Drug Legalization: How far is too far?

[Terr Fangbite]

So rather than try to mitigate the effects on non-users, with strict driving under the influence laws, mandatory non-smoking sections in places of public accomidation, etc., you'd prefer the titanic expense, corruption, and violence of prohibition laws which will be widely ignored anyway. Is this an accurate summary of your argument?

Frankly your arguement is as bad as mine. You talk of titantic expense, corruption and violence of prohibiton, but with many/most drugs, any restrictions are ignored or stupid.

Smoking areas don't work because guess what, air circulates. Seperate ventalation helps, but even then when I'm at a resteraunt which allows smoking in some parts, I can still smell it (which means that they are virtually forcing me to smoke as well.) Someone rights are going to be stomped here. A person's right to kill themselves vs a person's right not to have to suffer from a habit thats not even his. Guess what, I side with the person's right not to suffer from another's habit.

Also, you speak of strict driving laws against drunk driving etc. Places have them. Guess what. People still get drunk and drive. Every day I pass a sign tallying the numbers of death caused by drunk driving. Each day it tacks up. Are you saying that we need to make them harsher? Perhaps we should instead of taking away their liscences (since that doesn't work), put them in prison for the rest of their lives. Your prohibition fails as much as mine so shove it where the sun don't shine.

[Robert Walper]

Except people like me take offense to the idea of dishing out health care funds to assholes who use said drugs. If they're willing to give up health insurance on the basis of drug use, then by all means, fuck up you body all you want. So long as we have a adaquate system in place to reduce dead druggies into fertilizer for crops to feed starving people of the world.

Wrong. You like living in a society where people are free to make their own choices, that necessarily means paying for other people's bad ones.

Yes, in our society we pay for other people's bad decisions, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent them from being made in the first place. The best method of countering those decisions is education IMO.

At any rate, nobody has ever shown me a shred of evidence that recreational drug use has anywhere near the impact on health care costs that obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and longevity itself do. And once again, you've failed to take the costs of prohibition into account.

I'm not disputing your listed problems as being very prominent and much higher on the cost scale (we're trying to combat these as well, and rightfully so). However, I don't see that as an arguement to dismiss other, although relatviely smaller, problems. Particularily problems such as drug usage, which is a choice I believe is do to poor education and poor judgement.

EDIT: And by the way, you asswipe, just what the fuck do you think ethanol is? You really are a self-righteous little turd. In one thread, you're proclaiming that "drug users" should be barred from health insurance to save you a quarter-cent on the dollar or whatever minimal savings you get, and in another, you're talking about how you went drinking last night!

My dispute is with the people who chose to do seriously damaging and harmful drugs, and make the rest of us pay for their bad decisions and larger effects of doing so. Essentially, harming themselves and society by virtue of stupidity.

Oh, and as for your suggestion for the bodies of drug users, and the implication that they're more useful dead than alive: I have friends who OD'd and died, and I have other friends who nearly joined them.

Sorry RI, I didn't actually mean to imply the bodies of drug users are "more useful" as fertilizer. The point I was trying to get across is that drug users are harming themselves (sometimes fatally) and others around them by their choices, and then made a jab at them in an admittedly crude fashion. I don't consider that morally acceptable.

However, I will offer an apology for my comment. I'm sorry to hear about your lost friends, and those whom you've almost lost.

But I stand by my assertion doing drugs that are seriously harmful is pretty stupid, and I don't like the idea of paying for it.

[Robert Walper]

I don't think that violent inducing drugs should be allowed.

Also, I sure as hell am not going to pay for some other guy's rehab.

So what do you do with poor addicts who want to clean up? Tell them "tough luck"? How is that cheaper in the long term?

It's the ones that don't want to clean up, or are too stupid to even try that piss me off. And frankly, they've already demostrated stupidity by putting themselves in that position in the first place, regardles if they want to shape up afterwards.

Hence, I think the best solution is education, and basically getting it through some people's skulls that doing certain things just isn't worth it.

[aerius]

Crystal meth and PCP is where I draw the line, these drugs make people delusional, violent, and psychotic as well as making them damn near immune to pain with superhuman strength in the case of PCP. There is no safe way to use PCP other than when the user is locked in a padded cell or straitjacketed and strapped down to a sturdy object. Those drugs are a definite no-no.

Cocaine & heroin I'm not sure. I know that both can be pretty damn addictive with nasty side effects, but the same can be said of tobacco & alcohol, they're all physically addictive drugs. If legalized, I think there should be more restrictions on them than marijuana or magic mushrooms, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of college students holding a cocaine party.

As for weed, shrooms, nitrous, MDMA, well, as long as the person's an adult he can go nuts with them. Obviously there needs to be laws against driving under the influence and so forth, but other than that people should be free to get high as a kite.

Should drugs be legalized, there will almost certainly be an initial increase in healthcare costs & lost productivity as people take advantage of their new freedoms, but I think it will level off at slightly above the baseline costs after a few years as the novelty wears off. On the plus side, a lot of criminals are completely put out of business overnight which frees up a lot of law enforcement resources for better uses. If the policy's adopted throughout North America trade can be sped up significantly, same with tourism since we don't have to screen everyone and everything for drugs.

[Robert Walper]

Personally, I draw the line at drinking alcohol. I'm not addicted to it (nor will I ever be), and it's effects for me are harmless if used responsibly. I can't say the same for a lot of the harder shit out there people like to do. Nor do I understand why they'd want to.

[aerius]

Smoking areas don't work because guess what, air circulates. Seperate ventalation helps, but even then when I'm at a resteraunt which allows smoking in some parts, I can still smell it (which means that they are virtually forcing me to smoke as well.) Someone rights are going to be stomped here. A person's right to kill themselves vs a person's right not to have to suffer from a habit thats not even his. Guess what, I side with the person's right not to suffer from another's habit.

Smoking only restaurants. Non-smoking restaurants. These things exist.

Also, you speak of strict driving laws against drunk driving etc. Places have them. Guess what. People still get drunk and drive. Every day I pass a sign tallying the numbers of death caused by drunk driving. Each day it tacks up. Are you saying that we need to make them harsher? Perhaps we should instead of taking away their liscences (since that doesn't work), put them in prison for the rest of their lives. Your prohibition fails as much as mine so shove it where the sun don't shine.

This is an enforcement and prosecution problem. In other words, it's damn near impossible to make drunk driving charges stick thanks to the sympathetic judges, and when you do get a conviction, there's no system in place to follow up and enforce it. The system can be easily put in place and fixed, there's just no political will to do so. Talk tough, do shit, business as usual in politics.

[Perinquus]

The real issue with drugs is what people on drugs can do to everyone else. In a world where everyone went to the padded cocaine bar and there they stayed until morning everything is peachy. It's in the world where they go to the crack house, snort up, and try to drive home that you have problems.

Yeah, because we have NO problem with drunk drivers. People stay in bars till morning, and they've safely slept it off. They never get behind the wheel all tanked up. I'm sure it would work out just as ideally for hard drugs like cocaine.

[Castor Troy]

I don't think that violent inducing drugs should be allowed.

Also, I sure as hell am not going to pay for some other guy's rehab.

So what do you do with poor addicts who want to clean up? Tell them "tough luck"? How is that cheaper in the long term?

No, I'm saying that I shouldn't have to take their falls when it's not my responsibility.

You may be right, though. It probably would be cheaper than having to pay their prison costs.

[Frank Hipper]

The real issue with drugs is what people on drugs can do to everyone else. In a world where everyone went to the padded cocaine bar and there they stayed until morning everything is peachy. It's in the world where they go to the crack house, snort up, and try to drive home that you have problems.

Yeah, because we have NO problem with drunk drivers. People stay in bars till morning, and they've safely slept it off. They never get behind the wheel all tanked up. I'm sure it would work out just as ideally for hard drugs like cocaine.

Do you have something that shows someone high on coke is as impaired and dangerous behind the wheel as someone who's been drinking all night?

[Perinquus]

The real issue with drugs is what people on drugs can do to everyone else. In a world where everyone went to the padded cocaine bar and there they stayed until morning everything is peachy. It's in the world where they go to the crack house, snort up, and try to drive home that you have problems.

Yeah, because we have NO problem with drunk drivers. People stay in bars till morning, and they've safely slept it off. They never get behind the wheel all tanked up. I'm sure it would work out just as ideally for hard drugs like cocaine.

Do you have something that shows someone high on coke is as impaired and dangerous behind the wheel as someone who's been drinking all night?

Nobody impaired on anything belongs behind the wheel of a 4000 lb torpedo, speeding down the road at forty or fifty miles per hour.

You're missing the point in any case. There may be some good arguments in favor of legalizing drugs. This is not one of them.

[J]

Personally, I draw the line at drinking alcohol. I'm not addicted to it (nor will I ever be), and it's effects for me are harmless if used responsibly. I can't say the same for a lot of the harder shit out there people like to do. Nor do I understand why they'd want to.

Why? Because for some people, watching purple & pink polka-dotted elephants march across the walls of their living room is more enjoyable and entertaining than drinking alcohol, acting like a dork, and having the world spin as you attempt to stagger your way towards the washroom to vomit in the bathtub. The effects are better and the side-effects are less severe.

[Zor]

Legalise Marajiuana for those above the age of 21 with restrictions on being stoned similer to those we got for being Drunk now. Tighten Restrictions on Drunkeness and ban Cigerettes completly.

The Government's First Duty is the Protection and Well being of the People, everthing else is a means of Meating said goal. The Law is the means of ensuring the goals are met, and should be used to meat said goals.

Zor

[Perinquus]

Legalise Marajiuana for those above the age of 21 with restrictions on being stoned similer to those we got for being Drunk now. Tighten Restrictions on Drunkeness and ban Cigerettes completly.

The Government's First Duty is the Protection and Well being of the People, everthing else is a means of Meating said goal. The Law is the means of ensuring the goals are met, and should be used to meat said goals.

Zor

How do you justify legalizing marijuana while simultaneously criminilizing tobacco? There's no reason to believe that marijuana smoke is any less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke.

[Keevan_Colton]

How do you justify legalizing marijuana while simultaneously criminilizing tobacco? There's no reason to believe that marijuana smoke is any less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke.

One is physically addictive, while the other is not...which must surely count for something between the two.

[Uraniun235]

Why? Because for some people, watching purple & pink polka-dotted elephants march across the walls of their living room is more enjoyable and entertaining than drinking alcohol, acting like a dork, and having the world spin as you attempt to stagger your way towards the washroom to vomit in the bathtub. The effects are better and the side-effects are less severe.

Not everyone vomits and has hangovers, and I submit that people who are high on other drugs can be complete dorks in their own ways.

[Robert Walper]

Personally, I draw the line at drinking alcohol. I'm not addicted to it (nor will I ever be), and it's effects for me are harmless if used responsibly. I can't say the same for a lot of the harder shit out there people like to do. Nor do I understand why they'd want to.

Why? Because for some people, watching purple & pink polka-dotted elephants march across the walls of their living room is more enjoyable and entertaining than drinking alcohol, acting like a dork, and having the world spin as you attempt to stagger your way towards the washroom to vomit in the bathtub. The effects are better and the side-effects are less severe.

I've only been drunk enough to the point of being sick once, and that was because I didn't know my limits. Afterwards, I learned, and haven't had it happen since.

But that's just my personal choice, and as I said above, it's the harder stuff I dont see the point to (ie: cocaine. heroin, etc).

[Perinquus]

How do you justify legalizing marijuana while simultaneously criminilizing tobacco? There's no reason to believe that marijuana smoke is any less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke.

One is physically addictive, while the other is not...which must surely count for something between the two.

I don't see why. Unless you also advocate a ban on alcohol, which is also physically addictive (and we all know what a resounding success prohibition was the first time around).

[SPOOFE]

Nobody impaired on anything belongs behind the wheel of a 4000 lb torpedo, speeding down the road at forty or fifty miles per hour.

Define "impaired". Does it involve stress or fatigue? Maybe an emotionally distressed person that just got dumped by his girlfriend? Is that person impaired?

What about someone that's stoned? Is he impaired? Even though stoners have a LOWER chance of getting in car accidents than sober people? Should they be prohibited from behind the wheel?

The REAL problem with drugs is that people are poorly educated. Everyone gets the same ol' bullshit "Drugs is bad, mmkay?" line in elementary school, grow up, try it out, and find out just how untrue it is. Any education system that would call marijuana the most dangerous drug is seriously fucked up, and any info or policy that stems from that education is also fucked up.

In my ideal world, everything'd be legal and people would be properly educated about what it does. Won't happen, of course, because we have too many morons that wank off to weekly viewings of Reefer Madness, so I'd content myself with legalizing pot, coke, heroin, psilocybin, LSD, peyote, mescaline, ecstasy, and the like. Can these drugs result in people doing stupid things? Yup. Can chocolate, or TV, or video games, or cars, or love? Yup.

I always chortle when I hear people say "It should ALL be banned, even alcohol or cigarettes!" I always picture these people as living extremely frightened, pathetic lives, cowering in fear that some crazed madman might burst through their door at any moment.

[Zor]

The Government's First Duty is the Protection and Well being of the People, everthing else is a means of Meating said goal. The Law is the means of ensuring the goals are met.

Zor

[SPOOFE]

Legalise Marajiuana for those above the age of 21 with restrictions on being stoned similer to those we got for being Drunk now.

Idiocy. Being drunk and being stoned are two completely different things. That's like saying a license to drive a car should allow you to fly a plane.

[Keevan_Colton]

Legalise Marajiuana for those above the age of 21 with restrictions on being stoned similer to those we got for being Drunk now.

Idiocy. Being drunk and being stoned are two completely different things. That's like saying a license to drive a car should allow you to fly a plane.

Also, in the odd fact front, one study I read indicated that people smoking marajiuana, were less likely to have an accident when driving...strange, but that's the way the results worked out, I'll see if I can find a link.

[Keevan_Colton]

I don't see why. Unless you also advocate a ban on alcohol, which is also physically addictive (and we all know what a resounding success prohibition was the first time around).

And we can all see how well the current prohibition is doing too...

[Xenophobe3691]

How do you justify legalizing marijuana while simultaneously criminilizing tobacco? There's no reason to believe that marijuana smoke is any less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke.

Because Marijuana taken orally removes those benefits. Tobacco taken orally causes cancer of the mouth and throat.

[aerius]

How do you justify legalizing marijuana while simultaneously criminilizing tobacco? There's no reason to believe that marijuana smoke is any less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke.

Because Marijuana taken orally removes those benefits. Tobacco taken orally causes cancer of the mouth and throat.

You mean side-effects. Mmmm...hash brownies and magic pancakes....

[Perinquus]

Nobody impaired on anything belongs behind the wheel of a 4000 lb torpedo, speeding down the road at forty or fifty miles per hour.

Define "impaired". Does it involve stress or fatigue? Maybe an emotionally distressed person that just got dumped by his girlfriend? Is that person impaired?

What about someone that's stoned? Is he impaired? Even though stoners have a LOWER chance of getting in car accidents than sober people? Should they be prohibited from behind the wheel?

Yeah. They should. Because I hardly consider the study so eagerly cited at cannabisculture.com to be the last word on the matter. They have an agenda, so I don't expect them to be objective and tout evidence which would tend to refute their stance, along with evidence which supports it. There are problems with the data gathering for this study. There are no tissue, urine or blood analysis methods currently and systematically (this is the key word) in use outside the laboratory, similar to those available for alcohol, for determining the presence of marihuana in the bodily fluids of drivers, so I'm not sure we can really accurately determine just how high most of these people are. A 1972 report from the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse stated:

The inconclusive and controversial nature of the research to date suggests that there is enough of a potential risk involved to both the individual and the public safety to recommend strongly against driving while intoxicated-no matter what the intoxicant. Although marihuana does not seem to produce serious impairments of driving skills or performance, to say that the drug does not at all adversely affect driving behavior or that it may not be a factor in traffic violations or accidents is to misrepresent the current state of knowledge.

Even though this report is now over 30 years old, I think that its conclusion is still valid. The evidence is inconclusive enough that we should err on the side of caution, and prohibit one from driving while one is under the influence of any intoxicant.