[MikeD]

They should be legalized. Prohibition should end.

My theories of social cost are BS in the face of the real social and financial cost of dealing with this as a criminal issue.

No one gets in gunfights with the police over illegal liquor anymore, right? Drunks are drunks and we deal with them...

Many drug addicts will still become criminals if it's legal, obviously...hard to work if you're an addict and an addict needs money...but putting someone in jail for robbery is better than doing it for possession or use of drugs.

MD

PS Yes, VB, you were right. I don't think it's a good solution, but a "least-bad" way to deal with it, as The Economist so notably noted.

 

[kidwoo]

The man™ got you guarding poppy fields?

 

[Silver]

You talking total, or just pot?

Because if you're going the legalize route, it's really an all or nothing deal...

 

[sanjuro]

Common sense fails again.

You mean you trust coke heads, meth addicts, and junkies in the same way you do with pot smokers?

 

[MikeD]

I think they are two different things, but I've pretty much always been for the legalization of pot. I'm talking hard drugs.

 

[MikeD]

Sanjuro, what's trust got to do with anything? (As I note, I expect a lot of true addicts to be criminals to support their addictions...)

I just don't think illegality keeps drug use from being widespread or not, and the resources we're wasting (around the world) fighting it could better be used in smaller part to combat the bad societal effects of them without necessitating the current "war," which is enriching drug lords unimaginably...

It's only something I've recently come to think--I totally understand the positive aspects of illegality, but have decided they don't outweigh the negatives.

 

[Silver]

Common sense fails again.

You mean you trust coke heads, meth addicts, and junkies in the same way you do with pot smokers?

No, the problem is that the externalities created by the prohibition of the substances causes more harm than the legalization of said substances.

Why are you so worried about drug addicts, anyways? You don't want them to become addicted, so you're fine with the police shooting an elderly lady in a botched drug raid? What kind of monster are you?

 

[IH8Rice]

I think they are two different things, but I've pretty much always been for the legalization of pot. I'm talking hard drugs.

but marijuana is the gateway drug maannnnn

 

[ire]

The war on drugs has failed miserably...I think legalization with taxation and using the money gained for rehab/prevention education would be a better approach. I doubt it could be any worse than the current situation.

 

[MikeD]

My only question, remaining from my previous views, is will this really end the criminal empires? Addicts want cheap drugs. Criminals will supply them taxless and probably badly adulterated/cut, which desperate addicts will probably flock to. Will legal (taxed) drugs be so cheap as to prevent this?

Edit: I'm dumb. Legal drugs can be cut, too...sold based on purity/strength, and cut with non-hazardous fillers unlike some crap from the street. Think Thunderbird, the Heroin. Morally, however, this still kinda bothers me...tinfoil hats already claim the gov is feeding the poor drugs...when we're reaping tax benefits from addiction, what have we become? That said, a productive non-addict probably generates more income tax than an addict, I guess.

 

[IH8Rice]

im sure the pushers will find something else to sell to the mindless droves of people looking for that next fix...whatever that might be

 

[sanjuro]

One thing the speculators of "Legalize All Drugs" fail to think about is what does that mean?

After you "decriminalize" illegal drugs, what's next? Buying heroin from the corner store? Applying for a cocaine users' license? Having a methamphetamine tavern?

That's the difference between pot and those other drugs. Lots of people smoke pot and I don't see a big change in society or individual behavior (at least less than alcohol).

If harder drugs, with stronger effects and harsher dependencies, were made available to the public in some format, then you would see the changes, and not for the better.

I know the drug wars are failing, and we are to blame. But saying, addicts, go for it, is not the solution.

 

[kidwoo]

If harder drugs, with stronger effects and harsher dependencies, were made available to the public in some format, then you would see the changes, and not for the better.

How dare you talk like that about our distinguished pilots in uniform.

 

[stevew]

just don't sell it to the white folk...

 

[jimmydean]

pot is natural for the most part, other things, not so much. Meth is awful stuff and should never be considered safe, therefore should not be legal.

 

[ohio]

I'm assuming this was prompted by the economist article... if so, others in the thread should read it: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193

Very worthwhile; the synopsis is it argues treating drug-use as a public health matter is more effective and economic than as a criminal matter.

 

[jimmydean]

I'm assuming this was prompted by the economist article... if so, others in the thread should read it: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193

Very worthwhile; the synopsis is it argues treating drug-use as a public health matter is more effective and economic than as a criminal matter.

Only until we win the war on drugs.

 

[Toshi]

pot is natural for the most part, other things, not so much. Meth is awful stuff and should never be considered safe, therefore should not be legal.

 

[skatetokil]

Yeah, I can't tell you how many times I've seen a dude crush up a ritalin or aderol and snort it. Not saying it's a good idea, just saying lots of people do meth and dont wind up looking like this guy:

 

[jimmydean]

No

, no care.

 

[Defenestrated]

One thing the speculators of "Legalize All Drugs" fail to think about is what does that mean?

After you "decriminalize" illegal drugs, what's next? Buying heroin from the corner store? Applying for a cocaine users' license? Having a methamphetamine tavern?

That's the difference between pot and those other drugs. Lots of people smoke pot and I don't see a big change in society or individual behavior (at least less than alcohol).

If harder drugs, with stronger effects and harsher dependencies, were made available to the public in some format, then you would see the changes, and not for the better.

I know the drug wars are failing, and we are to blame. But saying, addicts, go for it, is not the solution.

After you decriminalize drugs sick people stop going to jail.

After you legalize drugs personal freedom takes the place of alienation and estrangement as society's directive.

 

[sanjuro]

After you decriminalize drugs sick people stop going to jail.

After you legalize drugs personal freedom takes the place of alienation and estrangement as society's directive.

That's a great attitude if you live in New Hampshire.

I think there is enough crack and meth around me already.

 

[Defenestrated]

Drugs are a reality that you aren't prepared to face? There will be crack and meth regardless of legality, and its so easy to get... its naive to think that somehow use would skyrocket if it were legalized.

I would argue for legalization, education, and treatment programs for addicts. Make sure people understand the realities of drug use so they can make informed choices, and get help for those already over the edge.

 

[Serial Midget]

Legalization would just add a new level of bureaucracy - I say its better continue fighting the evil you already know.

 

[sanjuro]

Drugs are a reality that you aren't prepared to face? There will be crack and meth regardless of legality, and its so easy to get... its naive to think that somehow use would skyrocket if it were legalized.

I would argue for legalization, education, and treatment programs for addicts.

I agree with the education and treatment for addicts.

Legalization came up in a different area for San Francisco during the last election: prostitution.

After all the jokes, I thought about it, and there was a huge gap between decriminalization and legalization where I thought a lot of women and children could be hurt.

While I think everyone posting on this thread knows there will never been legalization of the hard drugs in our lifetimes, I think with our current society, we could not handle legal access to the harder drugs, no matter what the benefits would be.

 

[Defenestrated]

Legalization would just add a new level of bureaucracy - I say its better continue fighting the evil you already know.

Personal freedom is not an evil.

I could just as easily argue for a maximum legal body mass index for people who eat too much food. Being fat is dangerous and the product of excess, as is drug addiction.

 

[jasride]

Just heard this guy on a radio interview the other day. I'm sure a lot of you have heard about this Judge, but there are also many others like him who believe our current system is not working. Things need to change.

 

[stevew]

rehab is a joke.

 

[skatetokil]

Legalization would just add a new level of bureaucracy - I say its better continue fighting the evil you already know.

How would eliminating the DEA add bureaucracy?

 

[MikeD]

I'm assuming this was prompted by the economist article... if so, others in the thread should read it: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193

Very worthwhile; the synopsis is it argues treating drug-use as a public health matter is more effective and economic than as a criminal matter.

Well, actually, I'd just finished coming to my conclusion after watching the news and realizing my ideas of the "cost" of legalization were pretty much being drowned in blood from the realities of the illegal drug trade--then the Economist showed up (gets here 2 weeks or so behind schedule) to shore up my musings in its own ever-so-rational and British way.

 

[MikeD]

rehab is a joke.

I thought 911 was the joke...?

 

[dante]

I thought 911 was the joke...?

only in yo' town...

 

[valve bouncer]

There are too many people making too much money, on both sides, for legalisation to happen. It should but it won't.

 

[Serial Midget]

How would eliminating the DEA add bureaucracy?

FDA, DEA, IRS... its all about money and who controls it. One way or another we'll all pay.

 

[DirtyDog]

Legalize - spend 10% of what we spend on the "war on drugs" on regulation, education, and treatment, and we have improved the entire situation exponentially.

Then give the other 90% to Chrysler.

 

[Serial Midget]

Then give the other 90% to Chrysler.

If I had to choose between between drugs & Chrysler...

 

[Defenestrated]

Fear of bureaucracy is not a reasonable excuse to limit personal freedom.

 

[Serial Midget]

Fear of bureaucracy is not a reasonable excuse to limit personal freedom.

There is a significant difference between fear and loathing.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

there Is A Significant Difference Between Fear And Loathing.

White Rabbit!!!!

 

[MikeD]

Fear of bureaucracy is not a reasonable excuse to limit personal freedom.

I'm sorry, you'll have to re-submit this post on the appropriate Ridemonkey Form-0987 during the open posting period which corresponds to the topic you have chosen. Refer to Matrix 1-7 in your Standard Manual 9.