Should Drugs Be Legalized?

[dragonpen61]

Making drugs illegal supports a vast world wide network of organised crime, does not stop drugs from being available, ups the cost of them for users so they do crime and live horrible lives, makes regulation of use near impossible such as with the cutting heroin with very nasty substances, drives corruption, causes gang warfare (see Columbia and the gangs, see Canada and the Hells Angels, funds the Taliban, etc), causes many industrial accidents, causes domestic violence, smashed up families, the list is almost endless.

 

Making drugs illegal has not worked!

 

But charging in to legalise all drugs could just send us into more trouble.

 

What we need is a world wide forum for open discussion on this and many other world problems and new solutions because the old ones just don't seem to have worked.

[stars2heaven]

I think to gain some perspective on this issue you have to know what you are getting into when you decide to legalize drugs. Just imagining the consequences of certain drugs being illegal and what might be avoided if they werent isnt enough if you dont also consider the consequences of legalizing them. Luckily we have legal drugs that are widely used to compare to so that we might predict with some accuracy the consequences that other drugs might have.

 

Following info can be sourced at www.nida.nih.gov and www.cdc.gov

 

Tobacco:

 

deaths: about 400,000 / year = about 1 in every 5 american deaths

Economic cost: about $200billion / year in health care, lost productivity, etc, most of which is placed on the non-consumer

 

Alcohol:

deaths: about 100,000 / year

economic costs: Over $148 billion in health care, lost productivity, etc. Most costs are shifted onto the government/society.

 

Now lets look at the current estimates for some illegal drugs

 

Drugs other than alcohol/nicotine

 

economic costs: nearly $100billion / year

 

 

marijuana: Im only including health risks of this one since it seems to be the one that most people are the most misinformed about.

 

Health risks: addictive to some after extended use

contains 50%-70% more carcinogens than tobacco smoke and users are 3times more likely to develope cancers of the lungs/head than non users.

Persistant impairment of memmory and learning ability for longterm users, may be permanent depending upon use.

Impairment of immune system therefore increasing risks of infections.

 

 

It is undoubtable that the costs of legalizing more drugs, many of which are far more harmfull than the ones currently legal, will shift an even greater economic burden onto society. Any economic benefit that might be gained from legalizing drugs will be greatly negated by their economic costs, and the non financial burden on society can be greater still, especially with the more addictive drugs.

 

Also, I very much question the argument that legalizing drugs will eliminate the organized crime associated with it. Criminal organizations would continue to be more efficient at producing these drugs than the government, and they could do so at a much lower cost to the consumer. They do not suffer from the burden of taxes, minimum wage requirements, or regulations of any kind regarding quality of goods, etc.

 

So even if organized crime might be reduced, it would continue to be an effective competitor.

[Vagrant0]

So even if organized crime might be reduced, it would continue to be an effective competitor.

Funny, don't recall there being many illegal distilleries which are producing alcohol to sell to people these days. Don't believe there is anyone making bootleg cigarettes either. In countries where it is legal to obtain, I don't believe there are people standing on the corner, or in schools trying to sell it to others. I fail to see the logic behind this argument. There still might be those trying to sell it, but they would have to compete with legally operated suppliers, which likely have a more consistent, safer product. Who would you trust for your weed; someone who is licensed by the state to agree to various regulations, or someone who i selling it out of the back of their van? The competition only comes from the junkies who are too hard up to care. I highly doubt that illegal sales would even be worth the fines and prison time. Criminals aren't stupid, if something doesn't make money, they'll stop trying to sell it.

 

As to the health effects, while I agree that initially there may be more health issues, over time, as the drug loses its significance in counterculture, by being adopted by society, people would be less inclined to smoke it. Again, the comparison with alcohol, drinking alot is fun when it's illegal, but kinda loses its allure when you have responsibilities. There are still people who abuse, but, again, they could be sent to treatment, instead of jail. Smoking marijuana would still likely fall under the same regulations as cigarettes, so cannot be done in public places, or anywhere children might be present. Although it contains more carcinogens, you don't have people chain smoking pot. And, as vaporizers and bongs would become easier to obtain and use, there would be lowered risk of inhaling said carcinogens. So the health risks, at least as far as usage and cancer are concerned are actually less than current drugs once the initial reaction to legalization subsides.

[exanimis]

I have to agree with VagrantO and disagree with stars2heaven on this. The end of prohibition was the end of the rum runners and while some people do still make moonshine, it isn't a profitable business. The statistics that stars2heaven posted do not mean much either. and are misleading. In the mid eighties, I lived in a town with a population of eight. Two of the people in that town were murdered. That was 1/4 of the population and so the media referred to Ridgeway as the murder capitol of the world.

 

Cancer is a conglomerate of diseases, diseases like Leukemia are lumped into a category called cancer with things like Multiple Myaloma. For this reason, there is no cure for cancer as it is too many diseases to be cured with one treatment.

 

It's kind of like saying "I have a dog" you know what a dog is but that statement doesn't tell you if I have a chihuahua, a great dane. a wolf or a fox.

 

If someone dies of cancer than we all know it is because of smoking right? Was there a such a thing as cancer before anyone ever smoked? Will cancer go away if we all quit smoking?

 

I have a hard time believing the media hype and propaganda. Legalizing drugs has reduced crime in every country where it has been tried so far. A few years ago two areas tried making Tobacco illegal. Both the state of California and the country of Canada tried making tobacco illegal. In both cases there was a multi billion dollar business in tobacco trafficking created overnight. Both Canada and California were forced to except the fact that making tobacco illegal was not an option. When the bans were lifted the trafficking stopped.

 

As with anything from guns to drugs, it's not the product that is the problem, but the misuse of it.

 

People are easily fooled by the media, just watch a few commercials and you can see it.

 

"Try our product, it's all natural and good for you"

 

Cyanide and dog crap are 100% natural too but I'm not going to take a daily dose of those either.

[Chaosblade02]

Coming from a different era, I have an unusual perspective on this subject. I have been reading the topic for days but have avoided posting, until now.

 

I remember the seventies, yes I actually do remember them! I was a teen at the time and everyone I knew either smoked pot or had ,at the least, tried it. I smoked on weekends with my high school history teacher. My best friends next door neighbor was a state trooper, He always had a bag that he had "confiscated". You could legally grow one plant for your personal use and the worst thing a police officer would do if he caught you with an ounce or less, was confiscate it. An ounce of pot was $20.00 and you got exactly that. In the late eighties, an ounce of pot topped the price of gold and it was laced with so many chemicals that it became deadly.

 

When Reagan was elected in the eighties, he started the "War on Drugs". All I have seen from his war is problems. It has made billionaires of drug dealers, it has made crime profitable. This war on drugs has driven up the price of drugs and cost the taxpayers billions annually.

 

two true stories from my life:

 

A drunk in a stripper bar thought that he was in love with the stripper on stage. When the strippers boyfriend showed up, the drunk decided that the girl was his and he would take her from this guy. He caught up with the strippers boyfriend outside the bar and pulled a 38 pistol on him. He had the gun aimed at the guys chest when my best friend, Bruce walked out of the bar. The man turned the gun on Bruce and shot him in the mouth. Four days later the doctors turned off the machines and allowed Bruce to die. Two years later, Bruce's killer was released from prison. Bruce's daughter was four years old and had not even started school yet.

 

Mike, a friend of my younger brother, was celebrating having graduated high school by going to a concert with his friends. He pulled into a cul de sack to pick up his friends. When he was leaving the cul de sack, he was stopped by the police. The car belonged to Mike and he was the only adult in the car, 18, his friends were 17. since several of them had brought a bag of pot to smoke at the concert,Mike was charged with distributing to minors, possession with intent to distribute, drug trafficking and several other drug related charges. Mike spent ten years in the state penitentiary.

 

The war on drugs drives up the price of drugs and makes the people producing them rich. The laws punish the poor and protect the rich. If you are a fan of the television show COP's, you already know this. You see cops setting up outside of known crack houses and arresting everyone who leaves with a rock. Why the hell don't they bust the dealers in the crack house?

 

There is a type of hemp that does not contain the drug THC and does not get you high, this hemp is used to make clothing in many countries and is a popular product. Tobacco growers here in the states could switch to growing this hemp and not end up loosing their farms but because it is hemp, it is illegal here.

 

Countries that have legalized drugs have seen drastic drops in crime. If drugs are legal, and you could buy pot from a store and know exactly what you are getting, why would you buy some chemical laced crap from some guy on the street? Legalizing drugs would reduce crime. reduce the price of those drugs, generate funds through taxes for the government and state. create a whole new government industry and create new jobs. Legalization would make drugs safer for those addicted and allow the government to somewhat, control the people who want to experiment with those drugs.

 

For the young people who read this and are considering starting smoking cigarettes to be cool around your friends, I say don't. Cigarettes are being regulated and taxed out of existence. Within 20 years, according to our government, smoking cigarettes will be a thing of the past. My advice to you is to smoke pot, it's cheaper than government dope!

 

Most weed isn't laced with chemicals, people don't spray pot plants with pesticides, its not like tobacco, and any of the really top quality stuff is grown indoors in a greenhouse. Even the pot grown outside is largely left to nature to take its course, with the exception of a little bit of irrigation here and there and some fertilizer with high nitrogen content. Marijuana is fairly harmless when used in moderation. It is non addictive, which could make it easier to use in moderation than alcohol. Instead of drug cartels making money shipping pot in the US by the tons, US citizens could make money selling it legally. And the government will make its share of the revenues.

 

If your against the legalization of marijuana it would be logical to be a supporter for the prohibition of alcohol as well wouldn't it?

[Vagrant0]

Most weed isn't laced with chemicals,

Nobody was talking about chemicals from the growing process. Were talking more about the sorts of chemicals used by growers to either accelerate the drying process of the weed so that it can be sold sooner after harvest, or chemicals added to the weed by dealers to hide a substandard product. If the buyers are novices, like highschool or middleschool students, the dealer may even be blending in some other things, like maple leaves or oregano to extend the quantity they have to sell. Both the dealer and the seller are only out for their own profit, and will often use any means they can in order to increase their profits. You are, after all, dealing with criminals, so can't really expect them to play it fair.

[exanimis]

VagrantO, I'm not even sure he read the post that he quoted. If he had read it, I don't think he would have made his post, especially the last comment.

 

Chaosblade02 have you ever heard of PCP? Angel dust? PCP and Angel dust were/are a type of marijuana that is laced with elephant tranquilizers and embalming fluid. Legalization of marijuana would mean a cleaner, purer form of pot than the crap you can buy from a dealer on the street. I you think that the pot you buy from the guy down the street if some kind of pure, organically grown product, you are delusional.

[rakkar]

...It is non addictive,...

 

WRONG!!!

 

I'm quite sure Marijunana IS addictive, maybe not physically, but then mentally

 

 

here's a quote from Wikipedia proving "the chemical stuff"

 

Adulterants in cannabis are less common than in other drugs of abuse. Chalk (in the Netherlands) and glass particles (in the UK) have been used at times to make cannabis appear to be higher quality. Increasing the weight of hashish products in Germany with lead caused lead intoxication in at least 29 users. In the Netherlands two chemical analogs of Sildenafil (Viagra) were found in adulterated marihuana.

 

and a nice pic (also from Wiki)

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Killerdrug.jpg

[wasder]

...It is non addictive,...

 

WRONG!!!

 

I'm quite sure Marijunana IS addictive, maybe not physically, but then mentally

 

 

here's a quote from Wikipedia proving "the chemical stuff"

 

Adulterants in cannabis are less common than in other drugs of abuse. Chalk (in the Netherlands) and glass particles (in the UK) have been used at times to make cannabis appear to be higher quality. Increasing the weight of hashish products in Germany with lead caused lead intoxication in at least 29 users. In the Netherlands two chemical analogs of Sildenafil (Viagra) were found in adulterated marihuana.

 

and a nice pic (also from Wiki)

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Killerdrug.jpg

 

So basically, know your source.

 

Oh, plus marijuana isn't addictive, although some heavy potheads find the high addictive.

 

I'm loving your heaps of evidence here.

[Vagrant0]

So basically, know your source.

 

Oh, plus marijuana isn't addictive, although some heavy potheads find the high addictive.

 

I'm loving your heaps of evidence here.

Although I agree with the response... You can't support Argument "A" using details from Argument "B". Citing an advert from the 70's which doesn't support Argument "A" or "B" is also not necessarily the best way to go.

 

Simply knowing your dealer is not enough. Often it is those people you know and trust who will give you the most corrupted deal.

 

Even non-heavy potheads may become addicted to the sensation. Technically, anything which might give pleasure or escape can be addictive. It's only the potheads who have really given into their addiction. In drugs, this is often enhanced by other chemicals in the drug. Although marijuana is not potent in this regard, those chemicals still exist.