriate bar to judge other drugs against.

In a state healthcare system like England, I simply won't be pro-legalization of all drugs. Some drugs have questionable positive benefits to the user (I would say none), there's a chance of increasing use, they are highly addictive and I don't see why I should pay for extra healthcare when they inevitably go and mess up their bodies due to the nature of the drug.

 

[manhunter098]

I love how you use non-violent and drug war in the same sentence, pretty ironic.

Because the irony of a bunch of DEA agents busting down the door of a glaucoma patient is absolutely unbearable.

 

[RDK]

The danger of using drugs is much greater than using alcohol or tobacco. Drugs are illegal not because they are dangerous, but because it is the government's job to protect the people. The people are protected from Tobacco or alcohol because of the age limit on these products.

The job of the government is to protect me from others who want to hurt me; not to protect me from hurting me.

It's my body, and I have the right to do what I please with it, barring hurting someone else in the process.

 

[Aesir]

Yes it's very easy to get drugs now, but drugs will become vastly cheaper if we legalize them. When you drop the prices, you'll find a whole new market for it. It's just like alcohol. Why do high schoolers always buy cheap tasteless bear for parties? Because they don't have enough money to buy expensive alcohol, so they get cheap bear. The same thing will happen for drugs. Many people don't buy drugs now due to prices, but that will change if we make it legal. I'm saying this assuming something went wong and we had to ban it again.

High schoolers buy cheap tasteless beer because they don't know any better. They're not drinking because they like drinking, they're doing it because it's the thrill of getting caught.

Underage drinking is illegal, their parents tell them they shouldn't drink teachers tell them they shouldn't as well. Virtually all authority figures tell them they shouldn't drink or smoke. That creates the desire to do it, as a teenager when you're told you can't do something because it's forbidden you do it. Not because you like the action, you just want the thrill of being caught.

If drugs were legalized the thrill of doing it would be gone.

I love how you use non-violent and drug war in the same sentence, pretty ironic.

If you honestly think the drug war is working you have another thing coming.

I can't believe we're basing this all on money, as long as the government saves a little dough, it's worth it. And how do we know this money spent on helping these people actually be useful. Today, Alcohol treatment is little close to useless. More people are becoming alcoholics than those who are dealing with their problem. When you legalize drugs, you open a whole new can of worms.

Why continue wasting millions of dollars on a failing drug war? we lost it a long time ago we need to take a step back and rethink our policies. Ending the drug war should be top priority. Legalization is only one of many choices we have at making a more just drug policy.

The reason you may think treatment doesn't work is because alcoholism is a relapse condition. It's something that person has to fight with long after they've gone through with treatment.

Sure most drugs won't kill people, but the bad outweights the good. How will drugs improve things? I've seen kids affected by drugs at my own school. Most of those who take drugs, aren't doing anything in school, and their education is taking a hit. I just don't see how the positives can outweight the negatives.

Drugs are also illegal were you live, those same kids will addicts no matter what the drug policy is. It isn't the governments job to protect me from my self. People need to show responsibility for once in their lives

I don't believe Tobacco and Alcohol should be legal... Nor drugs be legal...

As a Progressive I have to say when the government invades my personal life and tells me what I can and cannot do with my own body we have a problem.

The government has no authority over my personal life.

 

[Ryusuta]

Ah, it feels great to be back.

I think the problem here is the almost painful circular logic that assumes that illegal drugs are bad because they're illegal, which they are because they're bad.

Illegal drugs aren't illegal because they're bad. They're illegal for a lot of potential reasons, but "bad" isn't one of them. There is a certain spin that the media puts on drug use that absolutely NO ONE can take seriously, so it stands to reason that anti-drug propaganda is... less than educational. And this is coming from a person that even detests alcohol use, so I don't have any sort of personal agenda leading me to say all of this.

Every year the war on drugs continues, we increase the value of those drugs, lock up and criminalize citizens, endanger people's health and well-being, funnel money into people that deal and traffic these drugs, and... oh, yeah... flush 20 billion dollars of our tax money down the toilet.

 

[Darxmarth23]

NO. Now that they are everywhere, drugs will be too hard to stop.

waste of money.

 

[Ryusuta]

It's even more simple than that, Darx. It was NEVER feasible to totally eradicate illicit recreational drug use, and a strong argument could be made that drug prohibition has directly caused an extreme INCREASE to the value and production of the drugs that are prohibited.

 

[riboflavinbob]

I find it odd that you think since something failed in one instance it's definetly going to fail in another.

Wait a minute--isn't that one of those logical fallacy thingies?

Assumptions based on evidence a logical fallacy...?

It's called common sense and trial and error.

Here's an example:

What if you attempted to heal a 4-inch laceration running across your leg with ... let's say some raw sewage water, and it did not accomplish the the task of healing it. You also have an open wound in your arm. Should you try to heal your arm with the raw sewage water again? They are two different instances, but the "cure" only failed on one instance. Would you really try to heal your arm with the same treatment you did before?

Yes, it is an "assumption" that it will not work, but it is most likely going to emulate the same results as that of the horrible failures from before. Though there is a tiiiiny possibility that it just might succeed, should we take that risk based on what we already know, with hundreds of thousands more lives involved with this risk?

It will not "definitely" fail, but it will almost surely fail. And if it does succeed, our entire nation, as well as its already marred reputation, will suffer even further than it does now. But hey, the government will have a bit more money in its pocket, right...?

The job of the government is to protect me from others who want to hurt me; not to protect me from hurting me.

It's my body, and I have the right to do what I please with it, barring hurting someone else in the process.

You keep saying that the government does not have and must not have any control over what you do to your body. The goverment should protect you from others, as you said. But what if you were the person who hurt others because you were under the influence of drugs? Should the government take responsibility for what you had done to someone else while you were drugged? The government should prevent their citizens from harming each other, isn't that so?

You can't "bar yourself from hurting someone else" while you're under the influence. Your body isn't under your control. Why do you think drinking and driving is illegal? If you believe you can control you own body and mind while drugged then you are truly a megalomaniac, believing that you are somehow specaial and can surpass your human limitations, overcoming the effects of drugs on your human biology.

 

[manhunter098]

You have still yet to show with any conclusive evidence that the previous attempts were actually utter failures.