Legalization of drugs

[LuisDantas]

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

Taking away a freedom makes it much more desirable, true. That is basic human psychology, and shows why the true battle is sociological instead of legal.

It doesn't at all follow that legalizing dangerous substances makes sense, however.

 

[sandandfoam]

It doesn't at all follow that legalizing dangerous substances makes sense, however.

And making scumbag gangsters super rich does?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It doesn't at all follow that legalizing dangerous substances makes sense, however.

It doesn't at all follow that criminalizing them does either.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

That is a slight exageration. Speaking for myself, I have a very big problem with that.

Having a trained physician overlooking one's mental state sure beats having no supervision at all, but it is still far less than healthy to use any drugs at all.

I suspect that prescription drugs are abused at least as often as illegal drugs -- and quite often legally abused.

No argument here.

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.

Nor here, although I think you are missing the point. Why must we simply accept chemical dependency as opposed to fight its causes?

 

[LuisDantas]

And making scumbag gangsters super rich does?

Of course not. As I said time and again, the solutions are not to be found in legal approaches, and the cause of the problems are not so much in the existence of drugs nor in its commerce and traffict. This is ultimately a social problem, and it demands a social solution.

 

[sandandfoam]

Of course not. As I said time and again, the solutions are not to be found in legal approaches, and the cause of the problems are not so much in the existence of drugs nor in its commerce and traffict. This is ultimately a social problem, and it demands a social solution.

I'm fine with that.
But it seems to be in tension with

It doesn't at all follow that legalizing dangerous substances makes sense, however

which I disagree with

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course not. As I said time and again, the solutions are not to be found in legal approaches, and the cause of the problems are not so much in the existence of drugs nor in its commerce and traffict. This is ultimately a social problem, and it demands a social solution.

Maybe we should tell people "just say no." Or, maybe, we should dare kids to stay off drugs. You know how kids always respond to dares. I'm sure either of these would be good solutions.

 

[Smoke]

I don't know myself...which is why I assumed you got high no matter what.

Marijuana is like anything else -- Alcohol or tobacco or caffeine or refined sugar or religion. You can use it moderately and responsibly, or you can let it take over your life. However, marijuana is actually much less likely to be irresponsibly abused than alcohol or tobacco.

But I also want as few intoxicated people allowed in public or driving, to make poor decisions that could take or ruin more lives.

Driving is really the main public concern. Another argument for good public transportation, though probably not the best one.

Nor here, although I think you are missing the point. Why must we simply accept chemical dependency as opposed to fight its causes?

The mere use of such substances doesn't constitute chemical dependency. If we're going to prohibit everything that might be abused, we'll soon be living in sterile plastic bubbles and relying on virtual reality for our experience of life.

Even in cases of reckless use, it's not entirely clear to me that it's the government's -- or society's -- job to intervene. Are we quite certain that Churchill would have been more effective if he didn't drink from the time he got up till the time he went to bed?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe we should tell people "just say no." Or, maybe, we should dare kids to stay off drugs. You know how kids always respond to dares. I'm sure either of these would be good solutions.

Which shows that the problem is being treated at the wrong levels, I agree.

There are compelling reasons why people experiment mind-altering drugs. But they are not usually valid reasons. We must stop minding the symptons so much and face the social stresses and psychological weaknesses that are the true problem head-on.

In many respects drug use is much like abortion. A sad reality, far too rarely fought at the proper level.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Which shows that the problem is being treated at the wrong levels, I agree.

There are compelling reasons why people experiment mind-altering drugs. But they are not usually valid reasons. We must stop minding the symptons so much and face the social stresses and psychological weaknesses that are the true problem head-on.

In many respects drug use is much like abortion. A sad reality, far too rarely fought at the proper level.

There are compelling reasons for most human-behavior, but much less often valid reasons.

Let me put this in another perspective. I've known many people who have done drugs in a variety of contexts. The portion of people whose drug use becomes a significant problem is rarely because drugs are the problem. These people develop problems with drug use because they have problems in general. Often drugs are a convenient scapegoat for their poor behavior and lack of responsibility, but it's more often that their chemical abuse is a symptom of a problematic person, not the cause.

Most people who do whatever drugs, for whatever period of time, ultimately grow out of it and/or contextualize it responsibly.

This picture that's painted of a responsible, hard-working, well-balanced person who starts doing drugs, and before you know it, their life is ruined as a result of the drugs, is simply rarely the truth of the matter. People whose lives get to that point, were going to end up there one way or another, and the fact that drug use was part of their path turns out to be an easy excuse.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks, KT. You have won my day.

 

[LuisDantas]

The mere use of such substances doesn't constitute chemical dependency. If we're going to prohibit everything that might be abused, we'll soon be living in sterile plastic bubbles and relying on virtual reality for our experience of life.

That would be the opposite extreme to the current situation.

Even in cases of reckless use, it's not entirely clear to me that it's the government's -- or society's -- job to intervene. Are we quite certain that Churchill would have been more effective if he didn't drink from the time he got up till the time he went to bed?

I fail to see how that applies, really. Of course it is society's duty to watch for its members. If Churchill or anyone else might be some sort of outlier is completely besides the matter.

 

[Levite]

source

Should Marijuana be legalized?
Vote and give your reasons.

Good Lord, yes! It's ridiculous, it being illegal. Its criminalization in the first place was the result of racism, classism, and political manipulation by industries that were being harmed by large-scale hemp cultivation.

Pot is no more toxic or harmful than alcohol, and probably less so than tobacco.

If it were legal, it could be taxed; industrial hemp could be cultivated and turned into cloth, paper, fiberboard, oil, plastic, biofuel, and the hundred other things it is useful for, and they in turn could all be taxed; those products could be exported, and their production would create jobs. Law enforcement would no longer be burdened with catching pot-growers or farmers or sellers, and could increasingly focus on real crime and criminals. Anti-marijuana campaigns could be scrapped, saving taxpayers millions. And the massive overclogging of the court and penal systems would finally be eased a bit.

Keeping it illegal is just p****** away money, and helping the paper, lumber, cotton, oil, and drug companies stay fat and powerful, for no good reason at all.

 

[no-body]

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.

Most if not all of the negatives come from prohibition itself: impurities in the drug, no way to know what level of strength of drug you are getting, and mostly the addict spending all their money, well being and life on drugs because it is hard to get.

I know this will make me sound "crazy" but look at heroin as a chemical, it is comparably safer than aspirin if you take it properly I find your definition that drugs = mental illness as hysterical as the old Herst newspapers and movies like reefer madness; propaganda.

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.



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?



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?

Are people who drink and smoke mentally ill? There isn't a reason to do those things either really. But who are you to tell people what to do if it hurts no one else?

There has to be an alternate solution rather than putting money in the hands of crooked cops and mobsters and wasting time putting someone in jail because they want to smoke a plant.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Nor here, although I think you are missing the point. Why must we simply accept chemical dependency as opposed to fight its causes?

Because we have tired to fight it's causes for almost 40 years. Nothing changes. We just destabilize governments and create drug Lords.

Drug Dependency should be view as a medical problem.

 

[Smoke]

There has to be an alternate solution rather than putting money in the hands of crooked cops and mobsters and wasting time putting someone in jail because they want to smoke a plant.

Katt Williams (edited to avoid strings of asterisks from the automatic censor):

Don't give me that [stuff] about "It's a drug." It ain't no drug. I done done the research; it's just a plant. It just grow like that. And if you should happen to set it on fire, there are some effects. But that's not the same as drugs. Drugs, you got to do [stuff] to it chemically. You got to add baking soda, water, stir it up. I don't know the recipe, I'm just saying, it's some [stuff] you gotta do to it.

Why it's illegal, I don't know. Aspirin is perfectly legal, but if you take thirteen of them, it'll be your last headache. Long as you been living, you ain't never heard of [anybody] overdose on marijuana.
​

 

[Cypress]

Drug Dependency should be view as a medical problem.

I believe that is true.
Alcohol is a drug, alcohol is legal.
Most of the people who use it don't get addicted, some who do get.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Are people who drink and smoke mentally ill?

I am aware of a study around 10 years ago that showed that youth who did some experimentation with drugs but never made a habit of drugs. Tended to be more mentally heathy then those who used in drugs in a habitual manor or those who never tired them.

If someone is familiar with this drug study could you post it to see if my memory is correct.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because we have tired to fight it's causes for almost 40 years. Nothing changes. We just destabilize governments and create drug Lords.

Drug Dependency should be view as a medical problem.

I agree completely with the conclusion, but the premise is IMO false and unrelated. For one thing, the causes have hardly been defied at all; they're social in nature.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are people who drink and smoke mentally ill?

Often enough they are indeed.

There isn't a reason to do those things either really. But who are you to tell people what to do if it hurts no one else?

That is a weird question. For one thing, I don't need to be anyone particularly. It is an inate right from everyone. For another, there is no such thing as a self-sabotage that hurts no one else.

There has to be an alternate solution rather than putting money in the hands of crooked cops and mobsters and wasting time putting someone in jail because they want to smoke a plant.

Sure. But pretending that there is no danger isn't a solution at all.