Should drugs be legalized ?

[Amishman44]

As a former biology and health teacher...absolutely NOT! When you discuss legalizing even the main 'gateway' drug(s)...alcohol already is 'regulated' and marijuana, so many already grow/buy/use it...you have to discuss all the ramifications (effects) they already have on society. To do so (to legalize) is to create even more problems in society...that negatively affects employment (attendance and safety issues are increased)...productivity (the ability to produce quality work)...etc.

That would be all the US needs is an increased decadent society...that then leans towards increased federal assistance.

 

[steveh_131]

And this is why we can't have nice things...and why we shouldn't legalize drugs before the responsibility for their misuse is in place. Just because we've made that mistake dozens of times before does not mean we need to make it again.

Every mis-use of drugs that leads to the harm of another is already illegal. If you think that punishments should be stiffer then let's have that discussion. Push for that. You're pushing for something else entirely, something that doesn't work and that destroys our liberties.

To do so (to legalize) is to create even more problems in society...that negatively affects employment (attendance and safety issues are increased)...productivity (the ability to produce quality work)...etc.

Prove it. Prove that legalizing it would make any of these problems worse. Legalizing alcohol didn't, why would legalizing other drugs?

That would be all the US needs is an increased decadent society...that then leans towards increased federal assistance.

If your problem is government entitlement programs, work towards getting rid of those. Prohibition is a stupid and backwards solution to that problem, and it doesn't work.

 

[dusty88]

Yes, that's my position. Too often we rush to the new cool thing with no apparent concern over its impact on the rest of us...who now have our rights and freedoms getting violated. Cell phones should have started out being illegal for drivers to use at any time the vehicle is moving. It is why I included texting and drinking in my original statement.

I give you credibility for being consistent.

I'm very concerned about your willingness to regulate as the "first option" and to believe that legal prohibitions result in positive behavioral changes, but at least you are consistent.

We'd have a lot more neighborhood Gasthaus's if we made the penalties for drunk driving equivalent to the damage done to others.

What is the proper moral boundary and effective boundary for "drunk driving", and are those 2 boundaries the same?

Is it someone who has ANY alcohol in their system, even if their driving and reflexes are better than the guy who has a cold or didn't get quite enough sleep? Or is it the driver that, for whatever reason, made a mistake that ultimately resulted in someone's death? I don't have the answer to that myself by the way but the question gives me pause.

What about having an open bottle of alcohol in your car? Is there anything moral or effective about punishing someone who cracked their beer and had 2 sips on the way home (assuming we aren't punishing someone for picking up a cup of water or Coke while driving) ? What about someone who allowed a passenger to drink? that last one to me seems obviously just a way to increase punishments on the books and not influence actual drunk driving. It doesn't affect my driving if my husband has a wine or beer while I'm driving the car.

Just because we've made that mistake dozens of times before does not mean we need to make it again.

Drugs were legal before they were illegal. Alcohol has been both. I think the evidence for prohibition of either is that it is not effective at helping either the individuals or the safety of society. Prohibition carries a very high cost in terms of increased crime, government resources, shifting profits to organizations that benefit from imprisonment, increasing the conflict between police and non-violent citizens, and putting the police more at risk due to creating the violence of an active black market. And I've forgotten how much of our tax dollars we spend on the drug war.

And for the record no, I don't do drugs. They don't have an attraction for me. I don't even let friends bring marijuana around me because at this time I won't risk my professional license. I don't think it's my business what someone else does with their body though. As for driving, I support consequences for actual dangerous driving. And perhaps the police would have more free time for these risky and harmful behaviors if they weren't so busy with the drug war. I'm pretty sure our prison and prosecution system could keep the violent criminals in jail if we weren't dealing with drug charges.

 

[Thor]

I give you credibility for being consistent.

I'm very concerned about your willingness to regulate as the "first option" and to believe that legal prohibitions result in positive behavioral changes, but at least you are consistent. .

Consistency...being an ********* is all part of my manly essence.

My first option for regulation is with the driver and the dangerous driving. The penalties for that should be so harsh that people don't do it for whatever reason. But once done, any amplifying circumstances should eliminate any lenience. Anyone can be distracted, make a mistake, respond poorly to a situation. If they were stoned/drunk/texting they should receive no more mercy than the pedestrian they ran down or family they killed.

We could apply that standard to any and all activities.

What is the proper moral boundary and effective boundary for "drunk driving", and are those 2 boundaries the same?

Is it someone who has ANY alcohol in their system, even if their driving and reflexes are better than the guy who has a cold or didn't get quite enough sleep? Or is it the driver that, for whatever reason, made a mistake that ultimately resulted in someone's death? I don't have the answer to that myself by the way but the question gives me pause.

What about having an open bottle of alcohol in your car? Is there anything moral or effective about punishing someone who cracked their beer and had 2 sips on the way home (assuming we aren't punishing someone for picking up a cup of water or Coke while driving) ? What about someone who allowed a passenger to drink? that last one to me seems obviously just a way to increase punishments on the books and not influence actual drunk driving. It doesn't affect my driving if my husband has a wine or beer while I'm driving the car. .

You are driving the car. Knowing (reasonable person) neglect on the drivers part should be the measure. I don't care what anyone else in the car is doing. I don't care what anyone else is doing to their own body either...as long as in doing so they do not present a danger to my family or me in doing so. I just don't think we can get there by making drugs legal first; the trend seem to be less responsibility for personal actions not more.

Freedom needs to come with responsibility or what is being advocated is anarchy.

 

[dusty88]

Thanks for clarifying your position Thor. I don't 100% agree with it but I can see where you are coming from.

 

[ATM]

...Freedom needs to come with responsibility or what is being advocated is anarchy.

We don't need rulers prohibiting and cartelizing vices to practice responsible freedom. Natural law has always been sufficient to hold people accountable for real crimes.

 

[DWT]

We've done as well at the war on drugs as we have the war on terror or the war on poverty.
Why not declare it a loss and legalize? It helped Colorado's economy when they legalized pot, in a demonstrable, statistically significant way.

 

[poptab]

We've done as well at the war on drugs as we have the war on terror or the war on poverty.
Why not declare it a loss and legalize? It helped Colorado's economy when they legalized pot, in a demonstrable, statistically significant way.

Well I don't think the government will legalize terror. They don't like competition.

 

[dusty88]

Well I don't think the government will legalize terror. They don't like competition.

snorted my wine on that one

 

[jamil]

snorted my wine on that one

If you snort it does that mak it illegal?

 

[Sling10mm]

The default position should be liberty, otherwise you end up with what we have today, so many things against the law that don't result in a direct crime against a person and/or their property. I think it should be legalized, and as with anything else, a person should be held responsible for the negative effects their actions. Also, I'm not convinced that if made legal those currently not using drugs will want to rush out and try them. They are so readily available now that if someone wants it, they can get it. If heroin were made legal tomorrow and cost $1 a dose, I would still have no desire to go out and shoot up.

It has been touched on just in passing throughout this thread, but I think the big hurdle to get over in legalizing drugs is that the prosecution (law enforcement and courts) and incarceration of drug "criminals" (jails and prisons) is big business. The idea that taxing it to bring in revenues to the government is, IMO, the wrong angle. The benefit of legalizing it is a small move in the direction of liberty, reduced crime, and redirecting of the resources wasted in fighting it going to make our country solvent again (also a move toward liberty).

Now am I optimistic that any of this will happen? No, I think we are so far gone that this behemoth is headed for disaster, and not until after that will there be an opportunity to right the ship.

 

[ATM]

^ agreed.