Drug legalization

G

glock glockler

New member
I do not intend to start a big flame here and there will be a great diversity of opinions here, many of them very strong, but what Im hoping for is an unbiased cost/benefit analysis.

The pros and cons of Drug legalization (and only Drug legalization).

Pros
-no more drug czars
-increased medical traetment possibilities
-safer drug use
-ecomonic revenues from the sale of drugs

Cons
-more overdoses
-greater health care costs (paying for all the addicts)
-increased addicts due to greater availability

Im probably missing a bunch but I hope this will be a start. The purpose of this is just to get an idea of the effects of such a change, not a debate about the moral/philisophical grounds the decision would be made on. Also, this would be complete legalization, with all currently banned substances being available, marijuana right through crack.
 
Increased addicts due to increased availability? Come on, many start because it's forbidden fruit.

How many here have bought a gun because you believe it's going to be banned?

Dope bans are amoral. Same arguments can be made pro/con for gun rights. You can get high sniffing aerosol/gasoline, just as you can kill with a non-scary-looking gun.


The big losers would be the penal system - without victimless crimes and those that spawn from the drug prices prohibition causes - would only be murderers, thieves and rapists in jail!!


Battler.
 
How about legalization pro would be - the end of half the crime and killings in this country. Most of the BS that fuels the war on guns is caused by the war on drugs. Maybe that is why they like the war onm drugs - because it makes it easier for them to take more of our rights away.

------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
 
On the con side, you'd better add:

* more car accidents and the attendant rise in dead bodies in local morgues
* more school dropouts
* higher rates of (cancer? neurologic diseases? etc -- depending on the drug in question, and we won't know for years what the health toll would be). Given that the taxpayers usually end up footing at least some of the medical bills, this might offset the financial gain from taxing sales.

Pros would include the obvious ones already mentioned, plus

* fewer people in jail (that's a financial as well as a morale improvement)
* improved respect for the law by removing some unenforceable laws

I'm sure there are more on both sides of the ledger.

But why limit it to a simple cost:benefit analysis? If removing those laws is right, then it should be done. If it's wrong it shouldn't.

Is it a fundamental human right to decide for yourself what you will and will not put into your body? If it is, then laws restricting drug use are just plain wrong and should be done away with.

Note, I'm not a drug user and think most drug users are idiots and losers. The stuff almost always destroys one's drive, and frequently one's mind, body, and family as well. It is pernicious and evil.

But shouldn't people be allowed to choose their own roads to Hades?

pax

"A sobering thought: what if, at this very moment, I am living up to my full potential?" -- Lily Tomlin
 
I'm still just as set against the use of drugs as ever. I've never tried any that was not given to me by my doctor. However, having said that, what I see being done to our rights as a result of this war are not worth the benefits of trying to save some dopper from killing themself.

Besides, I've always had a question. If it took an amendment to ban alcohol then how are they getting away with banning drugs? Don't make sense to me, other than some people feel that stopping someone from taking drugs is more important than the constitution. Well I don't think so.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Do you pro-legalization people really want to give a private company or even the G themselves a product that is instantly addictive? Look at what the tobacco companies did to manipulate people by altering nicotine levels, imagine what a company would do with opiates, cocaine, and other drugs.

We see enough of these drugged up addicts in hospitals as it is...especially the sad long term addicts...every major system is damaged ranging from pulmonary, cardiovascular to hepatic. It's a disease and should be decrimininalized but allowing easy access to that s**t is not the solution.

Remember just my opinion, you think I'm wrong thats cool.

~bamf
 
This fallacious comparison of psychedelic and hypnotic drugs with alcohol keeps coming up so often that people forget to compare the mental effects of one beer with the effects of one joint.

C'mon, people, dopers reproduce and vote for idiots that share their virtual-reality world view. They're like cockroaches, flies, and mold: they indicate a condition of profound intellectual decay.
 
I'm of the opinion that throughout history, there have always been a certain percentage of the population that will destroy their lives on whatever substance is available. Opium was big in the 19th century. This century there have been more choices.
By the way, to claim that everyone will rush out and buy drugs when legalized, is really silly. Everclear is legal. I didn't rush out and purchase a liter of it just because.
Legalizing at least for medical use and prescription, Marijuanna would be nice. If Mr. Clinton can smoke pot for kicks, then why is it my good friend who has colon cancer cannot smoke pot to deal with pain, nausea, and appetite stimulation?
Why is it that a doctor can prescribe so much that can kill you, but can't prescribe a substance that is neither dangerous, nor addictive (OK, a little addictive, just below tylenol 3)?
I say make it legal. All of it. I don't like big brother telling me what I can and can't put in my body.
 
I don't know if this is a fair comparision (sp) but here goes. In the 1920's, when alcohol was prohibited, it set forth the creation of organized crime, which is still with us today. The government, in all it's "wisdom" thought that it could help "society" by banning alcohol. This caused a worse problem, of which we still live with today (organized crime, unConstitutional gun laws, etc..). Now, many people out there do not, will not, and think others should not consume alcohol, but that is their choice and it will not come about again due to the government failed experiment (unless the sheeple get dumber... and I can see that happening). This new hit on tobacco will help organized crime to find a new foot hold to again gain power (black markets which are already starting). The ban's on guns or a total ban on guns will create the same monster that was created during prohibition. Now, this so called drug war. Already, we've seen how "great" it's working. All drugs are illegal, unless prescribed by a doctor, and if prescribed, not on the "evil" list of the feds, A.K.A. Marijuana(sp) or else it's still illegal, no matter what the States say. We've seen first hand the way Rights are stripped away, for the cause, how our prisons (of which the taxpayers fund) are over flowing due to drug crimes (as in, drug users, not the king pins), for the cause, how much money is "given", which is our money, to stop the flow of drugs but barely makes a dent in the "war". The way our military and it's resources are being used to "combat" this problem while being spread thin to places such as Kosovo, the Balkins, and other places which are just as bad. The first rule of any business is: If the demand is there, there will always be a way to supply that demand, Supply and Demand. I believe in having the choice to partake of anything that is natural, the "weed", peote, surumes (sp) (the mushroom things). I don't like or agree with man made drugs, but if the demand is there, so will be the supply. But, I think with all the billions we're wasting on this "drug war", maybe we could come up with a way to get people off man made drugs and just legalize the natural stuff. USP45usp

Sorry for the rant and the misspellings.. government school system ya know.
 
Bamf: No, actually that's the long term story of drugs when they're ILLEGAL. You know, no quality control, never knowing what it's cut with, or what the proper dosage is, sterile needles outlawed, no research into how to make the drugs safer, just how to make new ones with ingredients which haven't been banned yet, pushing the more powerful drugs because the smaller bulk is easier to smuggle... The most popular way of consuming cocaine before the war on drugs was in low concentrations in soft-drinks! Sold that way, it was aproximately as dangerous as caffine.

People in the medical community have a twisted viewpoint on just about anything; Drugs, guns, riding a bike without a helmet... Comes from only seeing the cases where things worked out badly, I guess. You get to thinking that the people being carried into the emergency room are somehow a representative sample of what's going on in the real world, and not what they really are: The exceptions.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Cons
-more overdoses
-greater health care costs (paying for all the addicts) [/quote]

If drugs were legal they would be of standardized concentration (and probably come in measured doses) so people wouldn't accidentally take too much.

They would also be cut with safe inert material, not just any white powder that
the dealer happens to have. This might prevent some of the medical problems.

Also if it was legal to smoke/snort/swallow drugs but not to do them intravenously,
wouldn't more people stay with the safer method?
 
My solution:

Generally, don't "legalize" the currently illegal drugs, BUT DO "de-criminalize" them by (a) drastically reducing the sentencing; and (b) drastically reducing the amount of enforcement. The specific, practical steps are:

1. Take the entire federal law enforcement budget (the alphabet soup - FBI, DEA, ATF, SS, PI, etc.), and slash it to one third of its current amount.

2. Take the remaining 2/3 rds of the money, put 1/2 of it into drug treatment centers and some anti-drug education measures, and give the other 1/2 back to the people with a tax cut.

Result: Since treatment dollars go seven times further than enforcement dollars in reducing drug use, and something like 20 times further than interdiction dollars, drug use will drastically decline. The massive slashing of fed LEOs will go a long way toward practically restoring our civil rights, and we still get money back. And the people with moral or religious objections to legalizing drugs can still be satisfied that they're "illegal", so the political support would be easier to come by. Any questions?
 
Read about the use of opium in China in the last century. Because of the widespread corruption the drug was defacto legal. Legalization is not the solution. The solution is more self-respect and better ways of spending your time than being high/stoned/drunk etc. There are lots of interesting and usefull things to do in this world that do not involve altering your brain chemistry.
 
Unfortunately, we don't live in a Libertarian society. If we did, drug legalization would probably be cost effective.

As it stands now, nobody is responsible for thier own predicament. If we legalized drugs tomorrow, the dopers would form political groups and exploit thier voting block. They are, after all, VICTIMS by the current political definition. The Dems would love another group of self-selected victims to pander to.

We'd have them all on Social Security within 5 years and probably be buying thier dope for them within 8 years.

If we had a more Libertarian form of gubmint, the dopers would have to suffer the consequences of their own decisions. When they stuck the needle in thier arm, they'd be slowly killing themselves off, which is fine. With no gubmint sponsored support mechanisms, they wouldn't last long.

The rest of us could carry at all times to protect ourselves, and the dopers would quickly die off due to not being able to find easy victims.

Until we change the Socialist mentality in this country, we cannot cost-effectively legalize dope.
 
Let's see, who do I fear more, some jackass pot-head with a tie-died shirt and beads, or an army of troops, masquerading as DEA agents?
As much as I hate street drugs, there are some excellent physicians and nurses I know personally who use things like morphine, Valium, and amphetamines, and I must admit that it doesn't appear to have the negative consequences that might be expected. Just as not every person who takes a sip of alcohol is a wife-beating lowlife, not every person who uses illicit drugs is a worthless mass of flesh. In fact, the founder of John's Hopkins medical school was a morphine addict his entire life. I think your behavioral proclivities and eventual achievements have more to do with your self-respect, interests, and motivation, that any drugs you may put into your body.
For example, a person with no interests or motivations, attempts to escape reality by keeping himself high so he doesn't have to come to terms with his miserable existence. In this case, the individual is more at fault for his plight and the drugs are merely a symptom of his own psychological unfitness.
On the other hand, there are college students for example, who are so hell bent upon achieving great things and getting into top-ranked graduate schools, that they will ocassionally dabble in drugs such as amphetamines which enhance one's mental stamina and have been shown to hasten the aquisition of skills and knowledge (in fact, we all know that Ritalin is nothing more than a powerful amphetamine prescribed for kids in hopes that it will enhance their attention span).
The latter group (I have known many of the type) are fully functional and exceptionally well-adjusted, and (gasp) often successful.
So, all propoganda and false perceptions aside, the mindset that exists before drugs are consumed will likely determine the ultimate effect that the drugs will have on one's life.
 
In the short term you would probably see a rise in the number of users maybe even addicts. This would probably level off in a few years as most people in this country are not yet midless buttheads and can in fact think for themselves and make sound decisions. No matter what there is a percentage of peopleout there with no self-respect and no desire to earn it. These are the current hard core users and they will be the future users. The thing is if it was legal and safe you could better control the spread of many diseases, like AIDS, hepatitis... so you medical cost may even drop. With research, the actual drugs could be made safer, less adictive and have fewer toxic components mixed in. You would have to however get away from the socialist model for government, as in NO government subsidies for drugs or drug users. The billions of dollars we blow on enforcement could be better spent on education and in the long run youd see better schools, teachers and more productive graduating students. Low income people could actually go to college... Unfortunately hundreds of thousands of beurocrats would actually have to get real jobs, which they are not about to. The prison system would no longer have available to it relatively easily controled slave labor, but rather actually have hard core criminals to deal with. PD's could no longer seize their favorite plots of land, cars, cash, ...to resell at a profit.
 
tax, tax, and tax some more, with all revenues going into anti-drug programs and a large drug treatment budget. I don't do drugs, i don't even drink, but that's no reason not to let another able-minded adult choose what he wants to put in his body.
 
Oh boy ... here we go again.

Most, if not all of us on TFL are pro RKBA. Many of us have read a great deal about this fundamental right so that we understand it better, and so that we can present our arguments in a more cogent fashion.

For those who hold on to the so-called War on Drugs like a beacon in the night, I wish you would consider reading and studying this issue carefully as well. So many assumptions are really ... silly. 'Instantly addictive' drugs? That's a pretty obvious overstatement in almost all cases.

This argument is pointless. We need to stack more bodies (civilians and LEO's), incarcerate more people, confiscate more property, spend more money and destroy more of the Bill of Rights. When it gets absolutely intolerable, then we'll finally give it up. Too bad it has to go that way, but apparently that is the only thing that will change people's minds. Hopefully there will be enough of America, and the Constitution left to save.

Yeah ... I'm not very optimistic about this one ...

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited July 07, 2000).]
 
If you want to reduce drug-related crime, take drugs out of the hands of criminals.

If you want to reduce overdoses and impurity related injuries, introduce industrial quality control and liability.

If you want to reduce the number of lives wasted because of drugs, the ministry, psychiatry or *honest* anti-drug advocacy (very rare) should help more than prohibition.

Remember, the only consistent result of prohibition of things people want is the creation of a black market and its attendant corruption.

Notice, when alcohol prohibition was ended consumption did rise for a *short* time. Then it fell to levels below Prohibition levels. BTW why did they passed a Constitutional Amendment to institute Prohibition? (Hint: prohibition is almost as un-Constitutional as gun control.)

Consider, more damage has been done to the Bill of Rights in the name of the WoD than for any other cause.

Imagine, it is possible to be against drugs AND against tyranny at the same time.

Bentley

“A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live other than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.”
-- Ludwig von Mises
 
The Experiment is under way right now, in Switzerland.

The first time the Swiss tried to set up a "free fire zone" in a city park ( Zurich, I think ) it was a big disaster.

Second try was when they got a new Minister of Public Health, this is the person who is in charge of the entire National Health Orginazation.

This person decided that drug abuse was *not* a moral question ( as it is in this country ) but a medical problem and therefore came under his jurisdiction.

Clinics were set up in a couple of cities as a trial, anyone can come in and request a dose of their favorite poison.

The drug of choice is loaded into a sterile needle and the syringe given to the "customer" TO BE USED ON THE SPOT, no fair taking it home to use later.

The customer sits on a stool in a clean tiled room, they are observed thru a one-way mirror by trained medical personnell, and when they are ready to leave, they are free to go.

You will never read about this in this country, unless you can read German, and have access to back issues of "Die Stern" one of Germanys best news weeklys.

After six months, the Swiss had assembled some interesting statistics.

Crime ( burglary, muggings ) dropped immediately by 25% fell further to half of the pre-clinic level.

Quite a few of the "customers" kicked drugs eventually, I guess the clinical atmosphere just took most of the "kick" out of it.

Its cheaper, overall- the Swiss are notoriously frugal, and they have reckoned there is a savings of 2.50 Swiss Franks per day, per customer, over the cost of arresting the person and booking, overnight in jail, etc.

This all started over a year ago and I have read nothing further on the subject, I do know that the German Health Minister was watching the entire "test" quite closely with an eye to starting up a similar program in a couple of German cities.

So it would seem there are viable alternatives to the "system' we have in this country, but you will never see things change here for one very important reason, MONEY

Two groups of people have a vested intrest in the status quo, people who sell drugs, and the people who are supposed to stop them.

Legalize drugs would put both groups out of work, and they will fight for their livelyhood

Rant Mode Off <s>

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top