Drug Legalization

[IBCoupe]

Sure they do; just not the laws Arizona wants. You start begging them to crack down on Marijuana dispensaries, and see if the fed shows up.

'Course, that'd feed what might developing into a "You really don't want to be here" image for Arizona...

[WDRacing]

1. Yes.
2. I haven't heard a compelling arguments against legalizing any of them.
3. Let the states determine that.
4. Yes. The D part of the abbreviation is what makes it clear to me.
5. Yes. The free availability of information is absolutely fundamental to a functioning free market.

Didn't read anything past this post. Sums up how I feel pretty closely.

[IBCoupe]

Every time you guys agree with me, I get more and more embarrassed at the typo in #2. Supposed to be "...heard any compelling.."

[wingFeather]

This will not save/generate money as suggested. The toll on our healthcare system would be tremendous.

Why?

Do you think MORE people will use / consume formerly-illicit substances?

I don't - In fact, I think there's VERY FEW people who WANT to use drugs, but don't because they're afraid of going to jail.

It WILL generate money. I'm working on the early stages of drafting oversight and monitoring rules for the licensure of medicinal marijuana dispensaries (in anticipation of it passing here in AZ). The early estimate on revenue for license fees ALONE is pretty impressive.

Yes, more people will be tempted to try them. And these substances are addictive, so there will be many who become dependent against their will. As for the revenues, they will be more than canceled out by our healthcare system treating the long term side effects of consuming these substances. I cannot believe that you don't see this. Do you personally know any long term drug users? I know more than my fair share, and they are not healthy people. Too much long term damage, physically and/or psychologically. These substances are illegal for good reason - let's keep it that way.

[AppleBonker]

So they're illegal, but you know plenty of users. Clearly, the illegality is working. Also, do you realize how much money is spent on enforcement? Then, factor in how many people are already using and taxing our health care system. You should honestly step back and analyze again. I think you'd be surprised.

My biggest complaint about drug-law supporters is that they don't realize that the drugs are actually not the problem. Drugs don't make people do bad things. It's all in the people. Alcohol doesn't make you beat your wife. Crack/meth don't make you steal stuff. That's purely the individual and the drugs have minimal impact on those decisions. It may make it slightly more likely for these people to commit said crimes, but only slightly. And if you want to argue health, should we make alcohol, cigarettes and fatty foods illegal as well? I'd argue that those are just as harmful (if not more) as the currently illegal drugs.

Also, it would be nice to see steroids at least decriminalized. It really is a joke that synthetic testosterone is illegal.

[audtatious]

How about a law to go along with decriminalizing "recreational" drugs (including Cigs/Cigars/chew/alcohol) which states the person who uses said drugs will waive all Gov-funded health assistance for any issue that is a result of using said drugs? Hell, allow insurance companies to drop coverage for said issues resulting from drug use as well.

If you want to use them then you should pay the consequences and not the general public.

[stebo0728]

I like that Aud, Ive said similar things before, sorta like seat belt and helmet laws, if your dumb enough to not do either, so be it, but either A) your turned down for care if your injured and cant pay, or B) your treated anyway since we are humane people, but then your entire estate is up for grabs to compensate the hospital. Also give hospital bills the same protection as student loans (no bancruptcy allowed).

WF, how many of the people you know as long time users actually know what they are consuming? I would argue alot of the poor health we see comes more from the substances used to "cut" the supply than the drug itself, ive heard of cocaine being cut with talcum powder, not sure how unhealthy that is, but who knows what all sorta stuff is used to dilute the supply for the sake of the dealer making more money?

[wingFeather]

So they're illegal, but you know plenty of users. Clearly, the illegality is working. Also, do you realize how much money is spent on enforcement? Then, factor in how many people are already using and taxing our health care system. You should honestly step back and analyze again. I think you'd be surprised.

My biggest complaint about drug-law supporters is that they don't realize that the drugs are actually not the problem. Drugs don't make people do bad things. It's all in the people. Alcohol doesn't make you beat your wife. Crack/meth don't make you steal stuff. That's purely the individual and the drugs have minimal impact on those decisions. It may make it slightly more likely for these people to commit said crimes, but only slightly. And if you want to argue health, should we make alcohol, cigarettes and fatty foods illegal as well? I'd argue that those are just as harmful (if not more) as the currently illegal drugs.

Also, it would be nice to see steroids at least decriminalized. It really is a joke that synthetic testosterone is illegal.

Two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, making what is wrong "legal" doesn't fix anything. It creates a whole new series of problems in the moral fabric.

WF, how many of the people you know as long time users actually know what they are consuming? I would argue alot of the poor health we see comes more from the substances used to "cut" the supply than the drug itself, ive heard of cocaine being cut with talcum powder, not sure how unhealthy that is, but who knows what all sorta stuff is used to dilute the supply for the sake of the dealer making more money?

I knew a chem major who made his own LSD. I'm sure he didn't mix it with anything since he was consuming it himself. Dude lost his mind.

Spend a few years studying the brain in college. This is not an organ you want to mess with!

[AZhitman]

Legalize it all. THEN, everyone gets to concealed carry, without a permit, just like AZ.

Get addicted, run out of money, steal something, get shot. Simple.

Sober people are a lot better aim than intoxicated people.

Stack the useless ones like cordwood. Hell, if we could find a way to power a generator with them, we can control population AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time.

[mattblancarte]

When was the last time someone was killed in a beer-truck raid? 1933?

Legalize and regulate drugs to end violence and the insane black market drug world.

Don't have time to really respond further, but I'm in agreement with IB's initial response. WIll be lurking.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Another argument for legalization is the potential to eliminate the power of drug cartels...especially those in Mexico and South America. Government funded labs created government approved drugs severely cuts down the market share of any drug trafficker. Considering how much damage those cartels cause to Mexican towns...it's something to consider.
In fact...Mexico has taken measures for exactly this reason in allowing people to posses small amounts of heroin, mj, and cocain or other drugs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 76792.html

On another note...
The Swiss are f*** insane.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/3 ... 47245.html

[BusyBadger]

Stack the useless ones like cordwood. Hell, if we could find a way to power a generator with them, we can control population AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time.

I had a similar thought...and it's Food Stamp/WIC Approved

[wingFeather]

When was the last time someone was killed in a beer-truck raid? 1933?

Legalize and regulate drugs to end violence and the insane black market drug world.

Don't have time to really respond further, but I'm in agreement with IB's initial response. WIll be lurking.

The difference being that, on average, one can drink a beer once in a while and suffer no long term damage, nor chemical dependency. The same can't be said of narcotics. The averages for surviving experimentation without serious issues is a lot lower. To try & put it in simple terms - people don't go robbing & killing others to support a happy hour habit.

I recommend everyone read up on "Narco", the unethical facility in my town that administered drugs to prisoners in an effort to understand their effects. It is a milestone in scientific, cognitive, moral and ethical history (in addition to the military's experiments with narcotics). This should be valuable information for those who appreciate scientific fact versus conjecture. What you *want* to believe about drugs, and what really happens, are two different things.

[stebo0728]

Stack the useless ones like cordwood. Hell, if we could find a way to power a generator with them, we can control population AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time.

Might help reduce the spread of AIDS too

[mattblancarte]

The difference being that, on average, one can drink a beer once in a while and suffer no long term damage, nor chemical dependency. The same can't be said of narcotics. The averages for surviving experimentation without serious issues is a lot lower. To try & put it in simple terms - people don't go robbing & killing others to support a happy hour habit.

I'm sorry... I'm going to have a very hard time taking you seriously if you're trying to:

1. Make an attempt to say that alcohol isn't a very dangerous NARCOTIC drug in itself.
2. Lump all narcotics together, and claim that they are all equally dangerous.

I'm going to step out on a limb and say that my reference to alcohol prohibition during the years 1920-1933 flew right over your head. Yes, there was a time when people robbed and killed to support happy hour.

You know why people don't kill each other over beer trucks anymore? There is a system of regulation and economic support to allow for the safe sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Conflicts no longer need to be settled via gun fights because they can be settled in the courtroom.

[audtatious]

How do you effectively "regulate" the levels of drugs (your #2 above). What about drugs that are known to cause addiction very quickly after taking them?

Wing makes a good point. You would not see people robbing others and breaking into homes to get money for their alcohol fix if it were illegal. The people didn't break in and steel stuff during prohibition, it was the gangsters (unlike someone who needs a heroin fix today). Having "free reign" with drugs like cocaine, crack, meth, PCP, etc. there is surely going to be issues. How do you regulate those to protect the non-drugged out population? I'm thinking of the regular people here, not the druggies.

Additionally, if those "style" drugs are decriminalized/regulated and they cost more or are harder to get than others then you still wind up with"drug lords" creating the product cheaper. Same as when the users start to run out of money they will turn to getting it cheaper, thus the black market again. What if the Gov decides not to allow use of "those addictive and destructive" products? There would be no end to the conflicts, thus no solution to what we are dealing with now.

[mattblancarte]

You mean as addictive as something like cigarettes? 100 million people died as a result of cigarette use in the 20th century.

Regulate it exactly as we do the insanely dangerous drug, alcohol. 85,000 annual deaths occur from usage of alcohol.

You know how many annual deaths occur from hardcore drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc. combined? 17,000.

I'm sorry, but your response is ripe with supposition. I don't know what "free reign" means in the context of this conversation, as I have yet to see something along those lines suggested by myself or anyone else. They (non-users) are protected by sensible laws that punish violence and potentially deadly behavior (e.g. drunk driving laws).

Where are the alcohol drug lords? You're claiming that the black market of illicit drugs will come back after legalization? I think not.

In terms of pricing, you're greatly overestimating costs related to drug production. The street value of drugs right now has everything to do with the fact that they are illegal. Legalized drugs + tax implications will keep costs to consumers considerably lower than the illegal black market.

[AppleBonker]

And I still will argue that using crime to support a habit is not a result of the habit. People steal all the time to be richer and have nice things. The fact is that people, in general, suck. While they may use drugs as their excuse, it's completely lame to think there was a direct relationship. I have a VERY addictive personality. When I find something I like, I'm hooked on it. That goes for electronics, food, you name it. I have not once stolen anything to support any of my habits, and doing drugs would be no different for me. However, you probably wont see me shooting heroin because I have a hunch on how hooked I would get.

And I'll side with Greg. Allow more people to carry and just take down the addict when they're trying to rip you off. Even if everything were decriminalized, a meth-head breaking into your apartment is probably not going to get you in much trouble with the law when you put 8 center mass.

[AZhitman]

Additionally, if those "style" drugs are decriminalized/regulated and they cost more or are harder to get than others then you still wind up with"drug lords" creating the product cheaper. Same as when the users start to run out of money they will turn to getting it cheaper, thus the black market again.

That's where Taiwan and China come in and flood the market with cheap knockoffs.

[wingFeather]

Yes, there was a time when people robbed and killed to support happy hour.

I am talking about people in modern times who have full access to illegal drugs, who STILL kill and rob to get money to pay for them. Please tell me you see the difference!!!

2. Lump all narcotics together, and claim that they are all equally dangerous.

I did not make this claim. I am simply following the precedent of this thread, in which people have been posting that all drugs should be legalized. I will agree that some are more dangerous than others, but they are all dangerous & have been made illegal for good reason.

Also, the term "narcotic" has different meanings depending on if we are talking about a more scientific term (something which induces sleep) or the looser government term which encompasses uppers/downers/hallucinogens/etc. Alcohol is a "narcotic" as you mentioned - in scientific terms - but is not in the same family as meth. I hope you do not believe they are even close.

[AppleBonker]

but they are all dangerous & have been made illegal for good reason.

Really? Care to share those "good reasons". I suggest you research why certain drugs were made illegal. Marijuana is an excellent one to begin with. If you look into it and come back thinking it was made illegal for a good reason, you are really don't think well for yourself. Then, research steroids and see why they are illegal. I would honestly love to hear a good explanation on those two.

[stebo0728]

I will agree that some are more dangerous than others, but they are all dangerous & have been made illegal for good reason.

Please explain to me how marijuanna is ANY more dangerous that alchohol or tobbaco. And please dont throw that lame a** "gateway drug" argument out there.

[wingFeather]

smoke weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed yo weed do no damages to brainz

Now I remember why I don't type out paragraph after paragraph on this forum anymore. What a waste of time

[stebo0728]

smoke weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed yo weed do no damages to brainz

Now I remember why I don't type out paragraph after paragraph on this forum anymore. What a waste of time

Someone has to clean the toilets and take out the trash, what better way to figure out who. Ever seen someone dying of a failing liver from too much of the 'ol bottle? Wheezing for every breath because of COPD isnt too fun either.

[AppleBonker]

Now I remember why I don't type out paragraph after paragraph on this forum anymore. What a waste of time

Because you're incapable? Or you know you're wrong? Or you have no data to support any of your claims? Marijuana is probably no more a long-term health risk than cigarettes. Since you claim it's such a terribly unhealthy habit, please link to some sort of study supporting that.

Also, check out the Harry J. Anslinger article on wiki. It's a pretty decent read about the guy who was primarily responsible for the laws created prohibiting marijuana.

[mattblancarte]

I am talking about people in modern times who have full access to illegal drugs, who STILL kill and rob to get money to pay for them. Please tell me you see the difference!!!

Straw man, much? I was talking about cartels, drug dealers, etc. and the violence that stems from their operations. I don't even know what having full access to something, then robbing and stealing to still get access means.

If you're talking about dangerous folks who rob and steal to get money for (x)... That's nothing new. People have been robbing and stealing to get what they want/need since the dawn of man.

Current drug laws do a whole lot of nothing to fix that problem. Hell, I could even argue that they make that issue worse because illegal street drug values are insanely high compared to potential regulated market values. If drugs were cheap, clean and sold in a safe manner, you'd theoretically have less crime related to that issue.

I did not make this claim. I am simply following the precedent of this thread, in which people have been posting that all drugs should be legalized. I will agree that some are more dangerous than others, but they are all dangerous & have been made illegal for good reason.

Also, the term "narcotic" has different meanings depending on if we are talking about a more scientific term (something which induces sleep) or the looser government term which encompasses uppers/downers/hallucinogens/etc. Alcohol is a "narcotic" as you mentioned - in scientific terms - but is not in the same family as meth. I hope you do not believe they are even close.

How does the politician-flavored Kool-Aid taste?

I'm not going to get into an argument about semantics surrounding the word, narcotic.

How is alcohol less dangerous as meth? The production in private homes? Oh yeah, drug laws are what cause that behavior.

Is it the number of people that die annually as a result of methamphetamine use? Not even remotely close to alcohol.

Is it based on anecdotal evidence? Do tell.

You seem to be worried that the entire nation will fall into a drugged frenzy if they had the chance. Stop playing "worried mommy," please.

Furthermore, how do you feel about throwing people in jail for petty drug crimes like possession?

[mattblancarte]

smoke weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed yo weed do no damages to brainz

Now I remember why I don't type out paragraph after paragraph on this forum anymore. What a waste of time

You can do better than that. SteveO and Bonkers asked legitimate questions.

[audtatious]

You mean as addictive as something like cigarettes? 100 million people died as a result of cigarette use in the 20th century.

Regulate it exactly as we do the insanely dangerous drug, alcohol. 85,000 annual deaths occur from usage of alcohol.

You know how many annual deaths occur from hardcore drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc. combined? 17,000.

I'm sorry, but your response is ripe with supposition. I don't know what "free reign" means in the context of this conversation, as I have yet to see something along those lines suggested by myself or anyone else. They (non-users) are protected by sensible laws that punish violence and potentially deadly behavior (e.g. drunk driving laws).

Where are the alcohol drug lords? You're claiming that the black market of illicit drugs will come back after legalization? I think not.

In terms of pricing, you're greatly overestimating costs related to drug production. The street value of drugs right now has everything to do with the fact that they are illegal. Legalized drugs + tax implications will keep costs to consumers considerably lower than the illegal black market.

I'm saying people are dumb for thinking that legalizing drugs will get rid of the drug cartels and that the Gov regulating its availability will solve all problems. It won't because the Gov won't release all drugs. Pot? Sure, that's going to happen at some point. Cocaine, heroine, meth, oxycontin, morphine, etc? Not going to happen. Where do the drug cartels get the majority of their money from? It sure isn't pot. Isn't Mexican pot s*** anyway?

Mass distribution and availability of alcohol products is what keeps "cartels" from undercutting the price. I don't see that happening with drugs.

Current drug laws do a whole lot of nothing to fix that problem. Hell, I could even argue that they make that issue worse because illegal street drug values are insanely high compared to potential regulated market values. If drugs were cheap, clean and sold in a safe manner, you'd theoretically have less crime related to that issue.

But you would also theoretically have more people addicted to substances that cause more issues much more rapidly than the regulated products you keep comparing them to. Yes, Cigs are addicting and they can eventually kill you in the long term. Addicted to cocaine, meth, heroine, etc. will kill you much quicker and while you are addicted you are pretty much a useless person who will do anything to get your next fix. You can smoke cigs and still work/drive/function, etc. Yes, again, alcohol is a much greater killer in society than what you listed for cocaine and other drugs....today......how would that change if those drugs are as cheap as alcohol (plus they are millions of times MORE addictive) and as plentiful to the population?

[AppleBonker]

Aud, you ask an excellent question, though it's one I don't know that anyone would have the answer to. Would legalized (or even decriminalized) cocaine cause a large increase in the number of users? I have no idea. What I can tell you is the legality of any of these drugs does not change my likelihood of using. Go ahead and make heroin legal and FREE, and I still wouldn't touch the stuff. How many other people think like me though? Also, I've seen plenty of studies that argue that alcohol and heroin are really the only two drugs that will lead to physical dependence (clearly there is a strong counterargument, but you wont see any articles claiming heroin does NOT lead to physical dependence).

Take the personal aspect out of it (friends/loved ones) and I'll be completely honest when I say that anyone who decides to take massive amounts of any drug and OD probably wasn't that big of a benefit to society anyway. Is that really much of a loss?

[IBCoupe]

Much of the "addiction" we hear about when talking about drugs is the same addiction that you can feel for anything. You can become "addicted" to sugar in that you can have a psychological addiction to the feelings you feel when you eat it. But not just stuff you put in your body: you can have similar feelings about driving fast, and you can develop the same mental dependencies.