Legalize heroin!

[Faminedynasty]

Legalizing heroin, crack and virtually all other illegal drugs is essential to freedom, equality and individual rights. Until relatively recently in our nation’s history, virtually everyone agreed that the Federal government had no right under the constitution to regulate the substances an adult individual used. One may ask why that changed, and unfortunately, the answer is racism and class prejudice. Every prohibition of recreational drugs in the History of the United States is the direct result of prejudice and of the belief that one class (rich, white people) could handle drugs responsibly, and that another (the poor, blacks, Mexicans) could not.

This trend is reflected both in the history of hysteria that led to prohibition in the first place, and in the way that drug laws are enforced today. Cocaine was as beloved a drug as caffeine is today and was used in countless beverages (Coca-Cola) and medicines. It only became restricted when people came to believe that it caused black people to become aggressive and violent. Newspaper headlines were filled with the phrase “Cocaine-Crazed Negro” and exploits of the unstoppable strength the drug supposedly gave them. Similarly, Marijuana was not prohibited until law enforcement realized that it would be a good way to harass the Mexican migrant farm workers who used it. Consequently tales of bloodthirsty Mexicans with super-human strength as the result of the deadly reefer narcotic began to circulate.

One must keep in mind that the laws enforced today in the United States are based on the initial prohibitions, which were founded on racism, class prejudice, ignorance and hysteria. It certainly explains a lot about the nature of the criminal justice system today. The same double standard exists as did when the prohibitions went into effect. Our prison system (by far the largest in the world) is continually filled far beyond capacity with non-violent, poor drug offenders, who just happen to be shockingly disproportionably of minority dissent. The prisons are stocked full of poor and minority drug users while it is (almost) perfectly acceptable for rich, white people, movie stars and other social elites to have a respectable cocaine habit or to engage in rampant prescription drug abuse. We are still dealing with a prejudiced, hysterical “reefer madness” mentality in regards to drug enforcement in the United States today. (see the final sentence of paragraph 1)

In all the numerous times I have argued this point, no one has ever presented me with an especially good reason why all drugs should not be treated essentially the same way as alcohol is. Alcohol is a wonderful, popular, extremely deadly drug. Not only do countless Americans die of alcohol poisoning, but drinking heavily also puts the user into a stupor with which many illegal drugs cannot compete, resulting in the carnage we see on the freeways. In fact, 40% of all unnatural deaths in the United States (I believe this excludes cancer from cigarettes, as cancer is technically natural) are alcohol related. It causes birth defects and the destruction of liver tissue and countless other health problems. And yet, prohibiting it was a terrible mistake.

Prohibition did not stop anyone from drinking; neither the availability of alcohol, nor the number of users declined. Instead, it created a criminal underworld and an atmosphere of corruption and violence based on the purchase and sale of alcohol en mass. The same effect occurs on a smaller scale with the prohibition of any given recreational drug. The death squads in Columbia and much of the violence on our own streets are the direct result of our government’s drug policy. There is very little doubt that legalization and regulation would lead to a drastic drop in violent crime empire-wide. Drugs therefore, should not be prohibited and made illegal, but rather restricted and regulated. Any high-school student can tell you that it is easier for them to obtain illegal drugs than it is to obtain alcohol. That is simply because regulation is an effective policy and prohibition is not. Regulation would restrict where drugs could be used and a sensible age limit would be imposed. Sales would be restricted to those with permits and driving while intoxicated would of course remain a crime. And countless billions of dollars that are wasted in this senseless “war on drugs” could go to educating the youth about the dangers of drugs, and to rehab and after-school programs and better public schools and giving kids the opportunities that would prevent them from turning to drugs in the first place.

Now that I have gone over some of the reasons why I feel drugs being legalized and regulated would benefit our society (the reduction of violent crime, the freeing-up of space in our prison system for those who really pose a threat to society, and the freeing-up of money to better our schools and our country in general) let me also express briefly why I feel that it is an issue fundamental to individual rights in a democratic society. Firstly, I agree with the Americans of the 1880’s that the Federal government should not be allowed to prohibit substances for individual use by adults. Furthermore, I believe that we have a duty as a progressive society to abolish laws that were clearly founded on racism, class prejudice ignorance and hysteria. Few historians and educated people in general would deny that racism and class prejudice were driving forces behind the prohibition of drugs. And few would deny that the war on drugs, on top of being entirely ineffective in reducing drug abuse, has had disastrous effects on our cities, our prisons and on countless lives. I am sure that most senators would agree to that statement--off the record of course. On the record they remain committed to acting as if the current policies are working, simply because so many Americans are clinging to the destructive ideas that started prohibition. We cannot afford to act as if the last hundred plus years have not entirely discredited prohibition as an effective policy, because, quite simply, they have.
That’s just a very small part of the issue I’ve covered thus far, but that’s what was on my mind.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Well, our population is growing rather fast. I guess legalizing heroin and crack would help to stem any over-population we might be headed for...

You have good points--you're right that there is a double standard there. What interests me, however, is that you think because alcohol kills people and is still legal, everything that kills people which is illegal should be made legal too. Your logic is technically correct, however I see things a bit differently. In order to do away with the double standard, I would outlaw every harmful substance, (yes, even alcohol), instead of allowing all of them. Our job as citizens should be, after all, to help make this world a safer and more healthy place, don't you agree?

Another point: although the legalization of drugs would clear out our prisons to accomodate those who have committed 'real' crimes, we'd just be packing them into our hospitals, to the effect that there'd be no room for kids and adults with 'real' illnesses. Which is the greater evil?

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Whoo man, can you imagine what could happen if the tabacco companies got their hands on those drugs legalized? I'm afraid just thinking about the advertisements...

 

[Faminedynasty]

Well, our population is growing rather fast. I guess legalizing heroin and crack would help to stem any over-population we might be headed for...

You have good points--you're right that there is a double standard there. What interests me, however, is that you think because alcohol kills people and is still legal, everything that kills people which is illegal should be made legal too. Your logic is technically correct, however I see things a bit differently. In order to do away with the double standard, I would outlaw every harmful substance, (yes, even alcohol), instead of allowing all of them. Our job as citizens should be, after all, to help make this world a safer and more healthy place, don't you agree?

Another point: although the legalization of drugs would clear out our prisons to accomodate those who have committed 'real' crimes, we'd just be packing them into our hospitals, to the effect that there'd be no room for kids and adults with 'real' illnesses. Which is the greater evil?

Firstly, I believe, that just as prohibition has never prevented anyone from using drugs or drinking alcohol, legalization would not lead anyone, or at least any large number of people to start using the most deadly of drugs. I'd like to think, in spite of various elections in this country, that people have at least a little common sense, and would therefore find no incentive within legalization to shoot up some heroin. Drugs are already widely available nation-wide, and those who want to, use them already.
Second, I do not feel that everything which kills people which is illegal should be legal. military grade Anthrax and nerve gas are some examples of something I can recognize as legitimate controlled substances as they are designed specifically to kill people en mass. But recreational drugs, even those as deadly as heroin, crack and methamphetamines are something that people use on themselves, and though they are toxic and deadly, I feel that if a person wants to inflict that upon himself, that is his right. That is an individual rights issue.
And while I respect your argument, I must say I disagree strongly on your point that all deadly substances should be prohibited. It is contrary not only to individual freedoms of choice but also to virtue, which in this case means--both figuratively and literally-- neither to drink too much wine, nor too little.
And in regards to the issue of tobacco corporations selling heroin and the inevitable marketing that would come with it, and the prospect of huge corporate industries overtaking the sale of drugs in the United States, these are all issues which can be regulated and controled by law, unlike the demand for drugs.

 

[Valjean]

"I guess legalizing Heroin and crack would help to stem any overpopulation we might be headed for..."

Most of the harm done by these drugs results not from any inherent pharmacological toxicity, but from the lifestyle associated with obtaining and using them, from diseases/injuries due to unsanitary usage and paraphenalia, and from overdosage due to haphazard and unmarked dosage units -- all primarily a result of their illicit status.

If recreational drugs were obtained and used at clinics dedicated to this most of these hazards would no longer apply and the illicit industry would be hard-hit.

 

[huajiro]

It is bad enough seeing people pan-handle for some cigarettes, or a beer....can you imagine these strung-out people trying to get money for a fix?

 

[Valjean]

The hard-core addicts are already supporting their habits entirely by crime. A clinic where they could get a cheap or subsidized fix would, at least, keep them from burglarizing my house.

 

[anders]

Seyorni,

I admire your balanced posts and your restraint. Myself, I would rather see dope peddlers and users of addictive drugs converted to fish fodder. That is, if the organizations for the proctection of animal rights would allow it.

 

[Valjean]

Most users of addictive drugs manage to indulge in moderation, anders, like a social drinker using alcohol in moderation, with no untoward social consequences. A few though, have psychological problems or are unable to control their appetites They become social parasites or even predators. From the tone of your post I suspect you've had some run-ins with some of these.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Firstly, I believe, that just as prohibition has never prevented anyone from using drugs or drinking alcohol, legalization would not lead anyone, or at least any large number of people to start using the most deadly of drugs.

Oh really? What about someone who's had a crappy day and chooses to drown themselves in alcohol to forget about it? The only reason why many of those people aren't doing heroin and crack instead, is because they either can't get ahold of it, or they don't want to risk anything illegal.

Second, I do not feel that everything which kills people which is illegal should be legal. military grade Anthrax and nerve gas are some examples of something I can recognize as legitimate controlled substances as they are designed specifically to kill people en mass. But recreational drugs, even those as deadly as heroin, crack and methamphetamines are something that people use on themselves, and though they are toxic and deadly, I feel that if a person wants to inflict that upon himself, that is his right. That is an individual rights issue

.

By that logic, the individual would also have the right to use anthrax and nerve gas on themselves.

And while I respect your argument, I must say I disagree strongly on your point that all deadly substances should be prohibited. It is contrary not only to individual freedoms of choice but also to virtue, which in this case means--both figuratively and literally-- neither to drink too much wine, nor too little.

If someone wants to kill themselves, on account of because that is their right, they won't need fatal drugs to do it. As far as the literal translation of that quote goes, i must still respectfully disagree. Anyone who cannot find happiness and fun in life without the aid of some substance has got more problems than just an addiction.

And in regards to the issue of tobacco corporations selling heroin and the inevitable marketing that would come with it, and the prospect of huge corporate industries overtaking the sale of drugs in the United States, these are all issues which can be regulated and controled by law, unlike the demand for drugs.

Yes, because the government does such a wonderful job of regulating the tobacco industry.

Bottom line here: What can the legalization of illegal drugs do to benefit society? I see nothing positive about it. You say that it would help get rid of crime, in that the criminal drug industry would cease to exist, but I see a problem in the millions of people who would die every year due to overdose--unintentional or otherwise--and due to illnesses caused by chronic use. And what about the innocent victims who die at the hands of people who are high? Be in the form of a car crash, to someone going on a rampage because they are having drug induced hallucinations.

I see a big difference in something like social drinking compared to social heroin usage. Illegal drugs are illegal due to their astonishing potency--there is nothing 'social' about them. Heroin does not give you a mere 'buzz'.

 

[Valjean]

Ceridwen -- You make some good points but I cannot agree completely with your post. "What can the legalization of illegal drugs do to benefit society?" What does social benefit have to do with this? In a free society only those things that cannot be indulged without damage to society should be prohibited.

"Illegal drugs are illegal due to their astonishing potency." "Heroin does not give you a mere 'buzz'."

I think recreational drugs are prohibited more from historical accident than from any clear "astonishing potency." You bring up Heroin (diacetylmorphine) specifically, so let's consider it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and risk an avalanche of derogatory posts, but I have some expertise in this area.

Heroin, pharmocologically, is an innocuous drug. Compare: aspirin -- which can erode the gastric mucosa, cause disseminated lesions of the small bowel, and even chronic metabolic acidosis, or: acetaminophen/paracetamol (Tylenol), an overdose of which will cause a fatal destruction of the liver. Heroin, which is metabolically converted to morphine in the body, causes no physical damage. It is possible to overdose with it, of course, which will shut down the respiratory drive, but overdose is usually the result of not knowing what dosage you're taking -- which would not be the case in a clinical setting. The extraordinary safety of opiates such as Heroin is further enhanced by the wide margin between theraputic and toxic doses and the ability to easily and instantly reverse their effects with a common drug. As far as social function is concerned, unless he doses himself into a stupor, a heroin addict can function perfectly normally provided he can secure a reliable maintenence dose of the drug.

Drug usage does not necessarily convert the user into a slavering monster. It is usually the prohibition of the drug of choice that leads to anti-social activity.

I, myself, am addicted to vitamin C. Without it I will contract a fatal scurvy (hypovitaminosis C). Luckily, I've been able to secure a reliable source of this drug, and am functioning normally. I have not, so far, been reduced to armed robbery or burglary to support my habit, as I might be were it prohibited.

 

[Faminedynasty]

Ceridwen, I believe you base your arguments primarily on the assumption that legalization will lead to mass drug abuse, and with all due respect, I doubt that severely. Drugs are cheap and widely available in every major city and even in the small towns all throughout the United States. And if someone elects to drown their sorrows with alcohol, I believe it has more to do with alcohol doing the trick than with its status as legal. If you look at the countries where drug use is legal and regulated there are of course addicts, abusers and overdoses, but no more than here in the prohibition enforcing United States. Legalization would help keep drugs out of the hands of children and money spent on imprisoning users could be spent on education and treatment. And furthermore, in regards to how it would benefit society, besides what I have just mentioned, I think that we can agree that it is in the interest of the betterment of society that laws founded on racism and class prejudice should be abolished and that individual rights be expanded.

In regards to the question of virtuous drug use, I personally find it virtuous to have a drink of strong whiskey or of absinthe from time to time, to smoke marijuana on the proper occasions or even the rare more potent hallucinogenic. Now, bear in mind, these uses are few and far between and I do not think that my use makes me an addict, nor am I a danger to society, nor am I desperate or depressed. But personally, I do think that it is healthy to alter one’s perceptions and engage in contemplation from time to time. But that is my individual decision in regards to what I do to myself and I feel that it should be respected, just as I respect your decision to abstain. I hope that this admission on my part does not make anyone think less of my arguments.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Ceridwen, I believe you base your arguments primarily on the assumption that legalization will lead to mass drug abuse, and with all due respect, I doubt that severely. Drugs are cheap and widely available in every major city and even in the small towns all throughout the United States. And if someone elects to drown their sorrows with alcohol, I believe it has more to do with alcohol doing the trick than with its status as legal.

That's a fair opinion, but let's think here a minute. Although you are right in saying that drugs are normally widely available, we still have the problem of them being illegal. To dabble in illegal drugs is very risky, and the huge stigmatism of being caught with them is not easily lived down. These issues make them highly unattractive to potential users. Another point: many people with serious alcohol addictions eventually work their way into the world of illegal drugs. This shows that they weren't initially staying away from illegal drugs because they thought alcohol would 'do the trick', so much as they just weren't desperate enough to take that big step yet. If heroin was made legal, many alcoholics might skip the alcohol phase entirely, and just go for them.

I hope that this admission on my part does not make anyone think less of my arguments.

Not at all.

I, myself, am addicted to vitamin C. Without it I will contract a fatal scurvy (hypovitaminosis C). Luckily, I've been able to secure a reliable source of this drug, and am functioning normally. I have not, so far, been reduced to armed robbery or burglary to support my habit, as I might be were it prohibited.

How did you become addicted?

 

[Valjean]

"How did you become addicted" -- I'll treat this as a rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek post. No-one could possibly have missed my point and still be capable of walking in a straight line.

"These issues make them highly unattractive to potential users."

Au contraire -- Their illegality makes them fascinating to young users. Their procurement is an adventure; their usage a rite of antisocial rebellion and the associated covert behavior a strong group adhesive.

 

[xander-]

Firstly, I believe, that just as prohibition has never prevented anyone from using drugs or drinking alcohol, legalization would not lead anyone, or at least any large number of people to start using the most deadly of drugs. I'd like to think, in spite of various elections in this country, that people have at least a little common sense, and would therefore find no incentive within legalization to shoot up some heroin. Drugs are already widely available nation-wide, and those who want to, use them already.

I disagree. If it became legal the people who though they wouldn't try it because they could get caught, will now start. And, you know this as well as I, you get addicted to heroin a LOT faster than you get addicted to acohol. Now legalizing it, as someone said, the image of cigeret companies putting heroin in the cigeret's would probably be the most frightening. The criminal underworld(well, the drug related criminals) would be now rule the streets. Imagine stock markets. Imagine new drug companies. Image new improved research labs, researching new and improved(in a bad way) drugs. Imagine the workforce cut in half due to the "no drugs" policy. Imagine drug stores, not even needing a prescription to the most dangerous drug. Imagine that no prescriptions would be needed at all. I think i've made my point. Now a druggy would of coures want it legalized, but should we trust someone who's not in the right state of mind?

-Xander

 

[xander-]

TranceAm:
Lets all be adult enuf do accept that other people feel differently than you? How about actully have a relationship, or previous relationship with drugs, so you know what the hell you are talking about! Ignorence of the topic, means you cannot discuss the topic. So stop this childish "I'm right, because i said so", and start actully debating. In other words; don't hate ceridwen and myself just because we feel differently. And if this is the way you argue, find another forum, please!
About freedom: Total freedom is anarchy. The word you are searching for is: Liberalism. And in the case of liberalism, the goverment has said so, so you can't say no(I just made that up)

-Xander

 

[Runt]

Legalization of heroin and similarly addictive substances is a threat not only to the individual taking the drugs, but to society as a whole.

Heroin builds tolerance. This means that an addict has to use more and more of the substance to get the same high. In order to purchase the drug--legally or illegally--the addict would have to purchase more and more of it. This is a habit that many people cannot afford, yet they continue to get the drug because they make sacrifices in their life--sacrifices such as using the money that should go toward groceries or rent to buy drugs instead, or, in the case of my own cousin, the need to have drugs overrode his need to have a car to drive to work. In order to get the drugs he needed, he sold the car, and without a means of transportation, lost his job. And the need for drugs grew even as the money to purchase them slowly dwindled.

Finally, even if an addict decides he or she no longer wants to do heroin, it is impossible to just stop. An individual trying to stop cigarettes experiences anxiety and cravings. An individual trying to stop heroin experiences symptoms almost identical to full-blown flu, with a few extra nasty little effects added in, such as abdominal spasms and nausea. The experience of withdrawal is often severe enough that an addict, trying to stop, will relapse again and again. And even if they do manage to stop, it often requires the use of certain drugs that essentially take the place of heroin (but which are legal and can be controlled--such as Methadone, I believe), drugs with also cost money, and which, in some patients, must be used for life. Basically, one expensive habit is exchanged with another.

That is just an example of how drug abuse can affect an individual and a family. Here is how it can affect society:

From the Bureau of Justice statistics page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm

In 1996 15.8% of jail inmates were there because they committed an offense to get money for drugs.

There is a direct coorelation between drug use and crime.

Is this your vision of a healthy, functioning society? Where more people are willing to use heroin because it is legal, and thus more suffer its effects, plaguing society with crimes committed because of the need to purchase drugs? Where people who try to stop taking the drug find themselves violently ill, or having to spend tons of money to get effective treatment?

Hmm... the government would certainly profit from this cycle of addiction and rehab...

 

[t3gah]

They'll never legalize any of it. They, the government, have invested too much resources and political might, which includes laws, that they'll never go backwards because that would make them look like idiots for real this time.

Trying to stop illegal drugs is big business and the economy depends on this too. Military tools, law enforcement tools, etc.

Boats, planes, helicopters, hovercraft, fan boats, etc.
Personnel and troops.
They have to justify the spy satellites and well, actually they don't.
​

Let's see.... what will the Coast Guard do without boat searches for drugs?



Then of course there's the detrimental effects these drugs have on humans which the US government has documents confirming this factor because they tested them all on people secretly. And then they have data from the medical community too.

Legalize it... hrm... what earthly advantage could there be for this is what the government is thinking. They really can't control it, but then they don't control tabacco either. Hrm... welp, the money can't be collected efficiently if they legalize it. Like marijuana, anyone can grow it. Like meth, lots of people seem to be able to make it. Hrm... we can legalize it and this will save lives because we can purify the drugs so no bad strains will be on 'our market'.

Legalizing drugs? The USA? That will happen when they really tell us what happened to JFK.:areyoucra

 

[Valjean]

Runt makes a good case for setting up clinics where addicts could obtain cheap/subsidized drugs, in known dosages and without adutrants or contaminants; expanded versions of methadone clinics.

 

[xander-]

The right state of mind means you can think unpollutedly. Pollution is also lies. (JFK??)
And if you want drugs, become a doctor.

-Xander