Legalization of drugs

[LuisDantas]

I am in no way condoning the use of Cocaine or other illegal drugs but if they were to legalise and Police Drugs we would havea smaller Prison population and a lot more empty Hospital beds.

Maybe we would, eventually. But I find the most likely scenario, at least short-term, to be that of many people deciding that since they are legal then they must also be "safe", thereby multiplying the number of users almost overnight.

That alone is a very good reason not to legalize them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know this is an emotional topic for some because they would rather blame the drugs rather than the people themselves (or themselves)

Oh, make no mistake, I blame the people entirely. But I am still no eager to make drugs freely available than I am to make flamethrowers equally accessible, for much the same reasons.

It simply makes no sense to treat drug users as fully responsible people when it is the failure to be such that leads them to drug use to begin with. Is there any reason to allow recreational drug use, really?

 

[Darkness]

It has nothing to do with this initiative, I am just one of those people that takes the time to point out that things would be better off if all drugs where legal and freely available.

What I mean by my other statement is, don't arrest people just because they obtain or put a substance in their body. If they start stealing, murdering, neglecting their kids, driving on drugs, whatever then punish them for that and severely. But stop blaming an inanimate substance.

I know this is an emotional topic for some because they would rather blame the drugs rather than the people themselves (or themselves)

In my humble opinion, that is a naive assertion. I used to hold similar beliefs, but 3-years studying in the social sciences have eradicated those silly libertine beliefs. We know that a person's adult social status (i.e. upper, middle, lower class) is heavily determined by where their parents were on the ladder. My point: humans are slaves of their circumstances and cultures, so sometimes you have to change the underlying circumstance to create positive social change. Yes, anyone with enough will can overcome almost any obstacle, but our environment has a profound effect on what our will is.

 

[England my lionheart]

Maybe we would, eventually. But I find the most likely scenario, at least short-term, to be that of many people deciding that since they are legal then they must also be "safe", thereby multiplying the number of users almost overnight.

That alone is a very good reason not to legalize them.

IMO people will take recreational drugs whether they are legal or not,criminalising them is no deterrent look what hapened during prohibition

 

[sandandfoam]

Oh, make no mistake, I blame the people entirely. But I am still no eager to make drugs freely available than I am to make flamethrowers equally accessible, for much the same reasons.

It simply makes no sense to treat drug users as fully responsible people when it is the failure to be such that leads them to drug use to begin with. Is there any reason to allow recreational drug use, really?

I don't drink anymore nor do I take drugs but that makes me no more responsible of itself than someone who does.
I find the idea that people need protecting from themselves objectionable.

 

[LuisDantas]

IMO people will take recreational drugs whether they are legal or not,

Sure. But not to the same degree.

criminalising them is no deterrent look what hapened during prohibition

Different circunstances and (hopefully) different results.

Alcohol was traditional legal to begin with; there was a cultural inertia to overcome, and it was treated unrealistically.

Most other drugs aren't legal, so there is less of that inertia, and as Darkness said, it can be overcome with a determined enough effort. Of course, it can't possibly succeed unless it focuses on the root cause (the use) as opposed to the traffic, which will always exist as long as there is demand.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't drink anymore nor do I take drugs but that makes me no more responsible of itself than someone who does.

Are you sure about that? AFAIK, being less responsible is often the goal for alcohol consumption, and usually the whole point of most other drugs.

I find the idea that people need protecting from themselves objectionable.

Even if they are drug users? Really?

I mean, using mind-altering drugs is essentially the same thing as voluntarily giving up one's responsibility for oneself, isn't it? So why not act in accord?

 

[no-body]

In my humble opinion, that is a naive assertion. I used to hold similar beliefs, but 3-years studying in the social sciences have eradicated those silly libertine beliefs. We know that a person's adult social status (i.e. upper, middle, lower class) is heavily determined by where their parents were on the ladder. My point: humans are slaves of their circumstances and cultures, so sometimes you have to change the underlying circumstance to create positive social change. Yes, anyone with enough will can overcome almost any obstacle, but our environment has a profound effect on what our will is.

Perhaps, but I think all the effort and money into stopping people from getting a buzz would be more effective if we taught kids early about the real effects of drug use and made available rehab to anyone who wants to be free of drugs. You are saying we should treat everyone like a child because they can't control themselves.

Oh, make no mistake, I blame the people entirely. But I am still no eager to make drugs freely available than I am to make flamethrowers equally accessible, for much the same reasons.

It simply makes no sense to treat drug users as fully responsible people when it is the failure to be such that leads them to drug use to begin with. Is there any reason to allow recreational drug use, really?

Drugs aren't weapons though they are chemicals just sitting on a shelf that can be used by people. We don't ban poisonous plants, but we would if they gave us a high. I don't understand that logic.

Also don't understand the assumption that someone isn't a responsible person just because they use drugs. To use your argument back at you I think a lot more people would be more apt to take responsibility for their lives if you didn't give them that out in the first place.

 

[Smoke]

The problems associated with drug use (such as robbery, assault, impaired driving) are already illegal regardless of drug use.

And they are exacerbated by prohibition.

 

[LuisDantas]

Drugs aren't weapons though they are chemicals just sitting on a shelf that can be used by people. We don't ban poisonous plants, but we would if they gave us a high. I don't understand that logic.

I see that you don't. IMO drugs are indeed weapons, and of the most reprehensible sort. They endanger mental health, which is a far more pervasive and consequential damage than that to the body.

I just don't understand why so many people treat self-sabotage to one's mental balance and health as if it were a minor matter. It is basically an unpunished crime, and one that spreads its effects to all non-users that rely on the mental faculties of the users.

Also don't understand the assumption that someone isn't a responsible person just because they use drugs.

Well, that is the very nature of the beast, isn't it? By definition a drug user is a person who renounces his own responsibility. What am I missing here?

To use your argument back at you I think a lot more people would be more apt to take responsibility for their lives if you didn't give them that out in the first place.

So you are claiming that recreational drug use may be a mental health need? Wouldn't that make them psychoactive drugs instead, and as such demand medical supervision?

 

[LuisDantas]

And they are exacerbated by prohibition.

How so? Because users will go to further extremes to get their drugs no matter what?

IMO that is a very good reason to attack the problem at a deeper level, never to give up on it.

 

[Darkness]

Perhaps, but I think all the effort and money into stopping people from getting a buzz would be more effective if we taught kids early about the real effects of drug use and made available rehab to anyone who wants to be free of drugs. You are saying we should treat everyone like a child because they can't control themselves.

It is true that I believe the role of the state is to act like a guardian. It is the expression of our collective will.

 

[Cypress]

The Social Democratic party in Sweden started an all out assault on the practice of prostitution, rooting their onslaught in feminist principles. They decided that women, girls and children are victims of the chauvinism of men. The act of prostitution itself was decriminalised and prostitutes are treated with kindness and are put into rehabilitation programs. The police forces were instructed to think about the issue of prostitution as a human rights issue. Johns and pimps are arrested and given harsher sentences than before. Since the early 2000's, prostitution has decreased by about 80 per cent (human traffic has faded), and in reaction of the world's most successful anti-prostitution program, Swedish public opinion is weighted heavily against the practice of prostitution.

How can this method be used do deal with the drug problem?
Perhaps the example of Portugal shows how: 5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results.

Alcohol can be consumed in moderation without harmul effects to the personal body or impairing an individual where others safety is at risk, but isn't the point of smoking marijuana to get high, and getting high is the result no matter what? Not everyone drinks to get drunk - which is where I see the difference.

I lack personal experience here, but isn't Marijuana in small doses just relaxing?

 

[Smoke]

It very hard to use heroin responsibly.

It does seem to be. However, people as accomplished as Ben Franklin, Pablo Picasso, William Gladstone and Cardinal Richelieu used opium, and Queen Victoria, Pope Leo XIII, Thomas Edison, Sigmund Freud, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Jules Verne were all enthusiastic (and apparently moderate) users of cocaine.

 

[England my lionheart]

Sure. But not to the same degree.

I disagree,drugs are so widley used now that i don't think the impact of legalisation would be as great as envisaged by some.

Different circunstances and (hopefully) different results.

Alcohol was traditional legal to begin with; there was a cultural inertia to overcome, and it was treated unrealistically.

So were Drugs once

Most other drugs aren't legal, so there is less of that inertia, and as Darkness said, it can be overcome with a determined enough effort. Of course, it can't possibly succeed unless it focuses on the root cause (the use) as opposed to the traffic, which will always exist as long as there is demand.

I agree to some extent but i think legalisation of certain recreational or even ceremonial drugs will help to focus onthe big 2 Heroine and Cocaine.

 

[sandandfoam]

Are you sure about that? AFAIK, being less responsible is often the goal for alcohol consumption, and usually the whole point of most other drugs.

I know drinkers and tokers who think I'm extraordinarily irresponsible for several different reasons. Like everything it's subjective. I've no more right to ban their entertainment than they have to ban mine.

Even if they are drug users? Really?.

Yes. Really.

I mean, using mind-altering drugs is essentially the same thing as voluntarily giving up one's responsibility for oneself, isn't it? So why not act in accord?

I give up responsibility when I take off up a mountain or off up the road on my bike. People have been known to hurt themselves while doing such things. I imagine protectors of others would like to save those who enjoy pursuits such as mine - I object.
People are entitled to live free.

 

[Smoke]

Maybe we would, eventually. But I find the most likely scenario, at least short-term, to be that of many people deciding that since they are legal then they must also be "safe", thereby multiplying the number of users almost overnight.

That alone is a very good reason not to legalize them.

Curiously enough, alcohol use in the U.S. increased under Prohibition, along with organized crime.

 

[Smoke]

How so? Because users will go to further extremes to get their drugs no matter what?

IMO that is a very good reason to attack the problem at a deeper level, never to give up on it.

Prohibition basically gave birth to organized crime in the U.S., and the prohibition of illegal drugs has given birth to rampant violence in Mexico. When drugs are illegal, they become more valuable, and more profitable.

Note that our culture has no problem at all with people going around more or less permanently high, as long as they get their drugs from a doctor. I suspect that prescription drugs are abused at least as often as illegal drugs -- and quite often legally abused. A few years ago, the schools were practically ordering parents to put their kids on Ritalin, and the number of people who can't get through the day without their Xanax or their Zoloft is staggering. Some of these people have a compelling medical need for some kind of drug, but I'm not convinced that a lot of them wouldn't be just as well off to have a Bloody Mary for breakfast and a joint at lunch.

 

[sunsplash]

I lack personal experience here, but isn't Marijuana in small amounts just relaxing?

I don't know myself...which is why I assumed you got high no matter what. And what could gauge the level of relaxation? Is it like alcohol and related to your BMI or frequency of use where the heavier you are or the more you do it, the more it takes to affect you? Does it matter? A buzz from drinking even while under the legal limit can be just as dangerous as being completely wasted.

Like I said before, I'm torn. I probably have more of a bias against it coming from a home where alcoholism ruined the family...a completely legal substance. The last thing I want to see is one more impairing drug made readily available for trial and error. Do I want more government control over personal choices towards a personal body? No. But I also want as few intoxicated people allowed in public or driving, to make poor decisions that could take or ruin more lives.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Trying to restrict something people are going to do anyway, never works, and often results in a variety of other problems.