Should Cocaine and Heroin be legalized along with Marijuana?

[SageTree]

Yea, I remember a few years ago the news said 'there was a batch of bad heroin killing people in the capital city' ..... the way I heard it through the grape vine was there was some of the best heroin anyone had ever seen going round at the time.

Last year in Vancouver ODs were down 35% from last year.
I'd like to think this is because of awareness and harm reduction programmes like In Site, the safe injection clinic.
So imagine with people simply shooting the same old junk in safe ways prevents complications, what a safer substance might do for the Stats and live of PEOPLE.

 

[no-body]

Yes, legalize everything and flood the streets with cheap drugs immediately. You will see a sharp rise in problems at first of course but then things will stabilize and plummet.

This is always cited but one really needs to study the prohibition of alcohol and apply it to drugs in general, more than just looking at the black market aspects. The government was actively and knowingly killing citizens by increasing the amounts of wood alcohol (methyl alcohol) to deter bootleggers and the chemist trying to leech it off in over the counter/industrial products.

Of course this was only a problem for the poor, the rich could still get the good stuff and many prohibitionist where caught sneaking a drink now and again. Of course people are more careful not to get caught now a days, and I'm sure many politicians get stoned by the cover of "medication" Only when they get sloppy and develop a serious problem do they get attention, look at Rush Limbaugh. We are so brainwashed that hard drugs = death and deprivation that we can't even consider that some people could use them with no problems.

The only real problem being is if you run out of the drug. Heroin for instance and other opiates are safer than aspirin, ironically most of the health problems/deaths from them come from the tylenol that must be added to them by law. Compare to the past and you will see we haven't gotten anywhere in a century. I find it hilarious when people mythologize "the good ol' days" as some squeeky clean utopia of morality. They where just as bad as we where, except their media was sanitized and censored.

 

[Requia]

Cocaine isn't even in league with alcohol if you look at the number of fatalities or addictions per user sample. Cocaine isn't even that addictive of a substance in comparison. It's mostly a psychological withdrawal compared to benzos, alcohol, and heroin.

Anyone who drinks but is a critical of cocaine (or weed, shrooms, acid, ecstasy, mescaline, etc.) is being a hypocrite.

I think the better question would be heroin and meth

Compare:
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/drugmort.htm

Uh, Cocaine's addiction rate isn't high, but its one of the strongest addictions out there for people who do get hooked.

That said, I do agree with full legalization, it cuts the legs out from under the drug cartels instantly, there's no evidence it would cause a serious increase in usage, and if we can control the sale and marketing of the drug, we can discourage sellers from trying to hook new users. It'll be particularly useful in helping people who get addicted to painkillers they needed legitimately, since far too often the end result of that is moving to cheaper, more easily available heroin.

 

[Yerda]

I'm not sure heroin and meth and the like should be fully legalised as marketable products for general consumption. Decriminalised and controlled, allowing for addicts to be treated properly without ineffective and nasty substitutes like methadone seems like a safer course.

 

[Mathematician]

Uh, Cocaine's addiction rate isn't high, but its one of the strongest addictions out there for people who do get hooked.

Not any worse than alcoholism.

Drug Addiction Recovery Rates | eHow.com

"The two drugs where relapse rates were extremely high were alcohol and heroin--86 percent and over 90 percent respectively. Cocaine has a relapse rate of 55 percent, while crack (a form of cocaine) has a much higher relapse rate of 84 percent."

Crack is the most potent form of cocaine and has a better record than alcohol. I also question if crack would have even soured in popularity if coke hadn't been made illegal and billions of dollars pumped into South America to cause its (failed) eradication. But regardless:

- Less damaging withdrawals
- Less addictive
- Less lethal

Cocaine really gets a bad rap, but all evidence shows it's really "softer" than alcohol. Most people feel a heavier body load, but you aren't as inebriated and the duration is much less.

Incidentally on an unrelated tangent some studies show that psychedelics like acid and shrooms help fight addiction to other substances. It's probably more psychological than physical, but it's worth noting if anyone here needs help and is frustrated by the legal and medical barriers put up for people wanting help.

 

[Mathematician]

I'm not sure heroin and meth and the like should be fully legalised as marketable products for general consumption. Decriminalised and controlled, allowing for addicts to be treated properly without ineffective and nasty substitutes like methadone seems like a safer course.

True, but if Amsterdam is any indication I doubt any stores other than head-shops, hooka bars, or local gas stations will sell even weaker drugs like ecstasy. Other than weed. Weed, you have my word, would be sold right next to tobacco products.

Really the whole obsession with drugs is phony. Most people try drugs at a young age, make some stupid mistakes, have a lot of fun, and then grow out of them with some moderate consumption (a beer or two, a joint after work, etc.) I actually know quite a few parents of my students who smoke weed. I don't see why anyone judges them when our entire country is addicted to caffeine, fat, and sugar.

 

[Ilisrum]

Part of the allure of illegal drugs is that they are illegal. Any drug has negative side-effects when misused. Tylenol is the leading cause of liver disease in this country, and yet you can buy it over-the-counter. Everybody who does drugs knows the danger involved. Strip away the criminal element and I doubt more people would be willing to try it.

 

[Levite]

I am well aware of the deleterious effects of addiction to cocanoids or opiates. And I don't necessarily favor legalizing them entirely, although I think between legalization and the currently spectacularly ineffective "war on drugs," I would pick legalization, if only to put a gigantic, possibly mortal, hole in the economy of the international drug cartels.

I think they should be decriminalized, though. Right now, many addicts don't get treatment, don't get help and support, don't even necessarily have clean needles (for those who use needles) because they are too afraid of being sent to jail. And let's be clear: jail seldom helps addicts, both because prison treatment programs are overcrowded, underfunded, and poorly run, and because there is a thriving black market in prisons which makes it comparatively easy for prisoners to get drugs.

I think that decriminalizing these drugs will not particularly increase usage-- most people who want to use cocanoids or opiates already do so while they are illegal-- but it will ease the creation of treatment programs and needle exchanges, and it will permit states to redirect the billions of dollars currently being wasted in trying to chase down addicts, petty dealers, and other small-time riffraff. Hopefully much of those wasted dollars could then be used for health care and providing decent treatment programs that might actually help addicts kick their addictions.

Draconian drug laws have not only proved pathetically ineffective, they have proved to be racist and classist-- in application, if not in intent-- they have proved to be wasteful of government monies, and they have fostered the creation of the prison-industrial complex, and severe overcrowding in our regular prisons. They clog up the justice system with petty cases, they ruin people's lives over trifles or over uncontrolled illnesses, and they provide economic bonanzas to the international criminal cartels by creating a vast, uncontrollable black market.

If you want to argue that we ought to have better drug education programs in our schools, that might be something I would support: realistic, pragmatic education that combines reliable medical facts with the realities of life as an urban teenager today is something we need, especially considering how fatuous and simplistic and puritanical our drug education materials have always been.

But prevention is one thing, and punishment is another. Addicts don't need punishment for addiction, they need help kicking addiction. And right now, not only do we not help, we hinder. Draconian drug laws dehumanize addicts, and are a never-ending drain on our resources, dragging our society down. They are, practically speaking, ineffective; and they are unethical at best, immoral at worst. They are without redemption. Their effects are far worse than even full legalization would ever be likely to be, much less decriminalization.

 

[Storm]

I am well aware of the deleterious effects of addiction to cocanoids or opiates. And I don't necessarily favor legalizing them entirely, although I think between legalization and the currently spectacularly ineffective "war on drugs," I would pick legalization, if only to put a gigantic, possibly mortal, hole in the economy of the international drug cartels.

I think they should be decriminalized, though. Right now, many addicts don't get treatment, don't get help and support, don't even necessarily have clean needles (for those who use needles) because they are too afraid of being sent to jail. And let's be clear: jail seldom helps addicts, both because prison treatment programs are overcrowded, underfunded, and poorly run, and because there is a thriving black market in prisons which makes it comparatively easy for prisoners to get drugs.

I think that decriminalizing these drugs will not particularly increase usage-- most people who want to use cocanoids or opiates already do so while they are illegal-- but it will ease the creation of treatment programs and needle exchanges, and it will permit states to redirect the billions of dollars currently being wasted in trying to chase down addicts, petty dealers, and other small-time riffraff. Hopefully much of those wasted dollars could then be used for health care and providing decent treatment programs that might actually help addicts kick their addictions.

Draconian drug laws have not only proved pathetically ineffective, they have proved to be racist and classist-- in application, if not in intent-- they have proved to be wasteful of government monies, and they have fostered the creation of the prison-industrial complex, and severe overcrowding in our regular prisons. They clog up the justice system with petty cases, they ruin people's lives over trifles or over uncontrolled illnesses, and they provide economic bonanzas to the international criminal cartels by creating a vast, uncontrollable black market.

If you want to argue that we ought to have better drug education programs in our schools, that might be something I would support: realistic, pragmatic education that combines reliable medical facts with the realities of life as an urban teenager today is something we need, especially considering how fatuous and simplistic and puritanical our drug education materials have always been.

But prevention is one thing, and punishment is another. Addicts don't need punishment for addiction, they need help kicking addiction. And right now, not only do we not help, we hinder. Draconian drug laws dehumanize addicts, and are a never-ending drain on our resources, dragging our society down. They are, practically speaking, ineffective; and they are unethical at best, immoral at worst. They are without redemption. Their effects are far worse than even full legalization would ever be likely to be, much less decriminalization.

:clap

What he said.

 

[Yerda]

Draconian drug laws dehumanize addicts, and are a never-ending drain on our resources, dragging our society down.

And others':

Friedman warned that the war on drugs has “undermined the very foundations of Colombian society” and “condemned hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Colombians to violent death.” I have just returned from Mexico, which is rapidly Colombianizing, with whole areas controlled by dealers who bribe or out-gun the police force and terrorize the local population. The same thing is happening on a huge scale in Afghanistan. “By what right do we destroy other people’s countries just because we cannot enforce our own laws?” Friedman asked.

From: The one reason I will miss Milton Friedman

 

[Acim]

What I said in the weed thread has already been said here by others.

I am of the position, legalize it all.

I say, do it now, don't hesitate. But also don't hesitate on the education of these drugs. It is rare that you find information that presents usage without a very obvious bias. Either, it is in vein of "it is dangerous, you will die!" or "dude, it's totally cool, just relax and enjoy yourself. In fact, here's a free sample."

The reality, I believe, is it won't happen overnight that these substances become legal. It will be floated out as possible idea over years / decades, and the education will be skewed toward the, "you will die!" side of the equation. Guess what? Prescription drugs can have severe adverse effects, including death. And education on that is hush hush until trial lawyers become our 'teachers.'

There is almost no doubt that the day any of these substances are legalized (with little education that is balanced), there will be huge parties on that day. Parties that could last years, and foster attitudes of "F-off man, nothing you can do to me now that it's legal. Yeah! Let's keep the party going all night!" But I think over time (perhaps as much as 3 decades) the thrill of it will die down. 3 decades assumes no balanced education, all things equal to what they are now. Far less than 3 decades if we are honest about use of these substances with ourselves and our offspring.

My final point is, we've tried it the other way, and it has gone on far more than 3 decades and the war is not being won. In fact, it seems like it is being tilted in the other direction, with a very steep price. It also seems put on backburner considering other wars we have going on. And because black market is chosen way to continue dealing with this issue, I am at point where I do not feel (much) sorrow for fallen soldier on the "good" side. When I hear of such a death, my attitude is, legalize now, or expect many more of those.

 

[Vendetta]

I think Marijuana should take its place beside other controlled substances, to be used only under direct medical supervision, when/if a doctor determines it needed. That's how cocaine is legally dispensed, as well as morphine.

There is no natural benefit in personal use of cocaine except in anesthesia and even then its not pure cocaine from my understanding.

 

[Vendetta]

What I said in the weed thread has already been said here by others.

I am of the position, legalize it all.

I say, do it now, don't hesitate. But also don't hesitate on the education of these drugs. It is rare that you find information that presents usage without a very obvious bias. Either, it is in vein of "it is dangerous, you will die!" or "dude, it's totally cool, just relax and enjoy yourself. In fact, here's a free sample."

The reality, I believe, is it won't happen overnight that these substances become legal. It will be floated out as possible idea over years / decades, and the education will be skewed toward the, "you will die!" side of the equation. Guess what? Prescription drugs can have severe adverse effects, including death. And education on that is hush hush until trial lawyers become our 'teachers.'

There is almost no doubt that the day any of these substances are legalized (with little education that is balanced), there will be huge parties on that day. Parties that could last years, and foster attitudes of "F-off man, nothing you can do to me now that it's legal. Yeah! Let's keep the party going all night!" But I think over time (perhaps as much as 3 decades) the thrill of it will die down. 3 decades assumes no balanced education, all things equal to what they are now. Far less than 3 decades if we are honest about use of these substances with ourselves and our offspring.

My final point is, we've tried it the other way, and it has gone on far more than 3 decades and the war is not being won. In fact, it seems like it is being tilted in the other direction, with a very steep price. It also seems put on backburner considering other wars we have going on. And because black market is chosen way to continue dealing with this issue, I am at point where I do not feel (much) sorrow for fallen soldier on the "good" side. When I hear of such a death, my attitude is, legalize now, or expect many more of those.

That comment deserves a facepalm

Dude, you can't legalize all controlled substance and say "as long as you know the risks its ok." I have seen whole families torn apart over "smack" (heroin) and "blow"( cocaine). When dope addicts don't have the money to satisfy their fix they come to hospitals to get high. They don't have medical insurance so they come in as cash accounts and basically get their basic high (Ativan, demoral etc) then get released after doctors find nothing wrong with them. The minimal stay by these addicts alone is thousands of dollars and taxpayers foot the bill. So you're saying by your logic that just because there is a drug war and since we are not fighting it efficiently or aren't winning we legalize it? Yet you offer no solution to the increase in medical expenses and how it directly willeffect taxpayers? Again your logic is flawed

 

[Vendetta]

Well saying "addicts don't get help" is fallacious. There are places to go to get help but this requires "personal energy." That is almost saying there is no help for people with mental disorders. Listen, this is how most addicts work. Yes you have one or two addicts that do indeed get help. Some addicts go through severe withdrawl effects (usually heroin addicts) both physiological and psychological and eventually some come out clean. Now here is where the kicker comes in. Most addicts relapse come from "recollection spots" such as the slums where they shoot up at, or subway stations, or liquor stores, places that reminds them of their habit. So when they relapse you have a cyclical event that occurs. Decriminalizing wont help because you can't force people to be rehabilitated and even if you do you send them out back in their environment and trust them to stay clean. So now you have a poor, homeless, ex-drug addict. Now what? You expel resources to find them a job and place to stay this is why we have half way houses to assist however these places are temporary. Decriminalizing is not enough to fix the problem. In essence, forcing someone to take treatment maybe enough hence is why making it a criminal offense is the best. At least behind bars they can get adequate help. However there are some issues there.

 

[Vendetta]

Cocaine isn't even in league with alcohol if you look at the number of fatalities or addictions per user sample. Cocaine isn't even that addictive of a substance in comparison. It's mostly a psychological withdrawal compared to benzos, alcohol, and heroin.

Anyone who drinks but is a critical of cocaine (or weed, shrooms, acid, ecstasy, mescaline, etc.) is being a hypocrite.

I think the better question would be heroin and meth

Compare:
Estimated Per Capita Death Rates by Drugs

That's death rates. Just because there is less death doesn't mean its less of a problem lol Wow did you fail to see my chart in the beginning?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nicotine products and alcohol kill and damage far more people than all other drugs combined, many times over. Hell, if we're criminalizing things based on how dangerous they are, then automobiles are going to need to go.

 

[Vendetta]

Nicotine products and alcohol kill and damage far more people than all other drugs combined, many times over. Hell, if we're criminalizing things based on how dangerous they are, then automobiles are going to need to go.

Well law makers look at criminal behavior. Compare drug related crimes and you'll see a difference.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well law makers look at criminal behavior. Compare drug related crimes and you'll see a difference.

Right, like when alcohol was illegal.

Do you believe that alcohol should be criminalized? If not, why not?

If it were criminalized, what benefits do you see resulting from this?

 

[Mathematician]

That's death rates. Just because there is less death doesn't mean its less of a problem lol Wow did you fail to see my chart in the beginning?

Uh, it definitely implies that cocaine is less of a problem if alcohol is more deadly, has worse withdrawal symptoms, and is more likely to send someone back to rehab - especially since we're talking about a drug that is expensive due to its criminality and thus is consumed by every means process to prolong the high. Have you ever met someone who shot up alcohol? I have, and it's not a pretty picture. Most people don't experiment with alcohol through IV because it's legal. If the high [okay, down] ends, you buy more.

Moderate consumption of cocaine is no worse than moderate consumption of alcohol. I know people in their forties who use "white lady" and they're just as fit as anyone else. All the symptoms you listed occur from alcohol consumption, too. Lungs, kidneys, livers, etc. All are impacted.

Speaking of age, the one bit of evidence that you have of cocaine being worse than alcohol - that more of its users exhibit "addictive qualities" - is really dubious as well as misleading since cocaine users are, on average, younger than alcohol drinkers. Young adults binge on everything, but because cocaine is illegal as one ages one is less likely to use cocaine or risk career goals to being jailed.

If a substance kills less people per sample of users, is less addictive, and equally (not more) damaging to one's health than alcohol, I call that less of a problem.

 

[Mathematician]

Dude, you can't legalize all controlled substance and say "as long as you know the risks its ok." I have seen whole families torn apart over "smack" (heroin) and "blow"( cocaine). When dope addicts don't have the money to satisfy their fix they come to hospitals to get high. They don't have medical insurance so they come in as cash accounts and basically get their basic high (Ativan, demoral etc) then get released after doctors find nothing wrong with them. The minimal stay by these addicts alone is thousands of dollars and taxpayers foot the bill. So you're saying by your logic that just because there is a drug war and since we are not fighting it efficiently or aren't winning we legalize it? Yet you offer no solution to the increase in medical expenses and how it directly willeffect taxpayers? Again your logic is flawed

Yet everything you submit as a fault of heroin or cocaine occurs regularly with alcohol. Indeed even lesser drugs like caffeine are abused by some users to the point that people have died from caffeine pills or consuming ten energy drinks a day. Heck, some people die from theobromine in chocolate.

Gun crime is a problem in the United States as well, but your preventive solution would be to take guns away from everyone -- including responsible users.