Legalise all drugs

[Darius871]

While I'm all for legalizing all drugs in principle, in practice I have to think that bulk quantities of meth, crack, & heroin being freely available at any corner drugstore at a lowered price would undoubtedly cause rates of chronic addiction to skyrocket.

That being said, I'd only support full legalization with one condition: that any chronic addict be admitted to publicly-funded treatment programs only three times, and that's it. After that point no more free treatment, no more welfare eligibility, no nothing; they have to take responsibility for the consequences of their decision not to A) keep clean or B) limit to recreational use. Otherwise we're looking at tens of millions of people perpetually on the government payroll just so they can keep getting their fix, which doesn't comport with the real reasons we're supposed to have a social safety net.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'm sorry, I don't see your distinction between the two...

"Taking it" I presume to be the tax idea, but what is "getting a piece of the action"?

I thought you meant "taking it" as in confiscating drug money. Taxing it would be "getting a piece of the action."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
heroin and cocaine weren't readily available until traffickers switched from pot. The demand before that time was much lower than it became when those drugs were introduced to replace pot. If you have pot and never heard of cocaine, your demand for cocaine dont register.

Waht about Extacy, Meth, PCP? All due to the same thing?

[Wezil]

No. not what I meant. The thread title is inclusive ("all drugs") and the government already taxes the hell out of cigartettes and booze. They have a piece of the action in that sense.

I wasn't necessarily arguing against you when you said taxing drugs would be morally wrong, I was simply pointing out that if it is wrong, we are already doing it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Cocaine was a big time during during the last quarter of the 19th century, Heroin made it's big appearence after WW1. Marijuana didn't really break into the mainstream until the 1950s and 1960s. Both became illegal long before tricky Dick became a twinkle in his daddy's eye and both have been the subject of a significant drug 'war' since before any of us were born. Cocaine was quite popular before 1900, but became virtually unobtainable for nearly a half century. Heroin use in the US has waxed and waned several times. It was popular around the time of WW1, then it was virtually eradicated, then it came back into a sort of popularity among some groups in the 1950s and then its usage waned again in the 1970s as other drugs, like marijuana and cocaine became popular.

The real reason these drugs have grown in popularity in the past decades is modern transportation, communication and distribution. One might also note that the first generation in which a majority of the young people went to college was also the generation which introduced the masses to recreational drugs. Colleges have been a great venue for introducing a diverse crowd to recreational drugs. I really doubt that the "war" on marijuana had much to do with the growth of cocaine or heroin usage. Think, has there ever been a time (in the past 4 decades) when marijuana became so scarce that people had to switch to cocaine? I don't think so. Marijuana is too easy to grow locally. It can even be grown in cities. Marijuana has the draw back that gangs can't really control it. Cocaine and Heroin have to be imported, so cartels can make big bucks from sales because they control a large segment of the pipeline. What marijuana did was introduce people to the concept of recreational drugs and give them contact with the snakes who encourage them to try the cocaine and heroine from which the snakes make the really big money.

Anyway, none of you guys really have much experience with the problems the drugs cause, so your opinions are skewed by a lack of consideration of a major part of the equation.

[Berzerker]

Synthetics came later and probably would have with or without prohibition as the catalyst (we have modern science to thank for that), but banning "natural" drugs sure did nothing to stem the future demand of synthetics and it is fact that banning pot led to a large increase in cocaine and heroin trafficking. Furthermore, when pot is demonized and teens smoke it and find out they were fed alot of BS, they are less likely to trust the authorities' claims about other drugs that are not nearly as benign.

Drugs, from tobacco and booze on down follow a roughly hierarchical pattern wrt demand. When all drugs were legal in this country, the pattern of use was not that different to today. When people could choose, most went with alcohol and/or tobacco. But some people dont like either, and they discovered a fondness for pot, or something else. Now meth was a synthetic version of caffeine, albeit much more effective. So even that drug had its predecessor already in demand.

Obviously mankind demands "experimentation" and with it goes drugs, and demand is driven by personality which means some drugs will be popular while others will see more limited use.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Anyway, none of you guys really have much experience with the problems the drugs cause, so your opinions are skewed by a lack of consideration of a major part of the equation.

My exwife is a crystal meth addict.

[Berzerker]

There was no "drug war" until Nixon declared his war on those pot smokin hippies (not including alcohol prohibition). Before that certain drugs were illegal but the Feds were not nearly as active and logistically incapable of waging a modern drug war. We have the stories of the actual traffickers telling us how they switched from pot to cocaine and heroin because of Nixon's border crackdown. We spent a few weeks literally trying to search everything coming from Mexico and the border became a mess with the trip taking hours just to get thru inspections.

[Aeson]

I could go get virtually anything I want in a few minutes... and I've never used drugs. It's not like it's rare or hard to get or anything.

If distribution and use (at least the "before getting hooked and losing everything" use) isn't curbed by making it illegal, why not tax it through legal channels, and hopefully reduce the money going into criminal hands? Take the money used to prosecute the drug war, money from taxing drug import/sale, and do something useful with it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
it is fact that banning pot led to a large increase in cocaine and heroin trafficking.

That's not a fact at all. You do that about a lot of stuff.

Furthermore, when pot is demonized and teens smoke it and find out they were fed alot of BS, they are less likely to trust the authorities' claims about other drugs that are not nearly as benign.

They aren't fed a lot of BS. Marijuana is a very bad drug. It's just not as bad as other drugs. I don't think anyone says that it is.

Drugs, from tobacco and booze on down follow a roughly hierarchical pattern wrt demand. When all drugs were legal in this country, the pattern of use was not that different to today. When people could choose, most went with alcohol and/or tobacco. But some people dont like either, and they discovered a fondness for pot, or something else. Now meth was a synthetic version of caffeine, albeit much more effective. So even that drug had its predecessor already in demand.

Obviously mankind demands "experimentation" and with it goes drugs, and demand is driven by personality which means some drugs will be popular while others will see more limited use.

I don't know what the point of all this is. Drug addiction is a mental illness. People don't abuse drugs because of what the govt does.

[Berzerker]

Anyway, none of you guys really have much experience with the problems the drugs cause, so your opinions are skewed by a lack of consideration of a major part of the equation.

You mean because our lives aren't ruined by drugs we should rely on those who cant moderate their use? I'd say your opinion is skewed because you deal with only the people who cant moderate while most of us can and do...

My exwife is a crystal meth addict.

I liked crystal meth, I lost alot of weight using that stuff. But I never shot the stuff into my veins, seems to be a link between that and level of addiction.

[Wezil]

I strictly avoid all injectables.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I liked crystal meth, I lost alot of weight using that stuff. But I never shot the stuff into my veins, seems to be a link between that and level of addiction.

People don't start by injecting it. Their addiction progresses to the point where they start doing that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You mean because our lives aren't ruined by drugs we should rely on those who cant moderate their use? I'd say your opinion is skewed because you deal with only the people who cant moderate while most of us can and do...



I liked crystal meth, I lost alot of weight using that stuff. But I never shot the stuff into my veins, seems to be a link between that and level of addiction.

Most people who use crystal meth, even to lose weight (probably most of them), are addicted to drugs. You may have a different experience, but it's quite unique.

[Berzerker]

That's not a fact at all. You do that about a lot of stuff.

Really? I rarely declare a statement I've made as fact...but rather than smear me with "you do that alot" you didn't even try to explain why it isn't fact. It is fact, we have the testimonies of people sitting in jail because they got busted trafficking in cocaine and heroin once pot became too risky. If you dont know the history, dont tell me about what is or is not fact.

They aren't fed a lot of BS. Marijuana is a very bad drug.

It's just not as bad as other drugs. I don't think anyone says that it is.

Thanks for agreeing then But pot has a 5,000 year history with a fatality rate of damn near zero. How many other drugs have that kind of record?