Happy Atheist Forum

Most of the 'moral' basis for the prohibition of illegal drugs is grounded on religion. There are references to 'intoxicants' in the Bible and Koran. Why was alcohol prohibited? The Temperance Movement was a religious movement. Religious sentiment has been at the heart of discussion over what people choose to do to their bodies for most of last century.

I'm sure the libertarians here will agree, no one should be allowed to tell us what we can and can't put in ourselves. All drugs should be made legal and atheists in particular should be supportive of policies furthering the cause of decriminalisation/legalisation of illicit substances.

Drug education should be left to parents and families. If governments must intervene by giving drug information to schools and the public, that information should be unbiased and accurate, starting with the assumption that anyone should be allowed to choose whether or not they use drugs, not be pursuaded from the get-go that all drugs are bad all of the time and that all drug users are addicts and bad people.

The unpopular fact is this: we have one life to live. We all want to enjoy it as best we can. Drugs can help, but only if they are used responsibly, in the same moderation as alcohol. Drugs have been used for thousands of years and have a long tradition of bringing communities together for celebration. They should be given the recognition they deserve, starting with the repeal of all draconian, RELIGIOUSLY INSPIRED drug laws.

Personally, I'm not so radical. Trying to look at the smaller picture; I definitely think marijuana should be legal and it probably would be if it weren't for blackmail & bribery going on in our current government - which, incidentally, is one of the most corrupt this country has ever known. Whole areas of Bristol are pretty much owned by the yardies & everyone knows it - St. Paul's being the major one; you can stop a random stranger on the street and there'll be a 50/50 chance that he'll either have something to sell you or something to stab you with - and they'd do more or less anything to keep the trade here in their control. It's such a huge source of cash for organised crime, I have to wonder what sort of damage it'd do to those psychos over in London if it was suddenly made legal.

Also, even if you take the "cannabis is really bad, no one should ever do it" attitude, having it illegal is just sweeping dirt under the rug. It's still really easy to get any day of the week & a twelve year old would have no more trouble getting hold of some than I would. At least if it was legal they could control the quality of the stuff - make sure people aren't smoking ground up glass in the mix - enforce age restrictions etc.

Oooh, just a quick edit: it'd also open up a new legitimate market & more international trade benefiting all parties, so particularly with poorer countries that can only be a good thing.

QuoteAlso, even if you take the "cannabis is really bad, no one should ever do it" attitude, having it illegal is just sweeping dirt under the rug. It's still really easy to get any day of the week & a twelve year old would have no more trouble getting hold of some than I would. At least if it was legal they could control the quality of the stuff - make sure people aren't smoking ground up glass in the mix - enforce age restrictions etc.

Indeed.

I would simply extend the arguments you use to other drugs as well.

I suppose that's rational yeah. Though the legalisation of all drugs seems a very distant concept to me & I've yet to fully get my head around it or anticipate what sort of effect it could have. I've seen people completely fuck themselves up on the more serious ones, from start to finish, some of them family, and I don't have a huge amount of faith in people's ability to keep their habits under control when it comes to stuff like speed or ecstasy (I trust myself because I find the effects of both pretty boring & ineffectual, while a lot of people take the "it's the answer to all my problems!" philosophy, especially with E). Also, aside from fags, booze and weed I don't know a whole lot about the specific politics surrounding each drug, so I don't feel I'm in such a good position to express my opinion.

I definately think drugs like Marajuana should be legal.  I don't care for it myself but also don't see how it could harm society any more than alcohol or cigarettes.  

Since my mom is a recovering meth addict and I have personally seen how use of meth not only harms the individual but causes the user to harm others....I am not sure if it should be legal or not.  If it is made legal it should be controlled by the pharmacy and not OTC.  Since meth is not naturally occuring I see no reason why an argument couldn't be made for it being treated differently than other naturally occuring drugs (such as weed).

I strongly disagree with the idea of legalizing all drugs. Marijuana is only slightly more harmful than cigarettes, so I can see legalizing it. But when you talk about legalizing drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin, I think you are going too far.

Illegal drugs can cause paranoia, delusions and psychosis. This puts the safety of friends and family at risk. In addition, they can lead to death through either overdose or suicide. The rights of the user have to be balanced against the safety of family and friends.

I have seen plenty of lives destroyed by illegal drugs. I have also seen lives destroyed by legal ones (cigarettes and alcohol), but I do not think that legalizing more drugs will improve society in any measurable way.

By the way, assuming that all atheists are liberal and/or libertarian is not right, IMO.

I fully agree with Justice.

I think that marijuana is only illegal because it would be so difficult to tax.  I think that it is far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, but is also much easier to produce in the home.  Governments can't stand the idea of something so popular going untaxed.

Although I don't think the assumption was being made, I'll have to agree that not all atheists are libertarians.  After all, atheists realize how stupid some of the others are out there and recognize the need for laws to keep them from killing us all.

However, not all laws are in place to protect the people - some are to make money.  Things that give governments money and power, however dangerous they may be, are going to be allowed so that the rich and powerful can become more rich and powerful.  Take tobacco, alcohol AND religion for example.

I was watching a show on the history channel (maybe it was discovery) the a while back about cocaine and it said that cocaine was only outlawed because white people thought it was making black people act crazy.  So, it is illegal for racist reasons rather than for health reasons.  Prior to that it was put in all sorts of products and even used as a 'cure' for alcoholism.

This is not to say that there isn't a reason to keep it illegal now...but the reasons for making it illegal in the first place were anything but honorable.

Quote from: "Justice"Marijuana is only slightly more harmful than cigarettes, so I can see legalizing it

The amount of harm marijuana can allegedly do varies from source to source a great deal. It's one of these you-can't-trust-anyone scenarios. Weed is sometimes said to contain 4 times as many carcinogens as tobacco, sometimes 8, however THC - the actual drug in the stuff - is supposed to reduce your chances of getting cancer, according to some. It all contradicts itself and makes no sense & I can make a few guesses as to why that is.

Quote from: "Justice"Illegal drugs can cause paranoia, delusions and psychosis. This puts the safety of friends and family at risk. In addition, they can lead to death through either overdose or suicide. The rights of the user have to be balanced against the safety of family and friends.

All illegal drugs have completely different effects, so it isn't quite that simple as illegal drugs do this. This is a handy website, in case you haven't come across it already: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/

It's unbiased, it gives the good points, the bad points, the risks, all the details you could want to know right down to average street prices.

Quote from: "ryanvc76"I think that marijuana is only illegal because it would be so difficult to tax. I think that it is far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, but is also much easier to produce in the home. Governments can't stand the idea of something so popular going untaxed.

It'd be taxed like crazy in my country, that wouldn't be a problem, so it can't be the sole reason otherwise our government, at least, would be more than eager to legalise it. I'm not sure how the whole 'non-merit goods' system works where you live.

And yeah, alcohol is genuinely nasty stuff. It's incredibly toxic for one thing; you can kind of tell that by the hangovers. Also, it's more addictive than a great number of class As & the withdrawal effects can kill in severe cases. If it were discovered today it would be made illegal instantly: straight up there with heroin, meth and all the others. I always tell this to my sister (she drinks gin like there's no tomorrow but has a huge moral high horse when it comes to weed) but she takes the 'it's legal, therefore it's not as bad for you' attitude without much thought. And I think it's much easier to make your own wine than it is to grow your own weed. All you need to make the most basic wine conceivable is sugar, water, yeast, a demijon and a valve. Don't even need to bother with finings if you're really that lazy. Mmmm, six whole bottles of yeasty water with a 14% alcohol content. :lol:

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I definately think drugs like Marajuana should be legal. I don't care for it myself but also don't see how it could harm society any more than alcohol or cigarettes.

Ever been to Amsterdam? They seem to do fine there

I think that the law surrounding drugs is a tangled agglomeration of mixed messages. For instance, don't know if it's the same in the US and elsewhere but I assume it is, it's illegal to grow marijuana; pretty much as good as dealing. However, it's absolutely hunky-dory to have opium poppies sprouting all over your garden. And it isn't hugely difficult to extract either. I have the image of the police doing a search of some heroin dealer's house "Nope, sorry for the trouble sir, we didn't find any drugs, any suspicious plants... we found a load of lab equipment but you say that's for decorative purposes anyway. Oh, nice poppies by the way."

I do not agree that all atheists should support legalizing illegal drugs nor that all atheists are (or should be ) libertarian.  I'm liberal, but I know that anything stronger than marijuana should be strictly controlled because the user can become a danger to not only themsevles, but others as well, similar to second-hand smoke or drunk driving... but much worse.

Some drugs are so insipid, so controlling and damaging to the brain that the user is no longer capable of deciding for themselve what is and isn't good for them... and alcohol falls into this category.  However, I do believe that European countries with less restrictive alcohol laws have a much lower incidence of alcoholism?  What about drunk driving accidents?

Is it possible that legalizing these drugs will make them less prevalent than they are now just because they won't be verboten?  I don't think so.  I think it would be catastrophic to our society.  Then again, I, too, have been a close witness to the ravages of meth and heroin, so perhaps my view is skewed... and not in a good way.

I think that legalising drugs could make them easier to strictly control, though.  If someone's going to take illegal drugs & go over the top then the fact that they're illegal isn't going to stop them. It just means that with all trade completely out of the control and eye of the state, we really have no idea what's going on. There are no valid statistics on how many drug users there are in any given area, for instance. It makes it far more dangerous: kids getting involved with criminals - who, if they do become completely addicted, will essentially own them lawlessly - no idea what's actually in the stuff they're taking and so on... It does seem slightly pointless to me.

Similar sort of thing on a smaller scale: A couple of months ago, the legal age to buy cigarettes was raised from 16 to 18 in the UK. People rave about this being a good thing and all they have to justify that argument is that tobacco smoking is very unhealthy. Yes it is... and? That doesn't go to say that there is any conceivable point in that course of action. I started smoking when I was thirteen; the age restrictions didn't stop me then and I wasn't even addicted at the time! A 16/17 year old who is addicted to cigarettes isn't going to think to him/herself "well gosh, I can't buy fags now because it'd be... *gasp* *shock* *horror* illegal  so I'm forced to quit." They're just going to think "so what? If they ID me at one store, I'll go to the one right next to it. Oh no, it might take me two minutes longer."

The truth is, nobody cares about legality when it comes to drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. They really don't, and I don't think it makes a blessed bit of difference to the number of users there are; it just means that there's no meaningful (ie. not fabricated) statistics on them, ergo they don't exist and everyone can relax comfortably with the wool over their eyes.

Then again, as I said before, I'm trying to only think about the small picture that is marijuana in particular. Baby steps are better for society...

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I'm sure the libertarians here will agree, no one should be allowed to tell us what we can and can't put in ourselves.

Called it right: I'm an atheist and a libertarian, and I agree with you.  I don't use any drugs besides alcohol, and I don't think taking many of them is a very good idea, but still ..... why would I have the right to tell somebody else that they can't?

Quote from: "ryanvc76"I think that marijuana is only illegal because it would be so difficult to tax. I think that it is far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, but is also much easier to produce in the home. Governments can't stand the idea of something so popular going untaxed.

Actually it was a tax that made marijuana "illegal" in the US, at least at the federal level.
Business interests, especially Dupont and W.R.Hearst, were influential in getting this tax passed because hemp would be a competitor.  

There was also the racist element, this time both against Mexicans and African-Americans.  The Mexicans being credited for popularizing the drug in the early 1900s, but also being blamed for criminal activity while under the influence(specious claims at best).  Pot was also criticized for causing African-Americans to have sex, or rape, white women, and other crazy claims, see: Reefer Madness.  In conclusion, pot is only illegal because of business interests and racism.  It's much better(more fun) than tobacco and alcohol, and much safer, obviously it should be outlawed. :wink:


Also, why do you think the 1920s were called the "Roaring 20s"?  Because people were actually enjoying themselves whilst imbibing alcohol(despite Prohibition), doin' a little of the ol' fumar, and fucking(and women voting *gasp*).  Obviously people having fun really put a bee in the bonnet of the "moral majority", so all this jazz and dancing shit had to be stopped.  "Let's give them back their alcohol so we can make money instead of gangsters, and make sure the darkies don't cavort with white women no more.  And just for fun we'll ruin the economy, so no one'll have fun(that part's a joke)".  Consequently, no more "fun" until the 1960s.

The Roaring 20s, the first time everyone realized that religious moralizing was bullshit.  Too bad it didn't last,  people have always been bad with their money.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Actually it was a tax that made marijuana "illegal" in the US, at least at the federal level.
Business interests, especially Dupont and W.R.Hearst, were influential in getting this tax passed because hemp would be a competitor.  

Damn... I learn something new here every day!

Thank you all for engaging me on a subject I feel strongly about. For every horror story from those touched by the consequences of drug abuse, there must surely be 10 stories of people being made to feel like criminals and deviants as a result of the choices they should have the right to make.

I am also interested by the number of people here (pretty much everyone) who have been quick to qualify their opinions with a personal aside. It shouldn't matter, yet people assume the only people who would argue for more liberal drug policies must be drug users themselves, or must be 'pro-drugs'. This is a bit like saying some who supports a woman's right to choose is 'pro-abortion' or encourages women to have abortions. Defending a liberal drug position does not amount to endorsing drugs or encouraging people to use drugs. These are obviously absurd prejudices. In any case, whether or not you use drugs or whether or not you know anyone who uses them should be irrelevent in what is essentially a debate about policy.

Now to respond:

Quote from: "Justice"when you talk about legalizing drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin, I think you are going too far.

Illegal drugs can cause paranoia, delusions and psychosis. This puts the safety of friends and family at risk. In addition, they can lead to death through either overdose or suicide. The rights of the user have to be balanced against the safety of family and friends.

Obviously, drugs can and do put other people at risk. However, it should not be assumed that they will. In a democratic society we are obliged to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. Unless somebody has indeed harmed somebody else, they have committed no crime.

In fact, only a few drugs, and then, only in abnormal doses (and even then, sometimes only in certain people) will cause 'paranoia, delusions and psychosis'. If someone has a family history of psychosis or mental illness, they should not use drugs and should be educated on the risks. Interesting you mention paranoia; often paranoia is the result of the fact that:
A) People are doing something that society has made illegal,
B) They are made to feel like criminals and deviants for doing this,
C) They risk imprisonment for their actions,
D) Anti-drug propaganda provides exagerrated and erroneous accounts of drug effects, culminating with the above to cause unnecessary anxieties which can snowball into a bad trip.

So this seems more of an argument for making drugs legal than for keeping them illegal! Also, very few drugs cause actual delusions (ie. that completely seperate people's minds from reality). Drugs classified as 'deleriants' such as Datura (Jimson Weed) are known to cause this, however, these drugs are very unpopular because they have no positive effects. Even on LSD, considered the most potent hallucinogen, people are capable of recognising the difference between reality and hallucination.

Quote from: "Justice"I have seen plenty of lives destroyed by illegal drugs. I have also seen lives destroyed by legal ones (cigarettes and alcohol), but I do not think that legalizing more drugs will improve society in any measurable way.

Well, I believe legalising them will improve society, and in 'measurable' ways, which I will illustrate now. First, as Mister Joy has pointed out, legalising drugs will allow better control over the substances themselves, namely, their quality. This will mean less people who use drugs will be harmed. Surely this is a good thing? Secondly, we will save vast amounts of money on law enforcement. This money can be put to better use in measurable ways that will improve society. Thirdly, legal drugs can be taxed. This too will significantly increase the budget and allow for money to be spent, hopefully in a way that would be worthwhile. Fourthly, it would be possible to influence the drug market in the same way as the sale and use of tobacco and cigarettes are controlled now. Warnings on cigarette lables are one example of how this could be done.

These are all ways in which society would be measurably improved by ending drug prohibition. Do you not agree?

Quote from: "Justice"By the way, assuming that all atheists are liberal and/or libertarian is not right, IMO.

I am not assuming that and nowhere in my post did I say this. I say atheists should support decriminalisation/legalisation because:

1. Atheists are rational (therefore less likely to fall for hokey anti-drug propaganda).
2. Drug prohibition has been largely inspired by religious sentiment, from the Temperance Movement to Reagan.

Quote from: "ryanvc76"I think that marijuana is only illegal because it would be so difficult to tax. I think that it is far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, but is also much easier to produce in the home. Governments can't stand the idea of something so popular going untaxed.

EXACTLY!

Quote from: "rlrose328"I'm liberal, but I know that anything stronger than marijuana should be strictly controlled because the user can become a danger to not only themsevles, but others as well, similar to second-hand smoke or drunk driving... but much worse.

Then we should make it illegal for someone to drive while under the influence of a drug, or for them to blow marijuana smoke around other people...

Quote from: "rlrose328"Some drugs are so insipid, so controlling and damaging to the brain that the user is no longer capable of deciding for themselve what is and isn't good for them... and alcohol falls into this category.

Yes, the abuse of drugs is damaging to the brain. Likewise, abusing certain drugs can lead to addiction, thus the drug itself can become 'controlling' (though a user, aware of the risk that this might happen but  deciding to use the drug anyway, is not being 'controlled'). But if alcohol fits your description, rlrose328, shouldn't it be illegal?

QuoteIs it possible that legalizing these drugs will make them less prevalent than they are now just because they won't be verboten? I don't think so. I think it would be catastrophic to our society. Then again, I, too, have been a close witness to the ravages of meth and heroin, so perhaps my view is skewed... and not in a good way.

I am interested to hear your view as to why, specifically, the legalisation of drugs would be 'catastrophic'.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"The truth is, nobody cares about legality when it comes to drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. They really don't, and I don't think it makes a blessed bit of difference to the number of users there are; it just means that there's no meaningful (ie. not fabricated) statistics on them, ergo they don't exist and everyone can relax comfortably with the wool over their eyes.

Thank you! I have been writing an essay on this topic and I've been going over surveys conducted over the past 30 years, and the data has consistently shown this to be the case. People are no more likely to use drugs if they were legal than they are now. Prohibition is not an effective means of prevention.

Kudos pjkeeley - an inspired and logical position elaborated on at length.  I'm sorry I don't have much to add because I agree with you, fairly strongly, on all your points.

Just a few things I wanted to emphasize:

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I am also interested by the number of people here (pretty much everyone) who have been quick to qualify their opinions with a personal aside. It shouldn't matter, yet people assume the only people who would argue for more liberal drug policies must be drug users themselves, or must be 'pro-drugs'.

Haha!  Guilty as charged.  What can I say?  After receiving a lot of "so what - you smoke pot or something?" answers in debates like this, I've gotten used to qualifying my response.  Same goes across the board for me - I think people should be allowed to have and carry firearms, although I do not personally own a gun.  Eh - people get so used to folks arguing from their own personal perspectives that they assume anything you are in favor of allowing is something you personally support doing.  I agree with you entirely that:

Quote from: "pjkeeley"In any case, whether or not you use drugs or whether or not you know anyone who uses them should be irrelevent in what is essentially a debate about policy.

Also,

Quote from: "pjkeeley"Obviously, drugs can and do put other people at risk. However, it should not be assumed that they will. In a democratic society we are obliged to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. Unless somebody has indeed harmed somebody else, they have committed no crime.

This was very well phrased - I would have to bold this and underline it to convey the strength of my profound agreement.  Specifically, the definition of crime: if I haven't injured anyone else then I have committed no crime.  This fact is, I feel, casually overlooked by both my nation's legal system and the popular opinion of it's citizens.

So - here's an interesting spin-off of this point: back when I was discussing jury nullification, I had a conversation with a libertarian minded co-worker who asked me if I would nullify a drug-possession case: I said "yes".  Then he asked if I would nullify a drug-sales case: this one caused me pause.  My gut was "yes", why should selling the drugs to a person who wants to buy them be illegal?  Who was harmed?  But, what if it was to a child?  Seems to me you'd have to go into specifics in a case like this: was the person buying the drugs in their "right mind", did they really know what they want, or was the "dealer" taking advantage of them?  If they sold a "laced" or improperly prepared drug, this is fraud and I have no problem punishing that with a guilty verdict.  But what if not?  It seems wrong to me if a dealer was pushing something to a person, particularly a young and inexperienced one, who didn't know what they were getting into.  Sure - ultimately it is the fault of the purchaser - but would it be wrong for the seller?  I think I would have to take this on a case-by-case basis.  Sometimes yes, sometimes no - depends.

So - what do you think?  Is selling drugs never illegal, or depends on the details of the case?  I'm curious to hear your opinion.

Quote from: "SteveS"but would it be wrong for the seller?

If we're still operating under the current US laws then yes.  I feel large-scale dealers should be punished, but only because of tax evasion.  If I have to pay taxes so do they(fuckin' taxes).  This is a capitalism based society and these guys and gals are just being entrepeneurs(sp?).  I can't fault them for that.  But, I can fault them for using tax-payer funded services like roads, schools, certain museums, stadiums, etc. without actually paying taxes.

By large scale I mean people making enough money to not have to work anywhere else, essentially anyone that makes drug-dealing a full-time job.  There are many dealers, of softer drugs like pot, that are just in it for the "free" drugs and some extra cash.  Punishing these small-scale dealers is a waste of both time and money(if we're assuming prohibition).


Now, if we take a decriminalization, or a full legalization, stance then I assign no fault to any dealers.  If you don't want drugs, don't buy them.  But, with any industy in this country their would be consumer protection, e.g. no tainted drugs, sales in licensed places, etc.  If the dealers screw over their customers, the customers may have civil recourse.  And any punishment or fine for selling to minors, for example, would suit me just fine.

I agree that pj has an excellently written and thoughtful post, but I disagree with his conclusions:

1) All the personal asides simply illustrate how common it is to know someone whose life was harmed by drugs. If we have a shared experience of the negative consequences of drug then, yes, it is absolutely relevant to creating public policy.

2) The argument that you have not committed a crime unless you have harmed someone is false. Allow me to give an example: Let's say I take your lovely daughter out on a date. While I am smooching her, I slip a little GHB in her drink. At that moment, you barge in, spill the drink and beat the crap out of me. Why? I committed no crime. Your daughter never drank. No harm, no foul, right?

3) Your argument seems to be that drugs are relatively safe "if used correctly." But even legal drugs are not very safe. People have adverse affects to pharmaceuticals all the time, which is why it is so difficult to get people med compliant. It is not possible to know all the harmful side effects of a drug. There are even drugs that don't show their damage until the next generation is born and sometimes the generation after that.

And what about drug-drug and drug-food interactions? Are you planning to run clinical testing for all [currently illegal] drugs so that people can make informed choices about them? And regulate the quality of drug preparation? And sue dealers who are negligent? It sounds to me like you are spending a lot of that money we are supposed to be saving by not enforcing drug laws.

4) Finally, we are talking about giving the pharmaceutical industry free reign to sell any drug - even addictive ones. This is the industry with a history of lying about the negative side-effects of [legal] drugs in order to increase profits at the expense of human lives. I believe that is where the word "catastrophe" comes into play. You can be sure they will aggressively market their drugs to increase demand, even creating "safe" and "lite" versions of their drugs. Maybe even secretly manipulating the drugs to make them more addictive.

To continue with your abortion analogy, do people have less abortions now that they are legal? Of course not. The line has become blurred between abortion and birth control, just as making drugs legal will blur the line between drugs and food. Would anyone like a Hostess Cocaine Cupcake?

Quote from: "Justice"All the personal asides simply illustrate how common it is to know someone whose life was harmed by drugs. If we have a shared experience of the negative consequences of drug then, yes, it is absolutely relevant to creating public policy.

Negative consequences have little to do with public policy, i.e cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, genetically modified food(debatable), pesticides, etc.

Quote from: "Justice"The argument that you have not committed a crime unless you have harmed someone is false. Allow me to give an example: Let's say I take your lovely daughter out on a date. While I am smooching her, I slip a little GHB in her drink. At that moment, you barge in, spill the drink and beat the crap out of me. Why? I committed no crime. Your daughter never drank. No harm, no foul, right?

Actually, posession of GHB is illegal, and putting it in someone's drink could be considered conspiracy to commit a crime, regardless of whether you get to go through with said crime.  Just as talking about murdering someone on the phone can be considered conspiracy to commit murder, regardless of whether you actually commit the aforementioned murder.

Quote from: "Justice"3) Your argument seems to be that drugs are relatively safe "if used correctly." But even legal drugs are not very safe. People have adverse affects to pharmaceuticals all the time, which is why it is so difficult to get people med compliant. It is not possible to know all the harmful side effects of a drug. There are even drugs that don't show their damage until the next generation is born and sometimes the generation after that.

And what about drug-drug and drug-food interactions? Are you planning to run clinical testing for all [currently illegal] drugs so that people can make informed choices about them? And regulate the quality of drug preparation? And sue dealers who are negligent? It sounds to me like you are spending a lot of that money we are supposed to be saving by not enforcing drug laws

I can't speak for anyone else, but personal responsibility is severly lacking in society.  Caveat Emptor.  I don't feel sorry for people that smoke cigarettes and get cancer.  Regardless of the lying the tobacco companies did you are inhaling smoke.  If you're dumb enough to not think of the possible consequences then too bad.

In re: regulation, The market takes care of itself, you know "invisible hand" and all that.  It will not be taxpayer money funding this stuff, it will be people that buy stock in Weed R' Us.  And yes, like any industry, as I mentioned before, if the dealers are negligent or rip you off, you have legal recourse(lemon laws for weed sales).

Quote from: "Justice"Finally, we are talking about giving the pharmaceutical industry free reign to sell any drug - even addictive ones. This is the industry with a history of lying about the negative side-effects of [legal] drugs in order to increase profits at the expense of human lives. I believe that is where the word "catastrophe" comes into play. You can be sure they will aggressively market their drugs to increase demand, even creating "safe" and "lite" versions of their drugs. Maybe even secretly manipulating the drugs to make them more addictive.

They're already doing that sort of thing now.  Pot is much safer than Paxil, non-addictive, and you can grow it damn near anywhere.
And once again, if your dumb enough to take heroin, even if legal, you deserve to face the consequences.

Quote from: "Justice"Would anyone like a Hostess Cocaine Cupcake?

No.  It'd numb your mouth.
I would take a Hostess pot brownie, cupcake, or snowball, though.

Okay, here's a question that I've been pondering as I read this thread:

If you feel that you don't want drugs made illegal because you don't feel you have the right to say what someone can or can't put into their body because it's not your business.  but what about the driver who drank too much (allowed... it's HIS life) who then drives and kills someone?  That then IS damaging to someone else.  Or the heroin addict who kills to get money to buy his drugs?  Or gets high and then goes on a rampage?  (I know, dramatic, but I'm making a point...)

When one takes drugs, they are not always the best people.  The drug creates inhibitions that aren't present when the person is sober.

I fully support letting people make their own choices but when their choices cause ME problems, then I no longer support it.  Like cigarettes... I'm a former smoker.  I'm also asthmatic.  When I'm around cigarette smoke, my lungs close up and I cannot breathe.  I'd like cigarettes banned from all public places.  A smoke-free area is the default... I shouldn't have to NOT go somewhere because smokers are there.  (Like we say "no god" is the default and they must prove he exists... smoke-free is the default and smokers must find somewhere else to be.)

I'm rambling... sorry.  

I'm probably going to sound really cold here, but... I think that all drugs should be made legal. I think that if someone is going to take a drug (whether it is alcohol or crack) to the point that that it is determential to their health... Well... they need to seek help. As it is now, there are institutes for all sorts of addition. It's not surprising, humans are controlled by habit (and dopamine).

I went through the very ineffective DARE program in school... it only made me WANT to try those crazy drugs that would make me see purple dinosaurs (lol). However, finally getting out in the "real world" and seeing people who used those drugs and what their lives were like had a HUGE effect on why I dont use them now.

People are going to do what they want to do, no matter what. It just seems like a spin-off of only teaching abstinence in schools if you only teach that drugs are bad, illegal, and you can't do them.

Quote from: "Bella"I'm probably going to sound really cold here, but... I think that all drugs should be made legal. I think that if someone is going to take a drug (whether it is alcohol or crack) to the point that that it is determential to their health... Well... they need to seek help. As it is now, there are institutes for all sorts of addition. It's not surprising, humans are controlled by habit (and dopamine).

But what about those who take the drug then harm someone at the same time as themselves?  I realize making the drug illegal won't stop that and if someone is prone to that, they will get around to harming someone even without the drug...

Oh hell... I have no answers.  Ugh.  :roll:

^Like you said, that happens with legal things, too. Cigarettes are actually a great example. I mean, if someone wants to smoke... it's like, "Whatever, dude"... but I do get upset when I travel to another state where it's legal to smoke in front of other people. *gag and cough* Lol, you light up in a crowded public around here and you're going to get hung up by your toe nails.

I guess I'm saying, if people are going to do it, they should be able to do it... Society would probably still ostracize them anyways. When it comes down to how it affects other people (e.g.; secondhand smoke, DUI accidents, not disposing of the needles properly, etc.), that's when the should the law should step in for the rightful sort of punishment.

People are going to have sex anyway, so why teach abstinence in school? Because you don't teach a class for the kids who you can't reach, you do it for the ones you can.

When a 12-year old gets pregnant and has a child, who is bearing the burden of raising that child? Is it the 12-year old? Hardly. It will be her family or it will be society. In either case, someone else is paying the price for her personal freedom.

The same issue exists with drug use. Why is it our business if people want to ruin their lives due to their own incompetence? It's our business because someone is going to have to bear the costs of that decision and it is unlikely to be the drug user. Their family or society will end up picking up the pieces. Even if that just means removing the body.

Your <i>freedom to</i> do what you want intersects with society's desire to have <i>freedom from</i> the consequences of <b>your</b> decisions. If you pretend to have no responsibility to society, you are no different from the man who declared his house a country and demanded sovereign rights.

It is hard to draw a line between an individual's freedom and societies freedom... because we all make up society and we all impact each other in some way. However, a line NEEDS to be drawn between how much power the government (as selfish and corrupt as it is) has over each person's freedom.

I don't understand what you're saying about teaching abstinence in school... Are you FOR teaching abstinence in school? I was suggesting that teaching children the in's and out's (no pun intended... well... originally, heh) of sex and how to protect themselves was much better than saying "Don't do this until you're married or you'll die of AIDS". I was likeining it to the DARE program where they said, "Don't smoke pot, or you'll die from a crack OD". It seems much more efficent to focus on educating people instead of saying, "No, you can't do this" and proceeding to scare the crap out of them.

I am for educating people on the consequences of their actions. So yes, I would support an anti-drug program. [I have never been to a DARE meeting, so I can't comment on that one specifically.] I also would support teaching abstinence, but not from a religious perspective and not instead of sex education, but as part of sex education. Letting kids believe that a condom is going to prevent them from getting pregnant is just ignorant and unscientific.

^But that's not teaching abstinence... that's just educating them. Similarly, if you NEVER have a drink, you're NEVER going to be an alcoholic... no matter your genetic disposition. But, some people drink and aren't alcoholics, some people drink and are alcoholics, some people are alcoholics and learned to control their drinking... Have you ever seen that show, "Intervention"? It's really interesting to see the different sorts of people who are addicted to different sorts of things (alcohol, eating disorders, opiates, heroin, etc.) and their different sorts of personalities. Shit happens. People do stupid things. However, educating people will not only help prevent usage or at least encourage smarter usage (I think), but will make it easier for addicts to get help.

I hate to keep bringing this back to sex-related topics... but women used to give themselves abortions with coat hangers and... die. Now, if there is a mistake, it is more socially accepted to do that in a safer way. Yea, it sucks... I'm sure rehab sucks... but bringing it into the open, regulating it, and making it easier for people to deal with it when something gets out of hand seems much more efficient. I'm not saying drugs are good and I'm not trying to push my views on abortion, I'm saying that trying to tell people that they just CAN'T do something isn't going to work.

Sorry. I thought you said don't teach abstinence. You said don't teach <i>only</i> abstinence.

Wow - lots of post since I last checked this - good topic!  Its gotten everyone riled up!

donkeyhoty - the tax evasion issue was something I honestly hadn't considered.  I agree with you that if we all decide to support a common system and a person is benefiting and living within that system without likewise supporting it that this is wrong.  I would happily convict them of tax evasion.  I have issues with taxes, of course, but not in the fashion that is germane to this point.  I agree with your view here.

Justice - I'd like to respond to your first two numbered points:

Quote from: "Justice"1) All the personal asides simply illustrate how common it is to know someone whose life was harmed by drugs. If we have a shared experience of the negative consequences of drug then, yes, it is absolutely relevant to creating public policy.

This depends entirely on your view of society and the individual.  As a libertarian-minded person I come down square on the side of the individual.  I think societies exist only to the benefit of the individual constituents --- if society is made more important than the individuals than society should be disbanded - pure and simple.

The things that you list as negatives to drug usage are all very excellent reasons for an individual to decide not to use the drugs.  Fundamentally I agree with your reasoning, and as a result I don't use the drugs myself.  But - is this grounds for public policy?  I don't think so - I think public policy should limit itself to the interaction between individuals.  To enforce a ban on drugs because many individuals, however logical and rational, have decided that drug usage is wrong is, to me, immoral.  What we're doing is promoting the views of particular persons over everyone else in a mandatory fashion.  I don't understand why somebody would want to use some of these drugs, but I do understand that that person is different from me --- and I'm willing to give that person the freedom to do as they choose for themselves, because I want that same freedom for me.

Quote from: "Justice"2) The argument that you have not committed a crime unless you have harmed someone is false. Allow me to give an example: Let's say I take your lovely daughter out on a date. While I am smooching her, I slip a little GHB in her drink. At that moment, you barge in, spill the drink and beat the crap out of me. Why? I committed no crime. Your daughter never drank. No harm, no foul, right?

I very strongly disagree with you here.  We're talking about voluntary drug usage by individuals - slipping somebody else GHB without their knowledge is very clearly wrong and doesn't qualify what-so-ever as voluntary usage of a drug.

Saying that you didn't actually administer the drug yet is fairly irrelevant to me --- if your intention was not to administer the GHB without her knowledge, then why did you put it in her drink without telling her?  When judging the morality of an act I think intended consequence are very important (please don't take my usage of the word "you" personally - I understand we were talking about a hypothetical example here).

If I follow this argument out, its like saying that I shot a handgun at a store clerk but missed, so nobody was harmed, so no crime, right?  When I said that a crime involves harm to somebody else, and although I wasn't explicit, I have to take this in the context of a person acting to bring about an intended result.  Trying to kill somebody and take their wallet is no less of a crime to me if the would-be victim is able to successfully defend their person from the would-be perpetrator.  Intending to cause harm to others is a crime.  Your intention, in this case, would be to violate the other person's right --- this is what makes it a crime.  Whether you are successful or not might alter the consequence of having committed the crime, but a crime was committed never-the-less.  IMO, of course.

To get this context back on track - imagine a girl decides to sit in her own basement and give herself GHB (why? - who knows, who cares).  Now --- who is she harming?  Who's right is she violating?  What other person has she prevented from seeking their own life, liberty and happiness?  The current law would find her guilty of a crime - possession of GHB.  I would not find her guilty of a crime because her actions where not made with the intention of violating any other person's individual rights.

Does this make more sense?

rlrose328 - you posted what seems to me to be a spin-off of the above idea about harm & crime which I'd like to talk about:

Quote from: "rlrose328"If you feel that you don't want drugs made illegal because you don't feel you have the right to say what someone can or can't put into their body because it's not your business. but what about the driver who drank too much (allowed... it's HIS life) who then drives and kills someone? That then IS damaging to someone else. Or the heroin addict who kills to get money to buy his drugs? Or gets high and then goes on a rampage? (I know, dramatic, but I'm making a point...)

In every case you described here the person has committed acts beyond the drug usage that are damaging to other people.  Is drinking until you are incapable of driving a car wrong?  No.  Is attempting to drive your car when you are incapable wrong?  Yes.  Is using heroin wrong?  No.  Is killing other people to take their money wrong?  Yes.  Is getting high wrong?  No.  Is "going on a rampage" ( :lol: - loved this one) wrong?  Yes.

I'm sure you see my trend...

Quote from: "rlrose328"I fully support letting people make their own choices but when their choices cause ME problems, then I no longer support it. Like cigarettes... I'm a former smoker. I'm also asthmatic. When I'm around cigarette smoke, my lungs close up and I cannot breathe. I'd like cigarettes banned from all public places. A smoke-free area is the default... I shouldn't have to NOT go somewhere because smokers are there.

I agree with you about the smoking --- if you are inhaling second-hand smoke this is not a voluntary choice you are making, especially if its in a place you realistically need to be, or have a right to be.

About banning smoking in "all public places" ... I basically agree, so long as we limit our meaning of "public place" to "public place".  I.e. a place owned by the public.  Is a bar a public place?  No - it is a privately owned place that is open to the public.  How should we deal with bars, then?  I say let the market figure it out.  There are a great deal of non-smoker in the world, and I would think opening a smoke-free bar could be a great move.  Likewise, I think somebody operating a "smokers-allowed" bar would be a good way for people who want to smoke to be able to do so.  How can anybody complain?  "I have to go to that particular bar!!!!  But they smoke there!!!"  Does this seem reasonable?

I have no problem with letting individual establishments determine their own smoking policy.

Everyone seems to have misunderstood the GHB argument:
1) I have proven you don't have to harm someone to commit a crime.
2) I was simultaneously demonstrating that free access to illegal drugs can have unintended benefits for criminals.
I was not arguing that slipping someone GHB was legitimate drug use.

Justice - I think I understand your argument.  My point was I think mine was either misunderstood or interpreted too narrowly - I agree that you don't have to actually harm somebody to commit a crime, intent is enough.  But you do have to intend to harm somebody else to commit a crime - taking GHB yourself of your own "free will", so to speak, is not a crime in my view.  Ergo - the drugs themselves, and usage of the drugs by an individual, is not what I would call criminal.

Can free access to currently illegal drugs have benefits for criminals?  Of course.  So can access to currently legal drugs, guns, nuclear weapons, biological agents, the media, vehicles, food, water, etc.  Should we ban access to all these things because a criminal could misuse them?  Or should we instead focus on the actual crime: the usage of the criminal in question - the actions of the criminal.

Making the drugs legal would, in no way, make it legal for somebody to use the drugs to harm another individual's rights.  This would still be illegal - and rightly so.

Quote from: "SteveS"In every case you described here the person has committed acts beyond the drug usage that are damaging to other people.  Is drinking until you are incapable of driving a car wrong?  No.  Is attempting to drive your car when you are incapable wrong?  Yes.  Is using heroin wrong?  No.  Is killing other people to take their money wrong?  Yes.  Is getting high wrong?  No.  Is "going on a rampage" ( :lol: - loved this one) wrong?  Yes.

I'm sure you see my trend...

I can see that... I agree... I think.  Ugh.  I've been brainwashed for so long that drugs are bad, drugs are wrong, drugs are illegal that it's hard to wrap my brain around it being okay.  It's NOT okay for me.  I know when I did illegal substances many years ago, I didn't LIKE myself, I did things that were irresponsible and somewhat beyond my control and I know that from friends I was with at the time as well.  But I also know that we would have done ANYTHING to get the substances, though they were illegal.  They were plentiful and available.

So does it come down to this:  We are incapable of truly controlling the flow of drugs in this country and how people behave when they are intoxicated or high, so we might as well make drugs legal.  True or false... or other?

If so, I don't think that's a good enough reason to make them legal.  Some laws are made to protect us from our own impulses and I don't think that's wrong.  Just because I'm in control of my own impulses doesn't mean there aren't another 99 who aren't and need some type of laws to protect them from themselves.

Why have speed limits?  I can drive just as safely at 100 mph as I can at 60 and if I kill someone in the process, well, I was just being irresponsible.  Isn't a car driven too fast as dangerous as a drug being taken to excess?

Is it just the "excess" part that's the problem?

Quote from: "SteveS"I agree with you about the smoking --- if you are inhaling second-hand smoke this is not a voluntary choice you are making, especially if its in a place you realistically need to be, or have a right to be.

About banning smoking in "all public places" ... I basically agree, so long as we limit our meaning of "public place" to "public place".  I.e. a place owned by the public.  Is a bar a public place?  No - it is a privately owned place that is open to the public.  How should we deal with bars, then?  I say let the market figure it out.  There are a great deal of non-smoker in the world, and I would think opening a smoke-free bar could be a great move.  Likewise, I think somebody operating a "smokers-allowed" bar would be a good way for people who want to smoke to be able to do so.  How can anybody complain?  "I have to go to that particular bar!!!!  But they smoke there!!!"  Does this seem reasonable?

I have no problem with letting individual establishments determine their own smoking policy.

I had that problem when there was a ballot on the bill to ban smoking in bars a few years back.  The ads were of waitresses saying they had developed lung issues by working in the bar and customers saying they had problems smoking because of smoke.  From MY POV, I say... get a job elsewhere and go drink elsewhere.  You don't HAVE to be there.  If that's the only place you can get a job, you've got other more important issues.

But if I carry on that argument to restaurants, then I, as a non-smoker, would have no restaurants to visit because they ALL allowed smoking before it was banned.  Why do businesses listen to the smokers over non-smokers?  There are more of us, but the smokers have the tobacco companies to fight for them.  All we have is ourselves... it's like being an atheist all over again.

Crap, I'm rambling again.   :lol:

Quote from: "rlrose328"So does it come down to this: We are incapable of truly controlling the flow of drugs in this country and how people behave when they are intoxicated or high, so we might as well make drugs legal. True or false... or other?

Well - I certainly think that if our only reason for legalization is a practical problem of control, this would be a bad reason.  So I'd go with "other".

Quote from: "rlrose328"If so, I don't think that's a good enough reason to make them legal. Some laws are made to protect us from our own impulses and I don't think that's wrong. Just because I'm in control of my own impulses doesn't mean there aren't another 99 who aren't and need some type of laws to protect them from themselves.

I see your point of view, but again, this comes down to how we view the role of societies and individuals.  I certainly don't feel that I want, or need, a society to "protect me from myself".  So - I would disagree with this sentiment.  I'm probably in the solid minority on this point - but oh well  :wink:  

Quote from: "rlrose328"Why have speed limits? I can drive just as safely at 100 mph as I can at 60 and if I kill someone in the process, well, I was just being irresponsible. Isn't a car driven too fast as dangerous as a drug being taken to excess?

A tad confusing --- if you kill someone at 60 or 100, but in either case if you were just being irresponsible, then isn't being irresponsible the problem - not the speed?  What if I irresponsibly fiddle with my radio, taking my eyes off the road, for 20 seconds straight and run somebody down - even though I was only going 15 mph?

If you can drive safely at 100 mph, who would I be to stop you?  As long as we all agree on what is safe - I think this is more important that just arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand: 55 mph is safe, 56 mph is not.  This seems ridiculous to me.

About the restaurant/bar business --- I have no idea why they would seem to listen to the smokers more.  Presumably because people who smoke would not patronize places that banned it, but non-smokers keep going anyway.  If the non-smokers created a real market pressure by refusing to patronize places where smokers co-mingled with the non-smokers perhaps things would make more sense.  Or maybe they don't mind the smoking as much as they let on?  Beats me.

About the waitress - in my perfect world a smoking establishment would have to disclose that any workers would be working in a smoking environment.  Why take that job if I'm afraid of the health affects of second-hand smoke?  If I'm a smoker anyway - what's to worry about?  Waitress on!

One final comment on the personal drug perspective - as pjkeeley identified, this issue is not really germane to public policy.  The reasons you list are all excellent reasons to not take drugs, and good reasons to talk/educate others about why they should consider not doing drugs - I just don't think it fits the bill for outlawing or banning the drugs.  Again - this comes down to how I see the role of society.

Quote from: "Justice"Everyone seems to have misunderstood the GHB argument:
1) I have proven you don't have to harm someone to commit a crime.
2) I was simultaneously demonstrating that free access to illegal drugs can have unintended benefits for criminals.
I was not arguing that slipping someone GHB was legitimate drug use.

As SteveS said, intent is the key for ciminal actions.  That's why there are different classes of crimes such as murder, e.g. first degree, second degree, manslaughter.  Thinking about committing a crime or possessing an object that you can committ a crime with, e.g. a gun, is not a crime.  You don't have to harm someone to commit a crime, yes, but you do have to have begin the process in the case you mentioned.  Just possessing GHB does not hurt anyone else, and as SteveS said using it for personal enjoyment also does not hurt anyone else.


I don't see your point about "free" access to illegal drugs.  Alcohol is a legal drug and it's much easier to get than GHB, and works almost as well.
Ambien is a legal drug, and can have very dangerous side-effects.  

The legality of a substance is irrelevant.  It is much easier to get legal drugs, or objects, and commit crimes than illegal substances.  Also, the illegality of substances brings in a criminal element.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It's the same thing that happened with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s.  You make something illegal, and nefarious characters come to control and profit from it(ignoring the nefarious characters that control legal businesses).

Legalization or, more likely, decriminalization removes the criminal element from the equation.  If it's not illegal, or as profitable, for people to sell drugs, or as expensive or dangerous to buy them, there is less reason to commit other crimes, such as murder or stealing to continue the process.

The mafias(italian and others) came to power in this country by controlling illicit practices such as alchohol, gambling, prostitution, and drugs.  When alchol prohibition was repealed the mob quickly lost control of that industry.  Gambling is still linked to organized crime, but not Las Vegas.  As gambling became more mainstream and acceptable the real gangsters(big business) came in and took over.  Prohibition of things like alchohol, drugs, prostitution and gambling has caused more crime than it's prevented.

Quote from: "SteveS"55 mph is safe, 56 mph is not

The fuel crisis back in the day made 55 the speed limit.  So, 55mph is about as arbitrary as an arbitrary speed limit can get.

It sounds paternalistic to pass laws to protect people from their own poor judgment, but ultimately those laws protect <i>us</i>. There is maybe 1 person out of 1,000 who can safely drive at 100 mph. But there are 500 out of 1,000 who <i>believe</i> they can do so. Who is going to protect us from the other 499?

I really don't like the comparison to gun control, because I think the common view that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is incredibly naive. Just last week, a <b>dog</b> shot a man with a rifle!

You can argue that if they really want to kill someone, you can still do it with a knife or a razor blade. But you have to have a lot more fortitude, and you'd be taking bigger risk. Attacking someone with a knife, you can easily lose control of the situation. With a handgun, even an incompetent person can execute a murder.

Why am I not allowed to wire my house with mines and explosives to protect my property? Why can't I own weapons-grade uranium? Why shouldn't I be allowed to purchase ballistic missiles? Clearly, the government has a right to control the destructive power available to an individual. You draw the line at nuclear missiles. Maybe I want to draw the line at automatic weapons.

If you are for legalizing drugs, are you including prescription drugs? Will everyone be deciding on their own medication when they get sick? I have a headache - maybe some morphine will help. I have VD - let me give myself an antibiotic. Uncontrolled drugs could potentially cause a public health crisis. For example, over-use of antibiotics could lead to the development of drug-resistant bacteria.

If prescription drugs are legalized, that doesn't mean that people will nix the doctor (except for the very special idiots). Besides, if morphine were legal (as in OTC), that would just make it  more expensive (and thus harder) to get. There would be marketing costs, the government would be able to tax it, etc.

Just because drugs are illegal, it doesn't make them impossible to get... it just makes the circumstances more dangerous. If you want to do some illegal drugs, it's very possible to make some calls, find people who know people, and get them... it's just not the safest thing to do.

Let's use alcohol as an example again. You can't drink in public (unless it's a bar or otherwise designated area), you can't drive with it, etc. Yes, people break the law (as they do with all laws), but it's taxed and maintained. There are rules. Let's say cocaine were legalized. People couldn't drive under the influence, they couldn't do it in public... all of the same rules.

Both alcohol and cocaine are determental to one's health. They are both addicting. They both impair judgement. Why is booze okay and blow is not? Some people use one or the other socially and some people use one or the other habitually.

Justice, your argument about home protection and prescription drugs are both flawed and simplistic.

First, prescription drugs, such as antibiotics, are already overprescribed.  And they are legal, to an extent, meaning anyone with the correct prescrips can get them, regardless of whether their doctor prescribed them on the up-and-up.  Medicinal and recreational drugs are not comparable, despite the numbers of people that'd like to use pot(or coke, or morphine) medicinally.  
This debate about legalization involves currently illicit substances that would be used in the same way people use cigarettes and alcohol(mostly alcohol).  In essence why alcohol and not pot?  And, if you support legal alcohol and not pot, why?

Regarding home protection, you can't mine your yard because it's absurd.  It's as absurd as asking why you can't shoot someone that walks into your yard.  Shooting someone in self-defence is not the same as just shooting someone who enters your home.  There's a vast chasm between weapons for personal protection and weapons meant to cause indiscriminate harm.  I hope you were trying to be absurd, but who knows.

Also, I don't know what you're comparing to gun contol.  I don't recall anyone comparing drug prohibition and gun control, but maybe I missed it.

Here in Germany I can drive 150mph on the way to a party, drink in public all over town, and when the night is over take a taxi home.  Although it is not "legal" here, I can easily get something to smoke if I so choose and I can easily smoke it in a park or wherever with friends, without getting arrested.  Life goes on and everyone is okay.  Now granted, the roads and vehicles here are better designed for the higher speeds.  Also, people grow up with a different view on alcohol.  Beer is legal at 16 already, so their is no need to act a fool when you turn 21.  They let you learn your limits with alcohol well before you're allowed to drive.  

Don't take this as a "Germany is better than the USA" statement - each has a list of pros and cons.  Afterall, blasphemy is still illegal here according to the law books.

Bottom line:  If you don't forbid everything, people aren't as attracted to it - the "forbidden fruit" element is removed.

We shouldn't underestimate the populations ability to protect themseleves.  What ever happened to survival of the fittest?  Sometimes you need to let the really stupid ones weed themselves out.

Once you create a new human right - "everyone should be able to put whatever they want in their body" - you don't get to turn around and say cocaine is a recreational drug, but not GHB. Every drug becomes free game. You will be putting the chemical equivalent of land mines and rocket launchers in the hands of anyone who wants one.

There is no basic human right to have access to drugs for the same reason there is no basic human right to have access to military-grade weapons. Is it paternalistic to decide which drugs are safe and which are not? Maybe. But it is the same process we use to determine which weapons are suitable for the general public and which are reserved for the military.

What is simplistic in this discussion is the naive belief that you can open Pandora's box and then control every demon that comes out of it. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, but it is also a food with a history older than god. Cocaine, tobacco and morphine are not food products, they are strictly drugs. The government has a right and a duty to control all chemical substances which are dangerous on both an individual and social level.

I believe people DO use GHB as a recreational drug, right? The bad part is slipping a drug of any kind to someone without their knowledge.

I honestly don't think that legalizing drugs is opening pandora's box. Honestly, I could get any drug I wanted (although I may have to wait a week, depending on what I wanted). I'm sure I'm not the only one, either. But, I don't do drugs. I'm not perfect. I drink, I may take ecstacy a couple times a year or a xanax... Nothing regularly or in excess and I'm responsible and safe each time. It has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with common sense. I've TRIED many (addicting ones, even). I don't know why I'm not addicted... maybe I don't have an addictive personality, maybe they just didn't appeal to me, maybe I actively don't want to be an addict... I dunno. I think your fears that all hell would break loose are a little unfounded...

Plus, just because the government deems them "legal", people still have some sort of say. For example, you can still drug-test your employee's (or babysitter, or children...).

I just remembered a conversation I was having a few weeks ago about olympic contestants using steroids. I don't remember the specifics, but there are some CRAZY things out there... new things... things that aren't even testable yet. It all depends on how much money they have. My friends and I agreed that they should just legalize it. Except for the money issue (some can afford the performance-enhancing drugs that others can't), it would provide a more level playing field... and they all do it anyways! If they want to destroy their bodies, let them do it.

Justice - suffice it to say that I don't find planting land-mines all over your yard to be a reasonable course of action.  Nor would I find putting cocaine, GHB, and reefers into a bowl and offering kids their choice of candy or drugs on Halloween to be reasonable either.

When you argue against the drugs, or the guns for that matter, you always go on to propose some over-the-top, irresponsible, unreasonable behavior and then attempt to categorize "decriminalization" with this ridiculous behavior.  I can't say that argument has much affect on my opinion - ridiculous, irresponsible behavior is wrong no matter what you are doing it with.

A dog shot a man with a rifle:  how did the dog come upon the loaded rifle?  That was presumably laying about such that anyone (or anything, like a dog) who stumbled upon it could accidentally fire it?  In others words - making guns legal leads you to believe it is perfectly acceptable to load your weapons and leave them laying all around the place such that even your dog might walk across the weapon and discharge it?

I think these arguments you supply suffer deeply from the infamous "rights without responsibilities".  Just because people would have a right to own firearms and drugs (and landmines, or whatever) doesn't mean that these rights would come free of any and all responsibilities.  Put responsibility back into the equation and I think you'll see how the argument for legalization makes a whole lot more sense.  In the case of guns, yes, they are dangerous - so you have a responsibility to store and keep them in a condition that they will not accidentally harm an undeserving person.  Same would go for drugs --- leaving the Drano out for baby to eat would be no different then leaving the cocaine out for baby to eat.

I also find the implied faith in the government troubling: landmines, nukes, and missile are so dangerous nobody can safely possess them - so we'll give them to the government and let them do with them as they see fit?  What magical force makes the people in the government better judges as to the usage of powerful weapons than the people who are not in the government?  The only difference between a person firing a missile and a government doing so is that we've sanctified the government's ability to use aggression to further its own interests - but why have we done this, when we don't sanctify the right of the individual to so?  Have you been satisfied that human governments, historically, have only used their powerful weapons in justified cases?  That they've only used aggression against unjust, dangerous persons?  That they've respected the rights of individuals and only employed their weapons and armed forces to further those rights and "better" society?

Obviously - I don't think so.  :wink:

And to expand upon what SteveS said (or am I continuing SteveS' comment)...

Justice, the point about guns and land mines compared to drugs is not comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and igneous rock.

In re: Pandora's Box, this is the same sort of argument applied to abortion, and it's still flimsy.  The people that are going to rape someone by using GHB are the same whether GHB is legal or not.  The only increase may come from people that currently use alcohol for the purpose of rape.  If GHB were legal they'd probably switch over to it.  

Although I don't agree with total leaglization I'll take up the case of other "hard" drugs.  Legalization will not create a whole new class of addicts and criminals.  Theoretically, it would be much easier to get treatment for addiction under legalization because money would be spent on treatment centers rather than wasting it on interdiction, prosecutions, and prison(not to mention more insurance companies would pay for it). The people that want to do a drug will do it regardless of the legality of the substance.  

Theoretically(in popular, not scientific, vernacular) there would be a brief increase in use of all "drugs" following legalization, such as happened after Prohibition was repealed(celebratory revelry, as opposed to off-for-the-weekend revelry), with levels returning to "normal" soon after.

And Bella, yes, some people use GHB for recreational purposes.  A few drops is essentially equivalent to 6 beers.

Quote from: "SteveS"I also find the implied faith in the government troubling: landmines, nukes, and missile are so dangerous nobody can safely possess them - so we'll give them to the government and let them do with them as they see fit? What magical force makes the people in the government better judges as to the usage of powerful weapons than the people who are not in the government? The only difference between a person firing a missile and a government doing so is that we've sanctified the government's ability to use aggression to further its own interests - but why have we done this, when we don't sanctify the right of the individual to so? Have you been satisfied that human governments, historically, have only used their powerful weapons in justified cases? That they've only used aggression against unjust, dangerous persons? That they've respected the rights of individuals and only employed their weapons and armed forces to further those rights and "better" society?

Who do you think you are, John Locke? :wink:

Well put, SteveS and Donkeyhoty! I forgot about how much money the government currently wastes on the war on drugs (while CA is broke and they are raising tuition prices by the semester to cover their butts) and all of the people sitting in jail because they were caught using drugs... What a waste.

Geez, a few drops of GHB is the same as 6 beers?! Now I know never to try it... I think that would kill me.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Who do you think you are, John Locke?

 Just having fun....

One thing about the treatment for drugs, and to play of off my "rights and responsibilities" statement ---- hand in hand with my ideology of "right to use" comes "responsibility for use".  In other words, if a person destroyed their body on some nefarious drug - why should society be burdened with a mandatory tax to help recuperate the individual?  If they can support their own clinic payments and recuperate themselves by their own means - more power to 'em.  But if somebody blows all their money on drugs and ends up with a wasted dying body then comes looking for the rest of us to bail them out - this is where I invoke "personal responsibility".  I would feel no obligation to assist.  I might choose to do so, but I resent any obligation to do so.

So, I guess my thoughts are double-edged: I say yes to more freedom, but I also say yes to more personal responsibility.  It makes no sense to me to have one without the other.

Quote from: "SteveS"I say yes to more freedom, but I also say yes to more personal responsibility. It makes no sense to me to have one without the other.

Well said.   8)

Quote from: "SteveS"One thing about the treatment for drugs, and to play of off my "rights and responsibilities" statement ---- hand in hand with my ideology of "right to use" comes "responsibility for use". In other words, if a person destroyed their body on some nefarious drug - why should society be burdened with a mandatory tax to help recuperate the individual? If they can support their own clinic payments and recuperate themselves by their own means - more power to 'em. But if somebody blows all their money on drugs and ends up with a wasted dying body then comes looking for the rest of us to bail them out - this is where I invoke "personal responsibility". I would feel no obligation to assist. I might choose to do so, but I resent any obligation to do so.

Well, you're already paying for their arrest and incarceration, and for poppy and coca farmers to not cultivate those crops.  But, you probably meant if "drugs" were legal.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Well, you're already paying for their arrest and incarceration

Indeed  - and plenty of them haven't harmed anyone else, either.  Makes to no sense to me.

By the way, I agree with you that if drugs were legal it would be easier to find help.  Clinics for treatment of the users would have a very legitimate market plan.

Here's a question: should we now consider "Aqua Dots" illegal drugs?  :lol:  

Think of the children!

Quote from: "SteveS"Here's a question: should we now consider "Aqua Dots" illegal drugs?  :lol:  

I just saw the article about the recall.  My poor niece will be disappointed when Santa doesn't bring her any Aqua Dots.  

The lesson of this thread is that even atheists are willing to ignore science and reason when it suits their political agendas. Every single argument made for legalizing drugs in this thread has already been refuted, indeed most are self-refuting. Yet the self-congratulatory posts continue, as if you have won something by confusing a few people on this issue.

Let's for a moment look at the original post:

QuoteMost of the 'moral' basis for the prohibition of illegal drugs is grounded on religion.

Perhaps that is why the laws were written, but it is not the reason they remain on the books. There are plenty of medical/scientific reasons to control access to drugs.

QuoteAll drugs should be made legal and atheists in particular should be supportive of policies furthering the cause of decriminalisation/legalisation of illicit substances.

All dangerous substances should be controlled. And atheists, being students of science and reason, should understand the rationale.

QuoteDrug education should be left to parents and families. If governments must intervene by giving drug information to schools and the public, that information should be unbiased and accurate, starting with the assumption that anyone should be allowed to choose whether or not they use drugs, not be pursuaded from the get-go that all drugs are bad all of the time and that all drug users are addicts and bad people.

Except that all drugs are - in fact - bad. (Unless you do not consider things like depression, memory loss, cancer, stroke and hallucinations bad.)

QuoteThe unpopular fact is this: we have one life to live. We all want to enjoy it as best we can. Drugs can help, but only if they are used responsibly, in the same moderation as alcohol.

Most drugs (including marijuana and cocaine) are ultimately depressants. The suggestion that taking depressants can make life more enjoyable is prima facie absurd. But when you add to this the fact that most drugs are addictive and unpredictable, it becomes irresponsible.

--------------------------------------------------------------

But then the argument turns to "personal freedom." Well how much "personal freedom" does a baby in the womb have? Because they are the most innocent victims of drug abuse. Or do you plan to make drug use illegal during pregnancy? How exactly would you legislate that while maintaining that people have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies?

Here is the link to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a division of the National Institute of Health:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDAHome.html (http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDAHome.html)

I think it's a case of those who favour personal freedoms versus those who favour a more protective state. I understand that you have strong personal feelings about drugs, Justice, however, I don't feel this is an excuse for poorly-argued conclusions such as this:

QuoteExcept that all drugs are - in fact - bad. (Unless you do not consider things like depression, memory loss, cancer, stroke and hallucinations bad.)

I firmly disagree. Correct me if I misread you, but you seem to be strongly  implying that the reason that all drugs are bad (itself a contestable assertion) is because they cause the things you listed. In what appear to me to be very obvious ways, I feel it is just not so simple as that. The effects caused by a drug are dependent on a number of factors, including the type of drug, the dosage, the adulterants it may contain, the method through which it is used, the number of times it is used, and possibly more besides. Would you agree? The effects you listed, while indeed terrible, are not associated merely with drug use. They are possible effects of drug abuse, and this I believe must be seperated conceptually from the former.

Because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not seem to be arguing out of ignorance, I have looked up the examples you gave in an effort to work out which drugs supposedly cause which problems and why. I would be interested to see where your knowledge comes from because I believe your false assumptions and exaggerations show that you are misinformed.

Depression -- While there are links between drug use and depression, they are not necessarily causal (rarely so, in fact). Many people who are depressed use drugs as a means of relieving or escaping the symptoms of depression; in this sense the depression causes the drug use, and not the other way around! Furthermore, the stresses ecountered in someone's life which might make drug use more appealing may be the cause of the depression, not the drug use itself. Where using drugs does directly cause depression, it is likely a result of drug addiction (financial and social changes wrought by a drug habit or as a result of withdrawl symptoms). The latter effects however can only be ascribed to addictive drugs, and certainly not all are. (Source: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/dep ... 000487.htm (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/depression/drugsanddepression_000487.htm))

It should be noted that alcohol when abused is addictive and is associated with depression also. Do any non-addictive drugs cause depression? Ecstasy, when used heavily and frequently, is linked with depleted seratonin levels which can contribute to depression. But ecstasy is not an addictive drug, and choosing to use the drug in a way that would bring about these changes would be just that: the user's choice. (Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081324.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000727081324.htm))

Memory loss -- Again, this results from long term, heavy use (ie. abuse) of a drug (cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy being the most commonly cited). (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/memory/unde ... buse.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/memory/understand/memory_drug_abuse.shtml))

Cancer --  I'm not sure where you got this from. Smoking anything, including marijuana, contributes to the risk of lung cancer. Apart from that, which drugs did you believe were carcinogenic? Can you provide any sources that could confirm this? I don't doubt that some are, but not in any serious way. Everything gives you cancer. Being exposed to the world gives you cancer.

Stroke -- Apparently drug use can contribute to this (though it is far from being directly causal as you implied). But so can lots of things. Bad diet, lack of excercise, ALCOHOL, and just excess stress. We regard all these as being legitimate choices, why not drug use? (Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l531371113kp1108/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l531371113kp1108/))

Hallucinations -- Obviously, using hallucinogenic drugs will cause hallucinations (unless your dealer ripped you off). These are what the user seeks to experience when taking these drugs. There is a risk that in some users, hallucinations return for varying periods of time after using the drug (known as HPPD). But this affects only a portion of hallucinogen users, and severe HPPD, to the point where it becomes debilitating, is very rare. This is a risk I believe educated people should be allowed to take. (Source:  http://dir.salon.com/story/health/addic ... /lsd_hppd/ (http://dir.salon.com/story/health/addiction/drugs/2000/09/20/lsd_hppd/))

QuoteMost drugs (including marijuana and cocaine) are ultimately depressants.

You are very wrong on this. Cocaine is a stimulant. It is the precise opposite of a depressant! It will make you more alert. Think: 1970s disco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine)

QuoteThe suggestion that taking depressants can make life more enjoyable is prima facie absurd.

Only if you are confused as to what these terms mean. 'Depressant' does not mean it will make you depressed.  :lol: It means it will affect the functioning of your nervous system in a way that reduces alertness, or sedates you. Alcohol is a depressant too. That feeling of swaying and light-headed-ness you get when you're drunk? It is similar, though not the same, as when you're stoned. It's a good feeling! That's why people do it. Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be encouraged, but facts are facts. It is a good feeling. Otherwise no one would do it. Ask them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressant)

Returning to your statement that "all drugs are bad": this is your opinion, nothing more. I don't believe all drugs are. All drugs, when used irresonsibly, have the potential to harm. But some less so than others, and many are very safe (compared to say, alcohol). I don't believe marijuana, esctasy or hallucinogenic drugs are "bad". They are not addictive, and as long as people are aware of the risks involved, there is essentially nothing wrong with their use. People don't become violent or dangerous when using these drugs. If anything the drug causes them to become more contemplative and open towards others.

In the end, I think I'd fear a late-night encounter with a drunk person more than anyone else on any other drug.

Justice - I don't disagree with you that the majority of these drugs seem bad to me - this, rather than the simple fact that they are illegal, is directly why I do not choose to take them.  However, I also feel that just because they seem bad to me does not give me the right to say that they must seem bad to everyone.

I think the root of our disagreement, between us, is our political view - how we view the role of societies and individuals.  For example, when you say:

Quote from: "Justice"All dangerous substances should be controlled.

Okay - controlled by whom?  Who gets to decide what is dangerous, what is not dangerous, and on what basis?  Who gets to decide what level of potential-health-damaging substance use is allowable for a persons enjoyment, and what level is "too much"?  I argue that inherent to this statement, that "all dangerous substances should be controlled", is an expectation of positions of authority over others.  My political philosophy is that we are all equal and all in possession of the same rights - I argue that there is no legitimate grounds on which another human being can claim a right to authority over me - nor me over them.

This is a political disagreement - hardly what I would consider pushing a 'political agenda' - or aren't you just as guilty of pushing your own political agenda over me?  Telling me that I must submit to a position of authority that has "made my choice for me"?  If we view disagreement as 'agenda pushing' then we are both equally guilty - pure and simple.

As a student of science and reason I have come to the conclusion that positions of authority over other human beings are illegitimately obtained and that they cannot be rationally justified.  Why?  Because they inevitably involve arguing the superiority of one's personal view over another's personal view.  But there is no absolute rule by which to judge a view as "superior" - these judgments are all subjective to the individual and what they feel is the goal of their life - and no matter how hard we try, a subjective view cannot be rationally objectified.

Quote from: "Justice"Except that all drugs are - in fact - bad.

Bad for what?  One's health?  This idea presupposes that every person should be seeking to live their life in the best possible health.  While this might seem like a mostly good idea to me (not completely good) - who am I to say that my ideal must apply to other individuals?  On what rational basis can I claim authority to dictate the goals of other people's  lives?  My 'political agenda' is simply that we each own our own lives and our own bodies - they are ours to do with as we please up to the extent that we do not take this same basic right away from other people.

I'm not arguing that people should take drugs - I'm arguing that I shouldn't be telling other people what to do.  And they, likewise, should not be telling me.  If I can't apply this philosophy to an issue like drugs - then I'm a hypocrite pure and simple.

I understand your feeling that drug usage is bad, and I understand why you hold that opinion.  With the exception of at least one drug (alcohol) I agree with you.  I do not agree that we should be subjected to a position of authority to control our access to drugs because that authority has deemed them harmful.  Can you understand my motivation for having my opinion?  I certainly wasn't trying to confuse anybody - I'm trying to state that my opinion on the permissibility of drug usage does not involve whether or not I think the substance is 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' - but rather whether or not I think people should claim authority to 'control' the lives of others.

Cheers,
Steve

Justice, have you seen the film Demolition Man?


All kidding aside, look up the Shafer Commission, aka The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, and it will tell you all you need to know about, "all drugs are bad", or maybe not, but it does include that all mighty science and reason.

Good points SteveS. In particular:

QuoteBad for what? One's health? This idea presupposes that every person should be seeking to live their life in the best possible health. While this might seem like a mostly good idea to me (not completely good) - who am I to say that my ideal must apply to other individuals? On what rational basis can I claim authority to dictate the goals of other people's lives? My 'political agenda' is simply that we each own our own lives and our own bodies - they are ours to do with as we please up to the extent that we do not take this same basic right away from other people.

This is very true. And if we were to judge the legality of something based solely on how bad it is for you or how much risk is involved, lots more things would have to be made illegal than just drugs.

QuoteJustice, have you seen the film Demolition Man?

:lol: Exactly!

The thing is, while I agree on all the political points you raised SteveS, I would go further in my opposition to Justice's claim that all drugs are bad. As I hope I have demonstrated in my post, not all drugs are. And the idea that, used responsibly, drugs can't improve people's lives is completely bogus. It's just the anti-drug stance we are force-fed from a young age. Personally, cocaine and heroin I would call bad drugs, because the negative consequences in the long term outweigh the positive short term effects. Even still, people who use those drugs should not be treated as bad people. If we did have a society in which drug use was not a criminal act and people were properly educated on what drugs are and what they do, people would feel the same way about junkies and addicts as they do about alcoholics now. But there happens to be the extra stigma of criminality attached too, and that's what really makes me mad. I guess my point is, regardless of whether you think drugs are good or bad (I think it's dumb to lump all drugs into a category like that but whatever), the people who use drugs should not be regarded as criminals and deviants! They are just people who make different choices to you.

Hey pj - I think we were both working on our responses at the same time.  I think you hit the nail on the head here:

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I think it's a case of those who favour personal freedoms versus those who favour a more protective state.

This seems to be the ultimate truth of the matter. I (obviously) favor personal freedoms.  Anyway - I hear the points you raise about the harms of these drugs being exaggerated, you did address this very well, and your points seem sound to me.  But none-the-less, and honestly, my position is primarily motivated by my political philosophy (as you predicted).

Also,

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I guess my point is, regardless of whether you think drugs are good or bad (I think it's dumb to lump all drugs into a category like that but whatever), the people who use drugs should not be regarded as criminals and deviants! They are just people who make different choices to you.

I agree with this very strongly.

Justice - I can't help it that I agree with these other posters - I feel badly that you consider some of these posts "self-congratulatory".  I think I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree politically (or philosophically, or whatever we want to call it).  This is not just cause for any personal slams - please don't take any of my words to be personal attacks - I'm just speaking my mind.

And I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion - it wouldn't be nearly as interesting if everybody agreed.  Kudos for speaking your mind - and my sincere apology if I've come across as overly contentious or self-congratulatory.  It was not my intention.

I think I've been partly guilty of the "self-congratulatory" thing, but that's only because I'm so thrilled at the quality of arguments here in my favour. It's so rare to have people agree with me on this issue! There seem to be very few people who, like me, are for the most part non-drug users, yet are willing to embrace a more liberal stance on the issue of illegal drugs.

I think both Justice and I feel strongly about this issue. I probably tend to sound as if I'm angry at those who disagree with me, when in fact I'm angry at having to be in such a small minority of people who feel this way. I agree with SteveS though that this discussion has been really enjoyable and thought provoking, because of rather than in spite of our disagreement.

I appreciate your responses. Particularly because I left myself wide open for being flamed, and you guys were decent enough to take the high ground. I think there are a few different issues and that mixing them together has made this discussion more confusing than it needs to be.

ISSUE #1 - Personal freedom versus protective state

I would never agree with a statement like:

QuoteMy political philosophy is that we are all equal and all in possession of the same rights - I argue that there is no legitimate grounds on which another human being can claim a right to authority over me - nor me over them.

The fact that we are all equal does not equate to "nobody has a right to have authority over me." While we are all equal in the sense that we are all people, we do not have equal knowledge and technical expertise. One of the problems with modern communication is that it creates the illusion that anyone can be an expert. I can spend a few hours researching drugs on the internet and appear to know quite a lot. But in reality, I know next to nothing compared to a research scientist working in the field.

Also, the 'social contract' requires that authority be given others to make certain decisions. Otherwise, how would you and I figure out where my backyard ends and yours begins? And again, how does your approach make provision for people who are not in a position to make reasonable decisions for themselves, such as fetuses, small children, developmentally disabled people, etc.

Anyway, it is fair to say that on issue #1 we disagree entirely, which is fine. One of my best friends is a relativist who probably makes you two libertarians seems conservative by contrast.

ISSUE #2 - How dangerous are drugs really?

This is where Steve and I seem to have "violent agreement." Steve, you don't really seem to disagree with me on this one, except as relates to Issue #1. Even PJ does not seem to disagree with me on this one too strongly, going so far as to call cocaine and heroin "bad drugs."

To clarify, cocaine is a depressant because when you "come down" from your brief high, you are chemically (not emotionally) depressed. This is what creates the physical and psychological dependence. Most drugs have a similar effect, even prescription drugs. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that even if drugs do not actually cause (emotional) depression, they certainly worsen it. Even an anti-depressant can increase your risk of suicide by a factor of 6.

As for cancer, I was referring to the fact that marijuana contains more cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco.

And to address the question:

QuoteThe effects caused by a drug are dependent on a number of factors, including the type of drug, the dosage, the adulterants it may contain, the method through which it is used, the number of times it is used, and possibly more besides. Would you agree?

This is missing the point. Yes, it depends on all those things. The problem is that there is no way to assess the risk.

Do you know whether you are predisposed to heart arrythmia? whether you are high risk for developing epilepsy? tardive dyskenesia? how many blood clots do you currently have in your brain? what will be the effect of thinning or thickening your blood on those clot? Can you answer all these questions for me? No? So what do you mean when you talk about "using drugs responsibly and safely?" Let's be clear: Sudden death can occur from your very first use of cocaine!!

Finally, there is ISSUE #3: Should people who use drugs be viewed as criminals and deviants?

No. There is a strong movement in the medical profession to view drug abuse as a psychological illness. In addition, there is a movement in the mental health profession to view psychological illness as a medical illness, not a moral weakness. I support both points of view. And again, I do not see this as a major point of difference between the three of us.

Hmm...  interesting topic. I agree with Justice that some people need to be protected against themselves and that we need to be protected against them when they causes us harm.  So, far so good. But I also agree with the other posters that I should have the right to do with my body what I want. They are also right in saying that you can prevent people using drugs making them illegal just doesn't work (it only creates an interesting market for crimimals). I kind of like the Dutch approach.

Dutch law make a clear distinction between hard drugs (drugs with unacceptable risks involved) and soft drugs (drugs with limited risks). Hard drugs are illegal and sentences run up to 12 years imprisonment. Strictly speaking the sale and use of soft drugs is illegal too, but use and possession for personal use (up to 30 grams) a blind eye is turned and you will not be  prosecuted. The Dutch government believe by keeping soft drugs separate from other drugs it makes it possible to control it more and therefore stop people turning to harder drugs and hopefully away from crime and addiction..

Does it work? - The statistics say so, there were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1996. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. (source: Justice Department).

I appreciate your efforts to streamline the dicussion Justice. In my last post I was dealing primarily with issue #2, which personally I find irrelevent to the question of whether drugs should be illegal or not. However, I'm aware that you do find it relevent, and in your case it would then relate back to issue #1: if you feel that the state has an obligation to protect society from drugs because they are bad, then obviously you would support criminalising drugs. But to me, whether or not drugs are bad doesn't factor into discussion about their legality. Moreover, since I don't agree that all drugs are bad, I am thus left further convinced that they should not be illegal.

So:

QuoteTo clarify, cocaine is a depressant because when you "come down" from your brief high, you are chemically (not emotionally) depressed. This is what creates the physical and psychological dependence. Most drugs have a similar effect, even prescription drugs. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that even if drugs do not actually cause (emotional) depression, they certainly worsen it. Even an anti-depressant can increase your risk of suicide by a factor of 6.

As for cancer, I was referring to the fact that marijuana contains more cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco.

Indeed. Although I still contend that you are using the term 'depressant' wrongly, or at least using a different definition from the medical one (ie. a category of drug which depresses the nervous system).

Regardless, I believe that in spite of the fact that drugs may worsen depression, and may be hazardous to one's health, the choice to use them or not still rests with the user, provided she is properly educated on their effects. I could draw comparisons to other things that we choose to do in spite of negative consequences. It may not be a totally fair comparison, but many teenagers listen to very depressing music with nihilistic or even suicidal themes. They choose to do so, and it may very well worsen their depression and lead to their suicide. But I could never support a prohibition on depressing music, because that would be a significant reduction of people's freedom. Take another example: fatty or unhealthy foods. I know for a fact that eating greasy fast food is bad for my health, clogging my arteries and increasing my risk of heart disease, and so on. But once again I could never support a prohibition on junk food, because it would seem unjust to 'protect' people from it. They have the right, in my opinion, to eat however unhealthily they wish if that's what they enjoy doing. They can even wash it all down with a big bottle of turpentine if they so desire, though I would strongly urge them not to.   :wink:

But I think the best example of my point is the two most popular, most dangerous (in terms of accounting for the most deaths) drugs in society today: alcohol and tobacco. I can't rationalise keeping these dangerous substances legal whilst making another (IMO, arbitrary) category of substances illegal. It is, in my mind, highly inconsistent. That is why, even though I don't smoke, detest smoking and think society would be better of without it, I still could never support a prohibition on smoking. People have the right to choose, knowing the risks, to continue smoking. Even people addicted to smoking can choose to get help, or find a way of quitting. They shouldn't be protected from themselves.

QuoteThis is missing the point. Yes, it depends on all those things. The problem is that there is no way to assess the risk.

Do you know whether you are predisposed to heart arrythmia? whether you are high risk for developing epilepsy? tardive dyskenesia? how many blood clots do you currently have in your brain? what will be the effect of thinning or thickening your blood on those clot? Can you answer all these questions for me? No? So what do you mean when you talk about "using drugs responsibly and safely?" Let's be clear: Sudden death can occur from your very first use of cocaine!!

Sudden death can also occur from walking across the street. But more to the point, a risky behaviour such as rock-climbing or sky-diving could entail a horrific death, but we don't make those behaviours illegal. I see drugs as being similar: a risky recreational activity that some people choose to engage in.

I find your most convincing argument for controlling drugs the idea that our own freedoms might be violated if drugs were legal (specifically as you said, the freedom to be safe from harm). But as I hopefully made clear in other posts, I don't believe the risk that drug users pose to me is a significant one. For one thing, there are already people using drugs despite their illegality, and those people are either going to harm me or they aren't, but I can't do much about it because they are acting outside of the law. However, to date I have never been harmed by a drug user under the influence of a drug and I don't know of anyone who has. I'd be interested to see the statistics on this, but I have a feeling violent crime is rarely found to be caused by a drug intoxication (yes, it may often occur simultaneously, but the cause would almost always be unrelated to the drug).

So I think the risk of being the victim of violent crime caused by the effects of a drug intoxication is very minimal, but I don't have the statistics to back this up, so if you can refute me I'd be happy to concede that point. But since people are using drugs regardless of their legal status, the only available premise left to advance your argument that drugs should be controlled because drug users are a danger to us, is if it were known that more people would start using drugs once they became legal (thus increasing, presumably, the instance of violent crime caused by drug intoxication). Well, I researched this point while working on an essay this semester about drug policy, and looked at statistics gathered by the government from door to door surveys. The results show that the main reason people do not use drugs, by their own account, is because they are 'just not interested' (something like 70% of respondants put this). Fear of being caught, or simply not having access to the drugs (I think it is implied here that the lack of access is due to prohibiton), both rated substantially lower. Basically, very few people are motivated not to use drugs purely based on their legal status.

For this reason, I don't think there would be any major increase in drug users following a hypothetical legalisation of drugs. Right now, if people want drugs, it is simply a matter of knowing someone who knows someone, or being in the right place at the right time. I think if most people on this forum really wanted an illegal drug, they could probably get it eventually (Bella made this point in an earlier post).

In sum, I contend that:
1) Drugs are not a significant factor in causing violent crime; and
2) If drugs were made legal that risk would not significantly increase, and therefore
3) I contend that drugs do not pose a risk to me that is worth restricting my freedom for.

QuoteFinally, there is ISSUE #3: Should people who use drugs be viewed as criminals and deviants?

No. There is a strong movement in the medical profession to view drug abuse as a psychological illness. In addition, there is a movement in the mental health profession to view psychological illness as a medical illness, not a moral weakness. I support both points of view. And again, I do not see this as a major point of difference between the three of us.

This seems inconsitent to me. If you support criminalisation of drug possession/use, then it follows that you must think of drug users as criminals. I see no way around it.

I eagerly anticipate your response, though I somehow don't think either one of us will be pursuaded of the other side's point of view.

As for Holland's drug policy:

QuoteDutch law make a clear distinction between hard drugs (drugs with unacceptable risks involved) and soft drugs (drugs with limited risks). Hard drugs are illegal and sentences run up to 12 years imprisonment. Strictly speaking the sale and use of soft drugs is illegal too, but use and possession for personal use (up to 30 grams) a blind eye is turned and you will not be prosecuted. The Dutch government believe by keeping soft drugs separate from other drugs it makes it possible to control it more and therefore stop people turning to harder drugs and hopefully away from crime and addiction..

Does it work? - The statistics say so, there were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1996. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. (source: Justice Department).

I think the Dutch approach is far more pragmatic and sensible than the drug policy of most other nations. Yet the fact that it is still illegal, even if the authorities don't enforce the law, still makes me uneasy. I wouldn't know where I stand. How do I know they won't start enforcing it if say, the police didn't particularly like me? Suppose I was smoking a joint in an Amsterdam cafe and a cop didn't like the way I was talking about the Dutch football team, so he decided to bust me for it. It's still technically illegal right, so he could do that? Don't get me wrong, I really favour the Dutch approach, but I don't think it's ideal, philosophically speaking.

This has been an interesting discussion. I would like to think on your post, so I am not going to respond right away except for one quick point.

When you said it is inconsistent to criminalize something if you do not view drug users as criminals, I think you are viewing the legal system too narrowly. There are many examples of laws which criminalize certain activities without necessarily stigmatizing the actor as a criminal:

1) Traffic Laws such as speeding, jaywalking, etc.
2) Health Code Laws (eg. attempting suicide.)

Hey Justice - I think you're right, we are ultimately going to completely disagree on Issue #1 (by-the-way, I agree with the way you have broken out the issue involved in the discussion - I see this separation in a similar way, although #2 and #3 seem very closely linked - but we've got to draw a line somewhere it seems, so I'm good with the separation).

Anyway, just a few rejoinders (I hope this doesn't count as too bad of derail - just keep in mind that these points are directly linked to the way I feel about the "Original Topic"):

Quote from: "Justice"The fact that we are all equal does not equate to "nobody has a right to have authority over me." While we are all equal in the sense that we are all people, we do not have equal knowledge and technical expertise. One of the problems with modern communication is that it creates the illusion that anyone can be an expert. I can spend a few hours researching drugs on the internet and appear to know quite a lot. But in reality, I know next to nothing compared to a research scientist working in the field.

I certainly concede that we do not all have equal knowledge and expertise.  The realm of human knowledge has become so vast and covers such diverse topics that I'm not sure any one person can qualify as an expert across the board.

Where we disagree is that I don't think holding an expert opinion qualifies a person to a position of authority.  I do, however, think that a reasonable action for a person to take is to listen to expert advice and use it to guide their actions.  My complaint is authority through force (law, sanctions, etc) - I don't think a person has a right to say "You must do as a say because I am more expert on the topic than you".  The expert could present a valid argument that if I desire certain goals then I should heed and follow his/her advice: but I don't think I must.  Eh, at least if we disagree here we have made progress in identifying the disagreement.  :wink:  

Quote from: "Justice"Also, the 'social contract' requires that authority be given others to make certain decisions. Otherwise, how would you and I figure out where my backyard ends and yours begins? And again, how does your approach make provision for people who are not in a position to make reasonable decisions for themselves, such as fetuses, small children, developmentally disabled people, etc.

Ah - the stickiest issue with the libertarian philosophy!  It is on these grounds that many charge the philosophy is "impractical".  Suffice it to say that I agree with you that there is a need for a non-violent method of arbitration - this method should be voluntary.  If you and I had a dispute on the boundaries of our yards, we should both feel comfortable willingly giving this disagreement over to a fair and unbiased arbitration process - arguing our cases and abiding by the decision of the arbiter (presuming, of course, that we could not work it out on our own - we should at least try first).  The only other method to resolve disputes like this is unattractive - what else would we do?  Fight to the death, winner takes all?  This seems barbaric.

I would, however, distinguish this process from a simple matter of authority - the arbiter can't just do whatever he/she wants, and in order to maintain the voluntary trust of the people he/she will have to have reasonable grounds for making decisions.  This is how I see the social contract - we agree to abide by rational procedures that are fairly applied.  In order to maintain civility we are going to have to accept that some times decisions are not going to be in our favor - yet we must accept this to live a non-violent life in a peaceful society.  So rather than seeing this as submitting to authority, I see this as voluntary participation in dispute resolution.  Why should I 'voluntarily' participate?  Because I desire a peaceful life.  Why should I abide by the decision?  Because I desire a peaceful life.

Part 2: What about those who cannot make their own decision?  In this case I agree that they must be cared for.  A young child, upon birth, is completely dependent upon others for its basic needs.  The child, in being cared for by others, is not conceding any personal freedoms because it cannot concede anything - it has no ability to choose or provide for itself.  So the way I see this, then, is that a person can care for another in these circumstances without there being an infringement of justice.  With rights come responsibilities - if the child cannot be held responsible for its own provision - than how can it have this as a right?  Make any sense - or am I just nuts?  :wink:

I think the libertarian system would work perfectly well if everyone was self-interested and rational (whatever that means.) The problem is that not everyone thinks logically, not everyone is interested in peace, and some people are not willing to endure the slightest inconvenience, even if it means life or death for someone else.

Personally, I see the Libertarian world view as an offshoot of the Randian world view. And frankly, Atlas Shrugged has become a poor man's bible for religious escapees. It is simply naive to believe you can construct a society based strictly on reason and fair trade, with no need for government. Firstly, not everyone has equal access to logic. And secondly, it is possible that there are non-logical thought processes which have validity.

In any case, a truly libertarian world view would not rule out violence as a method to solve problems. If I want to solve our backyard debate with a gun, who are you to say I am  wrong? Where does your moral authority come from to suggest that my rights end where other's begin? My rights never end. I am the ultimate authority!

Ah, but that is not a rational way of thinking, is it? Oh wait, since when are you the authority on what is rational and what is not? I say it is rational! Why dio you get to define reality for someone else? And so on and so on.

Let me add that I am not suggesting that other's should have authority strictly because they have expert knowledge. Authority has to be given them through the consent of the governed. I am merely pointing out that there is a legitimate need for such authorities to be designated.

Quote from: "Justice"In any case, a truly libertarian world view would not rule out violence as a method to solve problems. If I want to solve our backyard debate with a gun, who are you to say I am wrong? Where does your moral authority come from to suggest that my rights end where other's begin? My rights never end. I am the ultimate authority!

Ah, but that is not a rational way of thinking, is it? Oh wait, since when are you the authority on what is rational and what is not? I say it is rational! Why dio you get to define reality for someone else? And so on and so on.

I hear and appreciate the criticism - but I think these views are not really a part of the libertarian ideal.  The philosophy specifically prohibits aggression.  Solving the back yard debate with a gun would be considered verboten - because you are now taking your desire for property as a 'higher' priority than my rights - in this case my right to life.  Since I, not you, own my life taking this away from me would be the greatest possible transgression - simply because you can't make it right by giving it back (unless I'm Jesus and I can resurrect myself - then you get a mulligan  :wink:  ).

There would be no moral authority - only a moral understanding.  My rights do end where yours began - because we have an understanding that we can only claim rights up to the extent that we do not take the same rights from others.  This is how the philosophy views people as 'equal' - one's rights cannot surpass another's.

The wiki has a fairly decent description, and it deals with the violence issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

If you do read the wiki - please don't ask me which flavor of libertarian I am - I really don't know  :wink:  .

Just one more thing,

Quote from: "Justice"Authority has to be given them through the consent of the governed.

This is approaching a fine idea to me - as long as the 'authority' is more of an 'arbitration', limited in scope to specific instances for specific purposes.  And - we must truly consent.  I think you've laid the first brick in the road to a more reasonable society.

Finally - to flip this back on track to the drug issue - I certainly don't see how the possessor and user of drugs currently considered illegal is in any way violating any right that I can reasonably claim to have.  They are not initiating aggression against me, nor are they defrauding me.  In short - I see their actions as totally irrelevant to my own claims to freedom.  If I want freedom for myself, then I have to tolerate freedom for others - even if I don't agree with what they do with their freedom.  Who cares?  I can still do what I want with mine.

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I think the Dutch approach is far more pragmatic and sensible than the drug policy of most other nations. Yet the fact that it is still illegal, even if the authorities don't enforce the law, still makes me uneasy. I wouldn't know where I stand. How do I know they won't start enforcing it if say, the police didn't particularly like me? Suppose I was smoking a joint in an Amsterdam cafe and a cop didn't like the way I was talking about the Dutch football team, so he decided to bust me for it. It's still technically illegal right, so he could do that? Don't get me wrong, I really favour the Dutch approach, but I don't think it's ideal, philosophically speaking

The Dutch Model, although better than most anyone's still has flaws.  Firstly, cultivation, other than a small amount at home, is still illegal.  Thus it is difficult to support all the narco-tourism with home-grown supplies.  Coffee-shops need to resort to extra-legal matters to get all their drugs.  As it were, Holland has a problem with drug-smuggling. (Although this discounts the effect all the large Dutch ports and the massive amount of trade that moves through them, legal or otherwise, would have on drug smuggling irrespective of decriminalized pot.)

Tom62 could probably elaborate, but I believe there are propositions to change the laws regarding cultivation, or even to reverse the decriminalization - although that would hurt tourism.  I also think they've shut down the shops that sold mushrooms.

There are indeed propositions to change the dutch drugslaws, but it is very hard to turn back the clock after so many years. Nethertheless the dutch are under great pressure from the other EU countries to act. That's why you now have some very strange rules in place (like coffeeshops can no longer sell drugs to foreigners).  Fear is that it indeed would hurt tourism, but to be honest I'd prefer tourists that come to Holland because they love the country than to score some drugs.

While I like what has been said and the type of debate that you have been having, I think an important point is being left out.

Generally, I don't have a problem with people doing drugs as long as it doesn't lead to too many problems. However, concerning legalization, what is missing from this thread is the point that people are going to drive on drugs. PERIOD.

Look at alcohol. Look at the number of accidents that happenn every year, the number of people injured, maimed and killed because of drunk driving. Think of the families that lose people and are devastated. There is no real way to completely stop people from drinking and driving. It goes on in every society no matter the laws. Why would anyone else want to legalize another 'problem' that would make the roads that much more dangerous?

Perhaps the prohibitionists made a mistake and let alcohol be legal while they should have chosen marijuana. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here. Sure, nobody wants to have their liberty to do what they want with their lives infringed upon. But who in their right mind would let another impairing substance into the hands of drivers?

Face it. Impaired driving happens. legalizing anything makes it that much more accepted and accessible for people to drive under its influence. It is truly sad to me that people won't discipline themselves and stop this stupid need to police dangerous drivers.

Now, if we could build a society free of the automobile, as well as the good for the environment, this would be a whole other ballgame.

Quotepeople are going to drive on drugs. PERIOD.

True, however, there are already laws (at least in this country, I'm not sure about where you are) concerning driving and the use of drugs. In my home state of South Australia, police can now test for the presence of marijuana or amphetamines in saliva when they take breath tests for alcohol. They can also request blood tests for other drugs, and there are penalties similar to drunk driving.

QuoteThere is no real way to completely stop people from drinking and driving. It goes on in every society no matter the laws. Why would anyone else want to legalize another 'problem' that would make the roads that much more dangerous?

I agree completely with the first two statements. The third relies on the premise that more people would use drugs when driving if they were legal, which you refer to below:

Quotelegalizing anything makes it that much more accepted and accessible for people to drive under its influence.

Not if driving under the influence remains illegal. I don't agree with this point, and I would like to hear your basis for this assertion.

Furthermore even if you can prove that significantly more people would use drugs under the influence if they were legal, I would still disagree that this provides sufficient basis for continued prohibition. By all means attempt to prevent motor accidents, but not by outlawing drugs. That only infringes on the rights of the many, unnecessarily, so as to protect us from the idiotic few who put people in danger.

pjkelley, I am talking about those "idiotic few" throughout most of my previous post. I don't think that most people would make the rational choice to purposely intoxicate themselves on anything and then drive under their influence.

Here in Quebec, Canada there is often talk of legalizing at least marijuana. it has never been done, except for a brief period where it was decriminalized, when after only a few days it was re-criminalized by the courts in following with a higher law.

High level police here seem to agree, as I have read in the papers, that apparentl;y drug testing is not as easy as alcohol testing. I could be wrong, in which case there are laws here that prevent or delay the possibility of police from taking a blood test. Example: they might need to take you to the station to do it or something, I forget exactly what. There was a case where a woman was acquitted of drunk driving because when she was waiting at the police station for a test she pulled out a flask and drank some hard alcohol. Things like this happen.

QuoteThe third relies on the premise that more people would use drugs when driving if they were legal

I think if you look at the user rate in Holland or Amsterdam, whatever, it is higher than normal. This means that legalization increases use. It also becomes more accepted in the society, as I'm sure it is there. And whenever something like this or alcohol is legal, these "few idiots" again, will abuse this privilege if I can call it that for a moment and overindulge while operating motor vehicles.

QuoteThat only infringes on the rights of the many, unnecessarily, so as to protect us from the idiotic few who put people in danger.

To play devil's advocate, I think if murder were legalized, few people would do it, but it is justified illegal because of the amount of damage it would do.

New question: So what is the amount of damage that drugs will do? or Is the amount of damage whichever drug you want to legalize low enough so as to legalize it?

Quote from: "saturnine"think if you look at the user rate in Holland or Amsterdam, whatever, it is higher than normal

Actually, they have a much lower rate than a lot of countries with regards to pot, and about the same rate for harder drugs.  Then again, their rates should be higher considering it's legal there, but, for some odd reason, they're not.  Maybe it's because pot's not a big deal, and not dangerous unless some authority assigns illicit status to the drug, thus bringing in a criminal element.

In this whole, long, discussion there hasn't been a solid reason, or evidence, given to suggest that pot is a danger to society.  Coke, heroin, meth, yes, but not pot.  The only contentions against pot seem to rest upon the circular reasoning of, "it's bad because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's bad."

Quote from: "saturnine"I think if you look at the user rate in Holland or Amsterdam, whatever, it is higher than normal. This means that legalization increases use. It also becomes more accepted in the society, as I'm sure it is there. And whenever something like this or alcohol is legal, these "few idiots" again, will abuse this privilege if I can call it that for a moment and overindulge while operating motor vehicles.

Not at all. Ever been to Amsterdam? It isn't a pit of pot-heads, it's a wonderful & prosperous city. You do have to bear in mind how easy it is to purchase marijuana, regardless of the law. It's easier, in fact, for younger teenagers. I think it's far better to make the drug legal, thus taking it completely out of the hands of criminals & enabling sensible restrictions to be placed on its use and marketing (as is the case with cigarettes and alcohol). In the hands of dealers there are no such limitations; anything goes. An illicit market is far more dangerous than a legitimate one.

As an example, when abortion was illegal back in the 60s, it still happened. The only difference was that statistics could not measure it, it was done by criminals demanding disproportionate figures & the situation was made infinitely worse (and this was obvious to everyone except the Roman Catholic church, which insisted that sweeping it under the rug and out of sight could only make things better).

Quote from: "saturnine"To play devil's advocate, I think if murder were legalized, few people would do it, but it is justified illegal because of the amount of damage it would do.

New question: So what is the amount of damage that drugs will do? or Is the amount of damage whichever drug you want to legalize low enough so as to legalize it?

Maybe with my libertarian mindset I'm unable to see your point here. Murder is illegal because it amounts to one person intentionally killing another (need I say it, without consent ). It can hardly be compared to a guy/gal smoking the odd bit of wacky baccy in the privacy of his/her own home, in the same way that a fellow might have the occasional brandy by the fire on a cold winter night (with a pipe, in a smoking jacket and slippers, just to add to the stereotypical image). If they're doing any damage it's to themselves and the extent of that damage is very speculative. I'm probably doing myself damage right now by sitting in this effing uncomfortable chair. Should I be arrested? Also, they're doing it out of their own choice. Nobody's forcing them.

One further point that you may want to raise is that in systems like yours and mine, with state health care, tax payers are essentially providing for their treatment (on the slim chance that they'd actually need it as a result of their habits). The answer to that is of course a tax on marijuana. That's what we've done with cigarettes, here at least. Excessively actually; revenue from that tax is over 5 times what they spend on smoking related illnesses in the NHS. Can't do harm though; it provides a good source of money to go into public services and so would weed, where it to be made legal.

Hey saturnine, I'd like to disagree with the following:

Quote from: "saturnine"To play devil's advocate, I think if murder were legalized, few people would do it, but it is justified illegal because of the amount of damage it would do.

Okay - now, I don't know if this is actually the reason the drug was made illegal, but if it was I say it is bad basis.  Actions should be legal/illegal not based on the amount of harm they will do, but on whether or not those actions infringe upon another person's natural rights.

I say murder is clearly wrong because it is unjust - it is the ultimate transgression of personal rights that can never be reconciled.  Theft can be corrected.  Fraud can be corrected.  Other damages can be settled.  But how can anyone repair the transgression of murder?

A person smoking pot is not violating any of my rights in any way that I can detect.  If an act is not transgressing upon another person's rights, I feel that act cannot possibly be considered criminal.

To me, the laws should govern our personal interactions and protect our personal rights & freedoms.  Murder laws clearly function in this regard; the drug laws do not.

My 2 cents.

QuoteNew question: So what is the amount of damage that drugs will do? or Is the amount of damage whichever drug you want to legalize low enough so as to legalize it?

At the very least, marijuana, ecstasy and hallucinogens should be decriminalised. These are non-addictive, comparitively harmless or 'soft' recreational drugs. However, throughout this thread I have been arguing for the decriminalisaton of ALL drugs, and, as I have argued, the amount of damage they do is irrelevent. Drugs harm people in a variety of ways, but the choice to expose ourselves to that harm should be left to us, in my opinion. That goes even for truly terrible drugs such as heroin.

The only argument I can accept for keeping drugs illegal is the notion that people on drugs might harm other people (whether through neglect, such as in motor accidents, or through violent crime). However, as I have argued in previous posts, this argument is flawed because it implies that more people would use drugs if they were legal, which is contestable. Ultimately, a crime committed on a drug is still a crime, and the guilty party is still the user, not the drug.

Quote from: "pjkeeley"Ultimately, a crime committed on a drug is still a crime, and the guilty party is still the user, not the drug.

This is an important point (and one with which I agree).  Decriminalizing drugs will be worthless if we don't stick to our guns on personal responsibility.  It would be senseless, for example, to say "heroin is legal" but to also say "he's not responsible for his actions since he was wasted on heroin at the time".

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "pjkeeley"Ultimately, a crime committed on a drug is still a crime, and the guilty party is still the user, not the drug.

This is an important point (and one with which I agree).  Decriminalizing drugs will be worthless if we don't stick to our guns on personal responsibility.  It would be senseless, for example, to say "heroin is legal" but to also say "he's not responsible for his actions since he was wasted on heroin at the time".

Ditto to this and to pj on the subject.

<b>Drug-induced Psychosis up 400% in Australia</b>

A new study out of Australia's National Drug and Alcohol Research Center has found that during the past decade there has been a 400% increase in the number of people treated for drug-induced psychosis (psychosis is a medical term for loss of touch with reality; a key symptom of schizophrenia). In 1994, there were 55.5 cases per million people, rising to 253 per million by 2004 says the report, published in the Medical Journal of Australia.

The report suggests that the largest increase has been among amphetamine users. A Royal Perth Hospital study also published in the journal found more than one in every 100 emergency department patients was being treated for a problem related to amphetamine use, which included ice, ecstasy and speed.

This had a "major impact" on the functioning of the department. "Patients with acute amphetamine intoxication are often agitated and aggressive, require extensive resources such as sedation and frequently re-attend," the report says.

"With increasing availability and use of amphetamines, the burden on emergency services will continue to grow."

"The police are maxed out on trying to reduce the supply and almost no effort is going into trying to reduce the demands," he said. "The reason why these drugs are illegal is because they're dangerous to your health".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It seems to me that you want to hold the drug user accountable for their behavior <i>after</i> they became psychotic, but not for the decision they made whilst sane to ingest a dangerous substance!

Your right to control your own body does not excuse your taking a trans-continental flight while knowingly infected with TB. Similarly, your right to privacy does not permit you to take substances which may radically alter your behavior and pose a threat to others.

We can debate which drugs are dangerous and which are not. You have convincingly argued that the dangers of certain drugs are exagerrated. But I still think that you have failed to make the case that blanket legalization of controlled substances is a good idea.

Also, I think that you minimize the risks associated with certain drugs, particularly for those with pre-existing health conditions. [Imagine, if you will, a person with bipolar disorder on ampthetamines or a schizophrenic on LSD. And then remember that not everyone with those conditions is aware they have them.]

Quote from: "Justice"Your right to control your own body does not excuse your taking a trans-continental flight while knowingly infected with TB. Similarly, your right to privacy does not permit you to take substances which may radically alter your behavior and pose a threat to others.

That is my bottom line as well... well-said, Justice.

Quote from: "Justice"Your right to control your own body does not excuse your taking a trans-continental flight while knowingly infected with TB.

I certainly agree with this --- you would then be unjustifiably endangering other people's rights --- so no problem here.

Quote from: "Justice"Similarly, your right to privacy does not permit you to take substances which may radically alter your behavior and pose a threat to others.

If "radically altering your behavior" will truly result in causing you to "pose a threat to others", then I certainly agree with this as well.  Same as taking a perfectly legal substance (like alcohol) and then attempting to fly a jetliner with 160 paying passengers riding in back.  This would also be wrong.  But how does the legality of the substance change this argument?

Quote from: "Justice"It seems to me that you want to hold the drug user accountable for their behavior after they became psychotic, but not for the decision they made whilst sane to ingest a dangerous substance!

Justice - for my part, I hold the drug user accountable for ALL of their behavior.  In other words, they can't (in my mind) dodge responsibility for their acts by claiming "I was high/stoned/drunk/whatever at the time and therefore cannot be held accountable".  This is a bunk argument.  I certainly never intended to portray that the pre-intoxicated drug consumption choice was free and clear of any responsibility.  Nor can I detect any part of this discussion where this interpretation was portrayed!  I think this statement was made against a view that was never put forth.

I want to be very clear that my entire opposition to drug illegality has been based around the idea that to me my own life and my own health are mine.  They are owned by me.  This does not, in any way, relieve me of any personal responsibility toward other people.  Either in choosing to take a (truly) dangerous substance or in how I behave after becoming intoxicated.

- Alcohol is dangerous and alcohol is legal.
- Therefore, it is acceptable for other dangerous substances to be legal.

It is a very poor argument, IMO. Firstly, as I have pointed out before, alcohol is a food, not a drug only. Secondly, drunkenness is not analogous to psychosis. Thirdly, it is an argument for foolish consistency; after all, maybe alcohol should be illegal too.

In some ways, your argument reminds me of the movie "Minority Report." You are saying that you have not yet committed a crime, so why are you being punished in anticipation of what <i>might</i> happen?

But dangerous behavior can be a crime regardless of whether anyone is actually victimized. For example, if you drive erratically, you can be cited for reckless driving, even if no one was injured and you thought you were in complete control. Do we have to wait until you run over a child before we object?

I understand with your point of view. And to a certain degree I sympathize with it...I just think it is unrealistic.

Why do we need laws at all if we can rely on everyone to take personal responsibility for their behavior?

Quote from: "Justice"- Alcohol is dangerous and alcohol is legal.
- Therefore, it is acceptable for other dangerous substances to be legal.

This is not actually my argument.  If we're going to paraphrase each other in this manner, could I not represent your argument as:

-An item that could be used dangerously allows for the possibility for a person to harm another person using the item
-All potentially harmful items should therefore be illegal

So - let's make rocks, pointy sticks, long fingernails, fists, screwdrivers, crowbars, hammers, etc. etc. etc. all illegal.  Afterall, a simple box-cutter was used to hijack an airplane and turn it into a missile killing thousands in the end count.  So box-cutters should be illegal right?  No brainer.

Justice, I'm not trying to be a jerk - I'm just trying to point out that I think you've oversimplified my opinion and turned it into a poor argument, the same as I would be doing if I actually presented my above paraphrase to you as a counter-argument (my above hypothetical counter-argument is entirely sarcastic).

My actual argument is that the mere fact that something could be harmful is not a good reason to "ban" it.  Otherwise, just take a look around: you are surrounded by potentially dangerous and harmful items in your regular life - indeed, even in the "natural world".

About the "Minority Report" comparison....

Quote from: "Justice"You are saying that you have not yet committed a crime, so why are you being punished in anticipation of what might happen?

Yes.  And, if I have not committed a crime, then what would you be punishing me for?

You continued your thought with...

Quote from: "Justice"But dangerous behavior can be a crime regardless of whether anyone is actually victimized. For example, if you drive erratically, you can be cited for reckless driving, even if no one was injured and you thought you were in complete control. Do we have to wait until you run over a child before we object?

I agree with this part completely.  And I say no, we don't have to wait until I run over a child to object.  

Its just that I don't view usage of most currently illegal recreational drugs as being equivalent to "reckless driving".  Is playing golf reckless endangerment?  I don't think so.  And yet, it is entirely possible to miss-hit a ball (this is "probable" in my personal case  :wink:  ) that ends up striking somebody in the head and killing them.  All our actions encompass risk to some degree.  We have to determine what is reasonable and what is not.

It has been my personal experience that I don't feel I've ever been put at undue risk because a person in my vicinity was smoking pot or taking happy pills or eating mushrooms.  I think I probably have been put at risk by somebody driving their car near mine while they were far too drunk to be driving it safely.  I try to reconcile my experience with the laws and they don't make sense.  I don't think outlawing alcohol is the right answer to this problem, just as outlawing most of these illegal drugs is not the right answer.  I think responsible use is.  Not what you're using, but how you're using it.

If you can make the case (you may well be able to) that a particular drug represents a total lack of control to the imbiber and induces violent urges or tendencies, then I would agree that no rationally minded individual could take that drug responsibly.  If they cannot, then there seems to be no valid argument (according to my view here) that that particular drug should be legal to use.  My view is based on the idea that a person could take a drug without it infringing upon anybody else's rights.  We can term this "responsible use".  If there can be no responsible use for a drug then I agree with your view about that drug.

But - I don't think the majority of these currently illegal substances fit this bill.  I am certainly willing to accept that some of them may.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise on this topic would be that only some of the currently outlawed substances should remain outlawed, while some should be legalized?  In other words no blanket decriminalization, no blanket criminalization?

Quote from: "Justice"Why do we need laws at all if we can rely on everyone to take personal responsibility for their behavior?

Why indeed?  :wink:

Funny thing, Steve....I was about to mention that I thought I saw a straw man coming out in this last post by Justice.

Yeah, you've got to stick to the actual points made by someone, Justice, not a misrepresentation of what they said. Discussions are much more fruitful then.

But who's keeping track. Let's just all go have a beer.  :wink:

Quote from: "McQ"Let's just all go have a beer.

Sounds like a plan I can get behind....

As long as nobody outlaws alcohol  (  :wink:  )

Steve, I was not trying to simplify your entire argument. I was merely pointing out that it should not revolve on whether or not alcohol is illegal; similar to your golf analogy, in fact. When I wrote it, I had an inkling that it did not look right, but I was really tired. Sorry.

QuotePerhaps a reasonable compromise on this topic would be that only some of the currently outlawed substances should remain outlawed, while some should be legalized? In other words no blanket decriminalization, no blanket criminalization?

I am with you there. Like I said before, we agree more than we disagree. In fact, I am curious about your libertarian views, but that is for another thread.

Justice - no need to apologize, I wasn't upset or angry in any way with the response.  Fundamentally, I agree with your comparison to alcohol in that the fact that alcohol is legal would not necessarily mean that blanket legalization of all potentially harmful substances should follow suit.  But, I do think the majority of alcohol policy is rational.  Legal to possess and consume, illegal to drive while intoxicated, work while intoxicated, etc. etc.  I have my issues with some of our alcohol policies (age limit being a big one), but by and large they mostly make good sense to me.  I do think at least some of the currently outlawed substances could work very well in a similar sandbox.  The benefit would be in increased personal freedoms - which I'm all about (even if I don't personally choose to exercise them).

Quote from: "Justice"Like I said before, we agree more than we disagree.

This is certainly true in the "usage" arena.  Even if all these substances were legalized tomorrow I can't see myself shooting up with heroin or taking meth.  To be completely honest, I don't even envision myself trying marijuana - I just don't have any interest in it.  I do have an interest in seeing people not fired from their job for a random blood test that shows marijuana use, or not thrown in jail for possession of a reefer.  To me these actions are unwarranted, counterproductive and unjust.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"

Quote from: "Justice"Marijuana is only slightly more harmful than cigarettes, so I can see legalizing it

The amount of harm marijuana can allegedly do varies from source to source a great deal. It's one of these you-can't-trust-anyone scenarios. Weed is sometimes said to contain 4 times as many carcinogens as tobacco, sometimes 8, however THC - the actual drug in the stuff - is supposed to reduce your chances of getting cancer, according to some. It all contradicts itself and makes no sense & I can make a few guesses as to why that is.

hmm true.
Bob Marley did supposedly die of foot cancer but that could also have been caused from the Tobacco in the joints

And yes sometimes they say it contains 5 times as many etc. (varies)
I personally believe the amount is reduced seeing as we are consuming less tobacco (the weed does need some space) but we are taking different substances.
Now the THC is not actually physically harmful, although that is disputable.
What I mean is the other substances in the weed...I personally don't know what they are, and thus don't know their effects on our lungs...then again it is organic (unlike eg. LSD)

We must look at it from a few angles.

I follow Penn and Teller's philosophy: People are free to do what they want to themselves (not others) and also be free to handle the consequences.

For too long we have become a Nanny State. Don't eat that, don't drink that, don't watch that, don't read that.

Last time I checked, I didn't live with my mother.

I say we legalize it all and see what happens. Those who are too weak to control their addictive nature will go away. Not to sound cruel, but we really shouldn't be focusing on helping everyone. If people ingest meth as grown-ups then they can face the consequences as grown-ups.

QuoteDrug-induced Psychosis up 400% in Australia

A new study out of Australia's National Drug and Alcohol Research Center has found that during the past decade there has been a 400% increase in the number of people treated for drug-induced psychosis (psychosis is a medical term for loss of touch with reality; a key symptom of schizophrenia). In 1994, there were 55.5 cases per million people, rising to 253 per million by 2004 says the report, published in the Medical Journal of Australia.

The report suggests that the largest increase has been among amphetamine users. A Royal Perth Hospital study also published in the journal found more than one in every 100 emergency department patients was being treated for a problem related to amphetamine use, which included ice, ecstasy and speed.

This had a "major impact" on the functioning of the department. "Patients with acute amphetamine intoxication are often agitated and aggressive, require extensive resources such as sedation and frequently re-attend," the report says.

"With increasing availability and use of amphetamines, the burden on emergency services will continue to grow."

"The police are maxed out on trying to reduce the supply and almost no effort is going into trying to reduce the demands," he said. "The reason why these drugs are illegal is because they're dangerous to your health".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It seems to me that you want to hold the drug user accountable for their behavior after they became psychotic, but not for the decision they made whilst sane to ingest a dangerous substance!

Your right to control your own body does not excuse your taking a trans-continental flight while knowingly infected with TB. Similarly, your right to privacy does not permit you to take substances which may radically alter your behavior and pose a threat to others.

We can debate which drugs are dangerous and which are not. You have convincingly argued that the dangers of certain drugs are exagerrated. But I still think that you have failed to make the case that blanket legalization of controlled substances is a good idea.

Also, I think that you minimize the risks associated with certain drugs, particularly for those with pre-existing health conditions. [Imagine, if you will, a person with bipolar disorder on ampthetamines or a schizophrenic on LSD. And then remember that not everyone with those conditions is aware they have them.]

The problem I have with your argument Justice is one I have repeatedly addressed in my posts. It's that it hinges on the idea that more people will take drugs if they are made legal.

To elaborate: you refer to information which states a link between drug use and psychosis. We should find that link alarming, precisely because there are people in society at this very moment who will become victims of psychosis as a result of their drug use. That is why the information exists at all. So if these people are then prone to commit acts of violence or do anything that would violate another person's rights, these actions must therefore already be occuring, and whether drugs are made legal or not would only have an effect on how often such actions occur if it were the case that legalising drugs could be shown to result in an increase in the number of people using them (and hence becoming psychotic).

All well and good then to show me links between psychosis and drug use, but if you want that information to support your argument (that pyschotic individuals will endanger the rest of us) you will have to show me evidence that the current legal status of drugs is a factor in preventing that danger (presumably by reducing the number of drug induced psychoses). Show me figures relating to the connecton between crime and drug induced psychosis therefore, and not merely the fact that psychosis can result. The same goes for your argument earlier in this topic that people under the intoxication of a drug can be dangerous: show me that this is true, and then show me evidence that this danger will become worse if drugs were made legal, and I will accept your claims.

Also worth noting is the fact that the number of people who incur mental illness as a result of drug use is a very small minority of the population. They are unlucky and it's very unfortunate that it does happen. The rest of us however should not be prevented from choosing whether or not to use drugs simply in order to protect them (which prohibition fails to do anyway, since people everywhere still use drugs despite their illegality, as I alluded to above).

Quote from: "Justice"I still think that you have failed to make the case that blanket legalization of controlled substances is a good idea.

Indeed, I am always hard pressed to do so, and in any case I don't really intend to. I am not interested so much in making people believe that legalisation is a good idea, since most people are uninterested in the prospect of using drugs and so it is not a potential freedom that they value very highly. What I am interested in doing instead is showing them that prohibition is a bad idea. It's expensive, it's invasive of our privacy and liberty, and it serves almost no useful function, since people use drugs regardless or their illegality, and are simply made to feel like criminals and deviants for no good reason. Once people realise this they ought to think about reforming drug laws, regardless of whether it is in their own interest or not.

I personally don't have any issue with marijuana or hash. I don't think they are gateway drugs. In Canada, while they are not legal, if you are caught with either, they get confiscated and you are fined. I think they should be legal. The fact these are not legal is directly the fault of cotton industry lobbyists.

I don't think the issue is simply that it's our own business what we put in our bodies, but more what happens afterward. People having overdoses on stronger drugs are a strain on society in terms of health care, and addicts are a strain on society in the sense that they may turn to crime and are unable to contribute.

QuotePeople having overdoses on stronger drugs are a strain on society in terms of health care

True, but as I pointed out in my last post, this is only relevant to the discussion of prohibition *if* we suppose that more people will use drugs if they were legal. Otherwise, it makes no difference, since a 'strain' on our public health care system exists anyway, regardless of the illegality of drugs.

I should point out, evidence in this area suggests the contrary. In extensive surveys conducted in this country, the majority of respondents who claimed never to have use drugs cited "just not interested" as the main reason for their decision. The illegality of drugs was of much less concern, listed towards the bottom. The survey can be found here (http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10190), if anyone's interested. Simply put, making drugs illegal does not change people's motivations to use or not to use them. Most people on this forum could, through resourceful use of contacts, obtain illegal drugs if they wanted, given enough time. It is not difficult and some of you may have even come across the opportunity entirely by accident.

Quoteaddicts are a strain on society in the sense that they may turn to crime and are unable to contribute.

There are many factors that turn people to crime, and once you realise how absurd it would be to try and make them all illegal you can see the futility of that line of argument. Poverty for example, and lack of education, are hugely responsible for the rate of crime. Should these things be illegal?

If drugs (and I'm talking heroine, PCP etc.) were made legal, I certainly do think that saturation would be far more prevalent. I am sure that there are many people who wouldn't otherwise partake in drug usage that would use if it were legal and available.

We can't negate the curiosity factor and legality removes a level of stigma that certain drugs currently have. I am certain that usage would go up. Especially among college youth.

I do however agree with a great many of the points you have made. I would personally like to see an experimental legalization in a specified test area.

QuoteIf drugs (and I'm talking heroine, PCP etc.) were made legal, I certainly do think that saturation would be far more prevalent. I am sure that there are many people who wouldn't otherwise partake in drug usage that would use if it were legal and available.

Overall I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'legal' and 'available'. If mere drug possession were decriminalised, the rate of drug use I think would not change at all. Maybe a fraction of a fraction of a percent. If it became legal to sell drugs, their use might indeed become more prevalent, but keep in mind we would then be equipped with the ability to regulate the market. In the same way that the use of cigarettes is being controlled (in increasingly extreme manners in many countries), and to a lesser extent alcohol, we could control the sale and purchase of narcotics. The benefits of this, as well as hopefully reducing the number of drug users, are increased revenue from taxes and control of such factors as purity and dosage -- safer drugs.

QuoteWe can't negate the curiosity factor and legality removes a level of stigma that certain drugs currently have.

The stigma of illegal drugs is a good point actually. It does prove to be an effective deterrent, I would argue much more so than the threat of legal sanction. However, I question how much that has to do with their illegality. It's important not to underestimate how powerful society's disapproval can be. I think even if the drugs you mentioned were legal, there would still be a stigma surrounding their use, in the same way that many legal but nevertheless deviant behaviours are stigmatised currently, particularly when they involve self-harm or inability to participate in the social structure. Alcoholism, for example, or suicidal behaviour. In this country, the indigenous population in many of the more impoverished communities faces significant problems with the inhalation of petrol -- a legal substance. I'm sure there are many more examples you could think of.

QuoteI would personally like to see an experimental legalization in a specified test area.

I would also be very interested in seeing this. But I can't see it happening any time soon. Current received wisdom in most developed countries is that we have a moral imperative to protect people from drugs, and were we to leave people to their own devices, we would be responsible for the consequences. It would take a long time and a lot of pursuasion to convince people otherwise. Such is the nature of the nanny state. Giving it responsibilites is as easy as pie. Taking them away requires wrenching them from nanny's iron -- but loving -- grip.  :wink:

Quote from: "pjkeeley"Such is the nature of the nanny state. Giving it responsibilites is as easy as pie. Taking them away requires wrenching them from nanny's iron -- but loving -- grip.

:lol:   Well put!

Quote from: "pjkeeley"

QuoteIf drugs (and I'm talking heroine, PCP etc.) were made legal, I certainly do think that saturation would be far more prevalent. I am sure that there are many people who wouldn't otherwise partake in drug usage that would use if it were legal and available.

Overall I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'legal' and 'available'. If mere drug possession were decriminalised, the rate of drug use I think would not change at all. Maybe a fraction of a fraction of a percent. If it became legal to sell drugs, their use might indeed become more prevalent, but keep in mind we would then be equipped with the ability to regulate the market. In the same way that the use of cigarettes is being controlled (in increasingly extreme manners in many countries), and to a lesser extent alcohol, we could control the sale and purchase of narcotics. The benefits of this, as well as hopefully reducing the number of drug users, are increased revenue from taxes and control of such factors as purity and dosage -- safer drugs.

QuoteWe can't negate the curiosity factor and legality removes a level of stigma that certain drugs currently have.

The stigma of illegal drugs is a good point actually. It does prove to be an effective deterrent, I would argue much more so than the threat of legal sanction. However, I question how much that has to do with their illegality. It's important not to underestimate how powerful society's disapproval can be. I think even if the drugs you mentioned were legal, there would still be a stigma surrounding their use, in the same way that many legal but nevertheless deviant behaviours are stigmatised currently, particularly when they involve self-harm or inability to participate in the social structure. Alcoholism, for example, or suicidal behaviour. In this country, the indigenous population in many of the more impoverished communities faces significant problems with the inhalation of petrol -- a legal substance. I'm sure there are many more examples you could think of.

QuoteI would personally like to see an experimental legalization in a specified test area.

I would also be very interested in seeing this. But I can't see it happening any time soon. Current received wisdom in most developed countries is that we have a moral imperative to protect people from drugs, and were we to leave people to their own devices, we would be responsible for the consequences. It would take a long time and a lot of pursuasion to convince people otherwise. Such is the nature of the nanny state. Giving it responsibilites is as easy as pie. Taking them away requires wrenching them from nanny's iron -- but loving -- grip.  :wink:

Good points, PJ. My views on this subject have definitely changed over the years. I was a staunch, but ignorant critic of legalization of drugs, including pot, for a long time. Amazing what a little education and time can do.

QuoteThe stigma of illegal drugs is a good point actually. It does prove to be an effective deterrent, I would argue much more so than the threat of legal sanction. However, I question how much that has to do with their illegality. It's important not to underestimate how powerful society's disapproval can be. I think even if the drugs you mentioned were legal, there would still be a stigma surrounding their use, in the same way that many legal but nevertheless deviant behaviours are stigmatised currently, particularly when they involve self-harm or inability to participate in the social structure. Alcoholism, for example, or suicidal behaviour. In this country, the indigenous population in many of the more impoverished communities faces significant problems with the inhalation of petrol -- a legal substance. I'm sure there are many more examples you could think of.

While there is most definitely a stigma around alcoholism, we can't deny the power of denial. Most alcoholics are in complete denial about their alcoholism while they are drinking. Anyone experimenting with strong and highly addictive drugs often lives under the same denial.

It is easy for a person to convince themselves that they are in control of their drug use. After all they are not some gross junkie who doesn't bathe and trades hand jobs for smack under the expressway.

So with hard drugs made more accessible through legalization, I think that many more people would partake and live under the delusion that because they are from a good background, well educated and under control and that they can quit any time and therefore are not an addict.

I hope I am getting my point across, my sentence structure is weak today. I'm kind of tired- not stoned.  

I've had too many examples in my family of what drugs do to people to agree with the idea of legalizing illegal drugs. My uncle has used meth as far as I can tell, and he's living with his mother at the age of 50 with no job, and turned my mother's family home into a crackhouse. He's not the same person that he used to be. I have to take my mother's word for it that he used to be funny, as now he's a recluse that stays in the back bedroom of the house at gatherings. He also has lymphoma, also most likely caused by the amphetamines.

My cousin is addicted to cocaine probably. This has caused him to lose custody of his now eight year old daughter. He pretends to be a father on the best of days, but when he's on the cocaine he has done such things as terrorize his daughter, write obscenities on the walls of his mother's house, where the daughter is living, and once threatened to shoot my mother while in one of his drug-induced rages. He is constantly stealing computer parts form his mother and anything not bolted down from his grandmother to sell for drug money. He can;t hold a job for a month, and he's 30. THe worst thing is that he keeps having children, which are probably damaged for life by whatever their mothers were on while pregnant.

As i said, I've had too many perfect examples of how wonderful drugs are.

QuoteI've had too many examples in my family of what drugs do to people to agree with the idea of legalizing illegal drugs. My uncle has used meth as far as I can tell, and he's living with his mother at the age of 50 with no job, and turned my mother's family home into a crackhouse. He's not the same person that he used to be. I have to take my mother's word for it that he used to be funny, as now he's a recluse that stays in the back bedroom of the house at gatherings. He also has lymphoma, also most likely caused by the amphetamines.

My cousin is addicted to cocaine probably. This has caused him to lose custody of his now eight year old daughter. He pretends to be a father on the best of days, but when he's on the cocaine he has done such things as terrorize his daughter, write obscenities on the walls of his mother's house, where the daughter is living, and once threatened to shoot my mother while in one of his drug-induced rages. He is constantly stealing computer parts form his mother and anything not bolted down from his grandmother to sell for drug money. He can;t hold a job for a month, and he's 30. THe worst thing is that he keeps having children, which are probably damaged for life by whatever their mothers were on while pregnant.

As i said, I've had too many perfect examples of how wonderful drugs are.

These are tuly terrible examples of the effect illegal drugs have on people Seosamh, but whether or not we agree that drugs can do terrible things is not the same question as whether or not we agree that they should be illegal.

Consider the current drug policy of most Western nations, in which drug use is currently illegal and punishable. Despite this fact, and as you pointed out, people continue to use drugs even though they are illegal. The most common arguments many critics of decriminalisation seem to rely on is that if drugs were made legal:

a) more people would use drugs, and
b) society would be condoning their use.

These are both baseless assumptions. Addressing the latter point first, there are currently a great many things (drugs, poisons, weapons, etc.) that are legal to purchase and which could have a dangerous effect on the user, yet society certainly does not condone this or indeed any reckless or dangerous behaviour. Focusing on legal drugs for a moment (alcohol and tobacco being the biggest killers, much more so than illegal drugs), nobody condones the fact that these legal substance make people into addicts in today's society, whether it be alcoholics or people addicted to inhalants or painkillers or whatever. We do the best we can to help them out of their situation. That is what should be done with drugs that are now illegal. The attention we focus on making them into criminals should be focused on alleviating their problems. It just seems like common sense to me.

As for the view that more people would use drugs that are currently illegal if they were made legal, there is simply no evidence to suggest this is so. Surveys of the general population as well as evidence from countries with more liberal drug policies suggest this view is false. Most people who are inclined to use drugs can find access to them, and this seems to me one of the most obvious drawbacks of prohibition: how easy it is to obtain drugs despite them being illegal. It is also a very easy 'crime' to get away with. As for the rest of the population, polls show they simply aren't interested in using those drugs in the first place, and whether they are legal or illegal makes no difference to them. So, in essence, what we know suggests that the status quo would remain the same if drugs were made legal.

Why is this so? In my opinion the most effective deterrent against any form of deviant behaviour is the stigma that society imposes on deviants. There is no reason why we would need to be more tolerant towards drug use simply if it were legal. So long as society continues to condemn drug use, the cultural effect of this stigmatisation will mean that few people use drugs. Those that do are even less likely to want to abuse them for the same reason. When I was in Japan, I noticed they had cigarette and alcohol vending machines on the street. There was nothing to prevent underage kids from using them, yet Japan has no more of a problem with underage drinking and smoking than any other country, possibly less. Why? Because Japanese culture utterly shuns those who deviate from accepted behaviour. I guess you don't need a nanny state when parents are doing their job properly.

The advantages of legalising drugs, on the other hand, are many. Among other things, they include:

i) Market control of supply, price, purity, dosage, and so on, meaning safer drugs as well as the ability to regulate their purchase.
ii) Increased revenue possibilities from taxation as well as slashing the law enforcement budget, money which could be put back into alleviating drug problems.
iii) Thwarting the black market that has built up around illegal drugs and which fuels many other forms of organised crime.

That's basically a summary of my view, expressed in more detail in earlier posts. I conclude by pointing out that prohibition didn't work with alcohol because the opinion of the majority went against it. Even those that supported it in the first place could see that it wasn't working. The majority of people today aren't interested in using illegal drugs, yet they fail to see that prohibiting them is equally pointless. Wake up, world.

This is an argument I've been having with myself for a long time. It seems like every website I look up has something different to say about the effects of marijuana-- from it being extremely harmful and bad, to it being much less harmful than cigarettes. I can see what it's doing to my friend who does it regularly; he's distant, secretive, and negligent with friendships and schoolwork.

But then again, laws can't be made on such a personal level. If someone wants to mess up the relationships they have and keep secrets, that's not the government's business. Laws should be made to protect people from other people, so if the action doesn't hurt others, it shouldn't be illegal, right?

My current opinion on marijuana (not harder drugs) is that it should be made legal-- only because it doesn't seem to be any worse than cigarettes or alcohol, and those are legal. It's an extremely tough issue to solve.

For what it's worth, the_atheist_organist, I think the best reason to make it legal is what you laid down here:

Quote from: "the_atheist_organist"But then again, laws can't be made on such a personal level. If someone wants to mess up the relationships they have and keep secrets, that's not the government's business. Laws should be made to protect people from other people, so if the action doesn't hurt others, it shouldn't be illegal, right?

That is my feeling on the matter.  People should be granted freedom up to the extent that claiming their freedom does not remove someone else's freedom.

While I would be upset if one of my close friends became withdrawn due to drug use, I certainly can't claim a "right" that they remain close with me.  This is a personal desire, but I can't impose this upon them as a requirement.  I might try to talk them out of the drug use, and explain how I valued our friendship which had seemingly failed, but I would hardly find it appropriate to lock them in prison and forcefully prevent them from taking whatever drug they were using.  This I would find to be a gross infraction upon their freedom.

Thinking like this is why I come down on the side of legalization --- I value personal freedoms over the nanny state.  In fact, one of the primary objections to legalization is that legalizing something constitutes promotion of it, yet this itself doesn't make any sense once we get away from the whole nanny-state concept.  If the state is there as a necessary regulator for the cases where people began to harm each other by transgressing against their freedoms, and this is all, then it becomes clear to see that a legal action is not a promoted or endorsed action.  It is just an action that is not transgressing upon another's freedom.

I agree, for the most part. When it comes to marijuana, I think it should not be illegal. http://norml.org/ (http://norml.org/)

When it comes to some of the drugs that damage lives, I'm not sure. Maybe it shouldn't be illegal to consume them, but if a parent starts doing meth or something at the expense of their child's well-being, there should be some serious repurcussions there.

QuoteWhen it comes to some of the drugs that damage lives, I'm not sure. Maybe it shouldn't be illegal to consume them, but if a parent starts doing meth or something at the expense of their child's well-being, there should be some serious repurcussions there.

Good point, however, there already are laws and regulations to prevent the neglect of children. Alcoholic parents included. So I don't think that particular point factors into discussion of whether drugs should be legal or not.

I know it's hard for anyone to imagine what it would be like living in a society in which ALL drugs are legal, and the idea that they should be illegal is deeply ingrained; my argument as set out in previous posts hopefully goes some way to pointing out that such a society would not be very different to the way it is now, perhaps even better, as outlined in my arguments as to why legal drugs could be beneficial.

I just want to make one simple statement.  I don't want to see ALL illegal drugs made legal, just pot.  I choose not to drink because I don't like the taste, it bloats me, and it makes my migraines worse.  I have dealt with the judgment of even people who drink alcahol and feel that they are such hypocrites because they're down on someone who smokes to get high as opposed to someone who merely drinks to get high. I can tolerate a person who doesn't do anything to get high a whole lot easier.  I remind these people that alcahol was illegal once too, but that didn't necessarily make is immoral.  And now we just wink at those old bootleggers who sold moonshine.  I also tell them that abortion is legal, but that doesn't make it moral.  I think that pot will become legal someday hopefully in my lifetime!  How many pot smokin presidents have we had now?  Remember, Clinton didn't inhale!  Anyway, nice to read all of the opinions.  Lot's of intelligent people here.....

I don't drink because it lets the crazy out. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftools.digeratimarketing.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Flb%2Fsmile%2Fjumping%2Fjumping0014.gif&hash=d953ce9d78b8439723566dce690c77677ce2cee9)

Still, I can't imagine trying to explain why I made heroin legal to my kids. No, I can't support legalizing every illegal drug. Maybe just mj, shrooms, and light opiums.

Quote from: "Willravel"Still, I can't imagine trying to explain why I made heroin legal to my kids.

Were I the author of the Legalisation of Drugs Act 2028, I would explain to my kids, proudly, that we now live in a freer society in which the role of government is not to protect people from themselves, then explain that legal heroin has resulted in fewer overdoses, fewer diseases associated with injecting practices, and has allowed the government to impose a tax which has gone towards helping addicts. I would also tell them, in my firmest possible voice, never to use heroin. Ever.