Should drugs stay illegal in America?

[Lord Viper]

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

waste of money.

I will say if that were to happen if they leagalize it, (to the drugs everywere part), this will effect the younger people mostly if drugs was leagal in the streets. I'm talking about the school life, peer pressure, etc. If too many young people get hocked on drugs, this will increase the chance that more people underage will get hocked on as well, that wouldn't look too good on our economy.

 

[Ryusuta]

There's only one problem with that, Viper. Drug prohibition does more to increase demand and supply of drugs than legalizing it would. Let's be realistic, here. By the end of elementary school, kids already have a pretty good idea of what drugs are and what they do. By middle school, most of them know where to get ahold of them if they want to. By high school, a good deal of them have done at least some experimentation with them.

Having drugs be illegal does absolutely nothing to keep them from the public eye or the public hand. Quite the contrary, in fact.

 

[manhunter098]

I will say if that were to happen if they leagalize it, (to the drugs everywere part), this will effect the younger people mostly if drugs was leagal in the streets. I'm talking about the school life, peer pressure, etc. If too many young people get hocked on drugs, this will increase the chance that more people underage will get hocked on as well, that wouldn't look too good on our economy.

Right now according to Zogby polls, high school students find it easier to get marijuana than cigarettes or alcohol. Regulating would actually be more effective at keeping it out of the hands of kids who shouldnt be using the drugs.

 

[riboflavinbob]

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

Besides the fact that the Dutch government has not responded against Solomon's citing nor was there any controversy about these statistics,

An official american government website reports that the trafficking of drugs is still illegal. If the statistics were not true, would this policy still be in effect? Even if the statistics were altered, the drug policies of several european countries show that they do have truth to them.

US Drug Enforcement Administration's article

(Now don't go citing some ".org" website, because anyone can put unsupported and fabricated information on those websites)

 

[manhunter098]

Besides the fact that the Dutch government has not responded against Solomon's citing nor was there any controversy about these statistics,

An official american government website reports that the trafficking of drugs is still illegal. If the statistics were not true, would this policy still be in effect? Even if the statistics were altered, the drug policies of several european countries show that they do have truth to them.

US Drug Enforcement Administration's article

(Now don't go citing some ".org" website, because anyone can put unsupported and fabricated information on those websites)

How about I do reference one of those .org websites, because it contains accurate statistics and easy to note citations.

drugwarfacts.org

Somewhere I believe it has the drug usage statistics for different nations. Ill find it.


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67


These numbers are a little bit more recent. And take note that The Netherlands have a much more lax drug policy and degree of enforcement than in the US.

 

[riboflavinbob]

How about I do reference one of those .org websites, because it contains accurate statistics and easy to note citations.

drugwarfacts.org

Somewhere I believe it has the drug usage statistics for different nations. Ill find it.


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67


These numbers are a little bit more recent. And take note that The Netherlands have a much more lax drug policy and degree of enforcement than in the US.

What that website doesn't tell you is that the drugs are still considered illegal and are only obtained through illegal means. Which site should you trust more? a ".gov"or a ".org"?

REGARDLESS

Indeed the source I brought up had no documented evidence (athough the statistics were cited by a representative before the House claiming to have obtained them through the respective government).

But support from an official government webiste, has stated that these foreign drug policies will not deem themselves successful in the states due to statistics collected by our government.

Anyways, I don't really understand the purpose of you pointing out that the states have almost a 20% higher rate of drug usage. This .org site shows evidence of lower violence rates in the netherlands, but have you considered the other factors which influence this rate? Also, try to consider our population and demographic differences.

If our drug usage is already 20% higher than a "liberal" country what will it be if we were to be more lenient about our drug policies? Would this 20% rate shoot up even higher?

Is good being done to the people of the states then? Will this legalization-decriminalization truly be a success then? When a majority of us are putting more and more addictive poisons into our body as more and more drugs are becoming legalized?

Again, don't cite .org's... it's like citing wikipedia.

EDIT: If drugs are so correlated with violence, why does the ratio of the Netherlands to the US in the "Lifetime prevalence of marijuana [usage]" category seem to be around 45% while the "Homicide rate per 100,000 population" is only at about 27%?

 

[Aesir]

I will say if that were to happen if they leagalize it, (to the drugs everywere part), this will effect the younger people mostly if drugs was leagal in the streets. I'm talking about the school life, peer pressure, etc. If too many young people get hocked on drugs, this will increase the chance that more people underage will get hocked on as well, that wouldn't look too good on our economy.

Go back to one of my posts I addressed some of your issues already, for instance kids will get drugs and get hooked on them regardless of what we do. Furthermore there's no evidence to support that more kids will get hooked on drugs than if keep prohibition. The reason we have a problem with children and drugs is because they're illegal, the risk of getting caught, and disobedience is something a child will always strive to do until they mature.

Also edit: I forgot to mention this, but the piece on our economy isn't very sound at all. The drug war damages our economy more so than legalization or decriminalization ever would.


Furthermore many people seem to think drug laws were put into place because of their health risks. At the time we started anti-drug laws there was no medical evidence to assume they were harmful.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9901E5D61F3BE633A2575BC0A9649C946596D6CF

"Negro Cocaine Fiends, New Southern Menace."

Considering the role racism has played in America it isn't surprising most drug laws were likely passed via racism.

Whats interesting is the drug war today, is still very racist.

Two new reports, issued Monday by the Sentencing Project in Washington and by Human Rights Watch in New York, both say the racial disparities reflect, in large part, an overwhelming focus of law enforcement on drug use in low-income urban areas, with arrests and incarceration the main weapon.

-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/05cnd-disparities.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


@ Rib: I would trust a .org more than a .gov who's agency is reliant on the perpetuation of the drug war. Back in the 1970's the Drug Czar made horrible claims about the drug policy in the Netherlands, this sparked alot of controversy which lead to the Dutch Government to openly speak out against his claims. Many Journalists too responded against his claims as well.

 

[manhunter098]

What that website doesn't tell you is that the drugs are still considered illegal and are only obtained through illegal means. Which site should you trust more? a ".gov"or a ".org"?

REGARDLESS

Indeed the source I brought up had no documented evidence (athough the statistics were cited by a representative before the House claiming to have obtained them through the respective government).

But support from an official government webiste, has stated that these foreign drug policies will not deem themselves successful in the states due to statistics collected by our government.

Anyways, I don't really understand the purpose of you pointing out that the states have almost a 20% higher rate of drug usage. This .org site shows evidence of lower violence rates in the netherlands, but have you considered the other factors which influence this rate? Also, try to consider our population and demographic differences.

If our drug usage is already 20% higher than a "liberal" country what will it be if we were to be more lenient about our drug policies? Would this 20% rate shoot up even higher?

Is good being done to the people of the states then? Will this legalization-decriminalization truly be a success then? When a majority of us are putting more and more addictive poisons into our body as more and more drugs are becoming legalized?

Again, don't cite .org's... it's like citing wikipedia.

EDIT: If drugs are so correlated with violence, why does the ratio of the Netherlands to the US in the "Lifetime prevalence of marijuana [usage]" category seem to be around 45% while the "Homicide rate per 100,000 population" is only at about 27%?

You should never trust a website that doesnt CITE ITS SOURCES even if its a .gov or even .edu. Furthermore the website I happen to be citing is also a regular publication of drug related statistics that comes out in a book form every couple of years with updated numbers. It makes few extrapolations from the data so people can make their own conclusions about it.

 

[riboflavinbob]

@ Rib: I would trust a .org more than a .gov who's agency is reliant on the perpetuation of the drug war. Back in the 1970's the Drug Czar made horrible claims about the drug policy in the Netherlands, this sparked alot of controversy which lead to the Dutch Government to openly speak out against his claims. Many Journalists too responded against his claims as well.

Alright, fine, let's say we do trust this .org website. What does it prove then? All it shows is that the US is a more violent nation with more people, more ignorance, and more hate.

How can a small table prove anything about the correlation between a policy and violence?

How does it show that legalization-decriminalization will help us in the states?

Indeed the usage of drugs are a factor contributing to crime, but then that only shows how much we do not need more legal drugs.

So far the most important objective facts are that:

Though the Netherlands have lenient drug policies, these substancees still remain illegal. If drugs were legalized, the usage, distribution, and addiction of drugs will increase.

 

[Aesir]

Though the Netherlands have lenient drug policies, these substancees still remain illegal. If drugs were legalized, the usage, distribution, and addiction of drugs will increase.

There's no evidence that shows this is true though, all you're doing is assuming without evidence. For all we know things could remain the same, the problem here is justice. We can't continue building more prisons and wasting more money on policies that don't work.

as for manhunters source I'll let him defend that, I only gave it a quick glance.

 

[riboflavinbob]

There's no evidence that shows this is true though, all you're doing is assuming without evidence. For all we know things could remain the same, the problem here is justice. We can't continue building more prisons and wasting more money on policies that don't work.

as for manhunters source I'll let him defend that, I only gave it a quick glance.

If we can not find a policy that does not work, do we simply abandon our efforts and allow drugs to be freely distributed?

Here's another government website's article about the legality of cannibis in the netherlands

Legality in the Netherlands

"The sale of cannabis is technically an offence under the Opium Act"

Only in special cases, under the strictest surveillance, does the government allow cannibis to be used or traded. Under all other circumstances the drug is illegal. Hard drugs, obviously, are all illegal under all circumstances.

It is not a simple unsupported assumption that drugs will spread with its legalization.

1. If there is a substance which is addictive, it will spread as more people become addicted to it.

-We have the obvious definition of addiction to support this.

2. If an addictive substance is wanted by many, more of this substance will be producecd.

-Without limitations made by the law, the supply is free to expand eventually meeting the quantity needed by the people in order to profit... which is constantly increasing due to the "addictive" properties of the substance. We can also base this pattern on the success of drugs in the black market.

Based on our current knowledge of drug addiction and economics, it's safe to say that this is no mere "assumption without evidence".

But I do agree that we need a new policy, but our government must not abandon our efforts and just give up on this matter.

 

[Aesir]

If we can not find a policy that does not work, do we simply abandon our efforts and allow drugs to be freely distributed?

No Don't strawman this.

You have other options aside from legalization, however what many don't seem to realize is with legalization you can regulate the industry.

Here's another government website's article about the legality of cannibis in the netherlands

Legality in the Netherlands

"The sale of cannabis is technically an offence under the Opium Act"

I fail to see how this ties into your argument.

Only in special cases, under the strictest surveillance, does the government allow cannibis to be used or traded. Under all other circumstances the drug is illegal. Hard drugs, obviously, are all illegal under all circumstances.

Whats the reasoning for cannibis being illegal?

It is not a simple unsupported assumption that drugs will spread with its legalization.

1. If there is a substance which is addictive, it will spread as more people become addicted to it.

-We have the obvious definition of addiction to support this.

2. If an addictive substance is wanted by many, more of this substance will be producecd.

-Without limitations made by the law, the supply is free to expand eventually meeting the quantity needed by the people in order to profit... which is constantly increasing due to the "addictive" properties of the substance. We can also base this pattern on the success of drugs in the black market.

Based on our current knowledge of drug addiction and economics, it's safe to say that this is no mere "assumption without evidence".

But I do agree that we need a new policy, but our government must not abandon our efforts and just give up on this matter.

Where's your facts? All you're giving me is your own opinion masking it with the argument of common sense. Which is a form of argumentum populum

 

[riboflavinbob]

No Don't strawman this.

You have other options aside from legalization, however what many don't seem to realize is with legalization you can regulate the industry.

Oh, so there WILL be an industry based on previously illegal drugs? With advertisement, publicizing, and widespread distribution?

I fail to see how this ties into your argument.

It was simply evidence showing the legality status of cannabis in the netherlands from a trustworthy site.

Where's your facts? All you're giving me is your own opinion masking it with the argument of common sense. Which is a form of argumentum populum

Maybe because it IS common sense? Are you telling me that if you enjoyed something so much so that you needed it, you wouldn't continue buying it?

I can see the reasoning behind legalizing cannabis for it is relatively docile compared to other legal drugs and has medical purposes, but cannabis isn't the only drug there is. Hard drugs like cocaine and heroin must remain illegal for they are deadly and highly addictive.

But you've convinced me. Cannabis isn't as horrible as I thought it was. I've nothing left to say in this debate if I can't bring common sense into the argument.

But I'm not exactly sure why people are still debating wether drugs should be legal or not. There is no way, at all, that currently illegal hard drugs as well as some soft drugs will ever be as legal as tobacco or alcohol. There's just no chance. How would the hundreds of millions of religious fanatics react when they see their President legalizing addictive poisons to the body for the sake of money?

The argument supporting the legalization of drugs has already won if common sense cannot be taken into account.

 

[Aesir]

Oh, so there WILL be an industry based on previously illegal drugs? With advertisement, publicizing, and widespread distribution?

If legalized sure, where there's a demand there's a supplier. Regardless of legality there will still be a market for it.

And are you ignoring the regulation part of my post?

Maybe because it IS common sense? Are you telling me that if you enjoyed something so much so that you needed it, you wouldn't continue buying it?

What evidence do you have that they need it? furthermore regardless what a person does it shouldn't matter to you. Druggy who sits in his basement and shoots up isn't harming you.

I can see the reasoning behind legalizing cannabis for it is relatively docile compared to other legal drugs and has medical purposes, but cannabis isn't the only drug there is. Hard drugs like cocaine and heroin must remain illegal for they are deadly and highly addictive.

So is nicotine, not only is it more dangerous than cannibus it's legal, it's only slightly more favorable over heroine and cocaine.

It's quite clear we're not banning substances because of their health effects.

But you've convinced me. Cannabis isn't as horrible as I thought it was. I've nothing left to say in this debate if I can't bring common sense into the argument.

But I'm not exactly sure why people are still debating wether drugs should be legal or not. There is no way, at all, that currently illegal hard drugs as well as some soft drugs will ever be as legal as tobacco or alcohol. There's just no chance. How would the hundreds of millions of religious fanatics react when they see their President legalizing addictive poisons to the body for the sake of money?

The argument supporting the legalization of drugs has already won if common sense cannot be taken into account.

The same way they reacted when Alcohol was legalized. No one says you can't have common sense in an argument, however if you're going to based your argument on common sense you need to provide evidence for it. Saying it's common sense that legal drugs will create a widespread surge of substance abuse and not offering statistics or examples from previous cases nulls your argument.

 

[SuperBowser]

It would be nice to know if you guys are debating legalization of marijuana or of all drugs?

I don't think Netherlands statistics would be relevant to other drugs anyway. Marijuana is more or less freely available - I know of at least 20 people who would give me some for free! But I'd have to try a lot harder if I wanted to get something like cocaine or heroin - I could probably find numbers if you want. Legalization of these drugs could have a pretty different effect on their usage.

 

[Ryusuta]

From a practical standpoint, my arguments relate to all drugs, not just marijuana.

 

[RDK]

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...?



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.

So what? With alcohol legalized I can choose to get utterly sloshed on a Friday night and go driving around in my pickup, potentially murdering some innocent person driving home from work.

You pro-ban people have yet to come up with a compelling argument as to why we should allow alcohol and tobbaco but not things like marijuana.

 

[Lore]

Personally I think that Alcohol age limit should be changed to 18, but that's a whole other debate.

But what I don't get is that many people are saying (I'm also talking about real life experiences here, of course) that the reason it should be legalized is because people use them more if they are against the rules. Where is the actual evidence that this is true? Why would you think that drugs would be used LESS if they became mass available for the public?

The other thing that people keep bringing up is the drug war that is costing us so much. There is a much smaller solution to the problem. How about raising the consequences and toning down the drug war? By toning down, I mean stop having such an all-out, well, war about it. We should just try to catch people using or selling the drugs like we would do normal criminals. Why would we need something on this alrge of a scale to try to control drug use? Of course, we will never completely stop or control drug use, but we can at least try to control it to an extent.

 

[illinialex24]

Personally I think that Alcohol age limit should be changed to 18, but that's a whole other debate.

But what I don't get is that many people are saying (I'm also talking about real life experiences here, of course) that the reason it should be legalized is because people use them more if they are against the rules. Where is the actual evidence that this is true? Why would you think that drugs would be used LESS if they became mass available for the public?

The other thing that people keep bringing up is the drug war that is costing us so much. There is a much smaller solution to the problem. How about raising the consequences and toning down the drug war? By toning down, I mean stop having such an all-out, well, war about it. We should just try to catch people using or selling the drugs like we would do normal criminals. Why would we need something on this alrge of a scale to try to control drug use? Of course, we will never completely stop or control drug use, but we can at least try to control it to an extent.

Yeah, but there is the issue of whether trying to control it creates more problems than just letting the drug be sold legally, which is a case for marijuana. It creates a lot of illegal business and laws hinder almost nobody from getting it if they choose. The differences is that we cannot regulate the quality of the marijuana, possibly making it much more dangerous for some users, we cannot collect tax revenue from it, we cannot set limits for it by purchases, and we cannot get rid of the illegal business.

I believe legalizing marijuana with a 1 gram maximum on you is the best solution, but for most other drugs, including any opiates and amphetamines or meth, they have to stay illegal no matter what.

 

[Dash_Fox]

Perhaps this thread should have had a poll. :/