Bitcoin Forum

Should drugs be legalized for personal consumption?

Why or why not?

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to do what they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt others.
However, I most certainly disapprove of the fact that that decision is, in most countries, no longer up to the individual but to their government!?!?

So for example, why should the State say, "You are allowed to drink alcohol until your liver fails, but not a sip of absinthe. You can smoke nicotine until your lungs rot, but you are not allowed to inhale THC. You may eat high-cholesterol-ed junk and fast food until your heart attacks, but you may not ingest a single psychedelic mushroom"?

What is the justification?

And to go a step further, why not allow individual cultivation/production for personal use?

1) It is ineffective and a waste of money.
- I would like to see how many people would check a box once a year saying "give $100 to enforce existing drug laws"

The real, non-advertised justification is probably money.  When an act is prohibited, it necessarily becomes illegal and then if the demand of it remains high enough (demand for drugs is never going to go down -- this is a fact that most people are finally realizing), the price is driven up.  The price is then driven further upward by the artificial scarcity generated by the non-legality.  On top of that, there is a security racket put into place surrounding the illicit substance (guns and violence associated with it).  The violence surrounding the black markets (which would quickly dry up if they became legal) is most of what drives the drug war (which is $$$$$$).

Money is the motivator -- there is simply too much at stake to make drugs legal all of a sudden.  Maybe gradually, maybe.

I'd rather money be spent on awareness campaigns of the dangers of abusing drugs rather than funding a "war" on it.  If people are irresponsible and abuse it and then commit a crime they should be dealt with the same as anyone else committing the same crime.  The crime itself shouldn't be the drugs themselves.  No substance is good or bad inherently, only in the way it is used.  I could eat myself to death with salad, or take arsenic in amounts that wouldn't hurt me at all.

I know plenty of socially responsible and productive people that recreationally use drugs the same way most people use alcohol or coffee.

As usual everybody is punished thanks to people with no self control whom don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Making drugs illegal causes more harm than drugs do. This is the single most logical reason for legalising them.

Prohibition causes:

Criminal gangs make billions;
Billions lost in tax revenue;
Thousands of deaths through gang shootings;
Some governments are losing control of their territory to armed groups;
Some governments have been corrupted by drug cartels;
Due to lack of regulation, the market tends towards more stronger, more harmful drugs;
Drugs are also tainted due to lack of regulation;
ODs caused by different strength batches of a drug;
Massive cost to the taxpayer to maintain prisons, law enforcement and courts;
Users become marginalised in society and may not seek help should they need it;
Users risk loss of employment if prosecuted...

There's loads more I could add.

The laws about drugs are one of the worst possible laws. They drive the business to criminals, which causes death, requires enormous amounts of money to fight and the laws are simply ineffective! THC is legal here in The Netherlands, yet less people smoke THC here than they do in say UK, where it is illegal to do so. And not do these wars on drugs cost tons of money, they are also missing truckloads of money. By legalizing certain drugs, not only would they make tons of money on producing those drugs and taxes paid over those products, they would save tons of money, since the illegal sector will have a hard time competing with the legal one, so it would require less money to fight the illegal sector.

And that's just talking about the criminal things related to drugs. By providing good education about drugs, people would most likely use them instead of abuse them. And they would get quality goods instead of tainted products, which are usually far more dangerous to one's health than the substance the user intended to take. This would save tons of money yet again, because we would save money on health care on drugs related incidents.

And frankly, people don't take their governments serious anymore. People got told for example that 1 XTC pill can kill them. And this is just ridiculous. This would only be possible by mixing it with other substances, or by behavior that could have been prevented by providing proper and honest education. And even then the chances of dieing by taking 1 pill of XTC are far less than dieing by binge drinking alcohol, which plenty of teenagers do these days.

The reason why drugs beyond THC won't be legalized here in The Netherlands in the foreseeable future is politics. Even if experts provide numbers that legalizing will have more benefits than downsides, they won't do it. A politician who would want to do such a thing would simply get a lot less votes. Politicians don't have to do what's best for the country, politicians sadly have to do what the people think it's best for the country, just to get people to vote for them. This is also the biggest flaw with current politics in my opinion. Experts who know far more about certain things, like in this case drugs, can't improve the current conditions simply because ignorant people won't vote for a politician who would want to do such a thing, simply because they are ignorant and think it's bad.

Too bad, sadly :(

/endrant

All of the posts above contain good reasons behind the legalization of drugs.

So what is the next step? Why are the majority of politicians doing nothing?

Haven't you heard? They're all Christians.

1) People see how others mess up their lives (become emotional and financial drains on those around them) after starting to "take drugs" and think the government should do something without thinking about the effectiveness of this solution nor the unintended consequences.

2) Suddenly legalizing would piss off a lot of powerful people at once. It is unclear how much connection there is between drug lords, law enforcement, and politicians. Even if there was no corruption here, legalization may result in a violent response from those who's revenue was suddenly cut off.

3) Drug arrests are a source of government revenue.

4) Drug arrests are a good method/excuse to gather intel on organized crime and the populace in general.

5) Drug use can be used as a proxy in estimating the degree to which different groups are law-abiding and willing to adapt their moral code to match the legal code.

6) Drug laws (especially reefer) are one of those divisive issues (like abortion) that the major parties use to mobilize their political base.

Laws prohibiting drug use mitigate freedom.

I think the Christian majority, in the same general sense as you refer to them, don't really have many concrete values that they can truly call their own.  I don't think they really know what they value unless its handed to them on a silver platter or at gun point.  I don't think they've taken the time to reason their way to faith or belief.

+1

Drugs should definitely remain illegal.  Personal freedom is not an issue when addiction is a part of the equation.  Once you go down that path, you sacrifice the ability to exercise your free will and the government must step in for your own good.

Not to mention the damage addicted individuals due to society.  They rob whatever they can and hurt the people around them, family and strangers.  Alcohol was not just prohibited in the name of Christianity, it was one of the first moments where women began to flex political power even before they gained the vote, the goal was to stop their drunk husbands from smacking them around.

Have you considered the effectiveness of prohibition and the unintended consequences that may arise from this kind of government action?

The main problem is that we are too lenient in our criminal penalties.  If you make them tough enough, you can really reduce drug use.  Take a look Singapore. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay


The laws might seem harsh, but peddling drugs is equivalent to peddling poison.  It kills people, and laws should reflect that.

Absolutely.  My grandmother died from lung cancer, you won't get an argument from me on that.

Please give me a fair list of things you consider addictive and legal at this very moment. Be fair to yourself.

Should there be laws to protect minors? Yes.
Shall you be kept a perpetual minor? No.

Can it be taxed heavily? Yes.

Not to mention the damage addicted inividuals due to society? You mean like power and money addicted politicians?

And since i prefer to debate with an educated counterparty:

You mentioned the problem of addiction.

Please name those "drugs" that you know to be illegal and not addictive.
Please tell me your position on these.

There are far too many drugs, medical or recreational, for me to provide you with an exhaustive list for the sake of an internet debate.  If you would like to debate the legal status of any particular substance feel free to make your case.

I know you can do better than that.

Saying something should be illegal because it is addictive should have outlawed human brains.

Every crime is a result of the actions, inactions, or negligence of the human mind.  Do you have a substance you would like to debate?

Love (oxytocin)

Every crime is a result of law.

But why not. Why do you think LSD should not be avaible for sale in Germany to registered users who after psychiatric evaluation have gotten a letter of consent by a doctor?

Oxytocin has many dangerous potential side effects when used in treatment.  It should only be used legally under the care of a doctor.  Messing with your hormones for recreational purposes is not a smart idea, let your body handle it naturally.

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/oxytocin-side-effects.html

Is there a reason you think these numbers are particularly trustworthy? Neither of the links in the article worked. I found this:
http://www.cnb.gov.sg/drugsituationreport/drugsituationreport2011.aspx

If you follow the link to the complete news release:
http://i43.tinypic.com/a3jyvo.png

It is interesting to figure out "how the number of drug abusers arrested each year has declined by two-thirds" was arrived at.

Ha, I was kind of kidding (but mostly not). I meant that addiction is only possible because people are meant to get addicted to certain things, one of them other people. I couldn't easily find stats on crimes of passion but that would be interesting.

I am a medical student in my 6th year and I can assure you i can compile a similar list for you for oxygen and water!

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/dangers.htm

LSD can trigger psychotic episodes in vulnerable individuals, there is no way for a doctor to rule this out entirely in a patient.  If there was some medical purpose, that would be fine if medical science supports it as a good gamble, but not purely for unsupervised recreation.  LSD leaves people in a state of hallucinatory intoxication which can and has led to self harm.  

And sex addiction is a real problem too.  "It's natural" is not an argument in favor.  People have a prevalence for violence unless you teach them better too, we don't encourage it.

I am not talking about sex addiction. I am talking about loving someone (being addicted to them) so much that you go into a fit of rage when they do something you do not like.

Water intoxication is in fact a potential side effect from using this hormone in a medical setting.   You dont mess with your body like that just for fun, no matter the substance.

I must inform you at this point that if you tell me you are abusing your partner I will be seeking to report you to the relavent authorities.


I'm going to be afk for a few hours before I can resume this conversation, anyone that is facing challenges with drug issues should check out this site:

http://www.narconon.org/

There is hope.

Huh??? It was funnier when you had the wrong quote in there. Anyway I have no idea why you are ignoring my point about crimes of passion thinking I am talking about myself. Do you think these do not occur? Jealous lovers, etc?

Here is an interesting table: About 40% of female homicide victims are killed by intimate's or family members. What role does oxytocin play in this?

http://i42.tinypic.com/mcpzj9.png

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm#vorelgender

So you support law that tells me what i can do with my body?

It seems to me that you are aiming towards agruments of "do not mess with the natural".


Stating that something CAN happen doesn't mean it will happen.
All the people that never had any problems did not see a doctor I assure you.

Shure a percieved risk / benefit equation does not balance for 2 people the same.

I copy paste you something, too:
If they truly want to have Americans believe that the government wants to "keep our peoples from becoming addicted to dangerous drugs" they really need to take pot off that list.

All but the stupid and brainwashed know that pot is neither addictive, nor dangerous. If they insist on keeping it on the same page as crack, heroin, meth, etc., they will continue to be the source of jokes for late night TV hosts, and will continue to be ignored by the educated among us.

Taking pot off the "hit" list would certainly cause significant unemployment in the legal/penal system, rightfully so, but many of the people who insist on criminalizing pot smokers are the same people who had no problem with turning Detroit into a huge grave marker, and sending huge numbers of people to the unemployment line.

If they want to make a difference, how about putting alcohol on the "dangerous" list, instead of the current "drugs AND alcohol" label. Of course that would NEVER happen, because we would then turn police, lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, etc., into DRUG users. We couldn't have that, could we? Even though alcohol IS a drug, AND is poison in high amounts.

It's time to rewrite some of the rules!

Anyway... these are interesting stats that should be discussed in this thread. What happened in 2005? I gathered from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore#Statistics) (yea, wikipedia so take with a grain of salt) that the Singapore government stopped publishing accurate execution numbers around 2001. We should also note that the reported "abuse" prevalence is about 7 times less than that in the united states (if we take the population of Singapore to be 5.1 million, US pop = 313 million, and US drug arrest rate as 1.5 million per year).

There are obviously numerous confounds that make such a comparison problematic. To name a few:
-Trustworthiness of each government's numbers.
-False arrest rates in each country.
-Drug abuse that is not included in this statistic because the abuser avoids arrest or may bribe themselves out of it, etc.
-Differences in definition of drug abuser.

In fact the UNODC itself has noted these problems with comparing between countries:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Seventh-United-Nations-Survey-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html

This, of course, did not stop Michael Teo of The Guardian from doing so:

I know very little about Singapore, maybe someone who has lived/visited there could say more.

The point is that people can choose to use drugs regardless of the law.  They are exercising their freedom, and if they choose to place their own constraints upon themselves through drug use leading to addiction, that is their right.  Wouldn't you agree that it is better for someone to erect his own constraints than for someone else to attempt to do it for him?  Choosing to use drugs is exercising freedom, not sacrificing it.  Also, the vast majority of illicit drugs are recognized for their medicinal properties in many cultures (nicotine is a classic example, and it is used in many Amazonian tribal cultures to cure illnesses even in infants, an act that would be considered child abuse in Western societies). 

What about fatty foods?  Should they be illegal as well considering all the harm they can cause to the friends and family of the morbidly obsese, not to mention the implicated costs of treating morbid obesity through state and government funded programs like Medicaid and Medicare that are paid with our taxes?

In my opinion, freedom is made more precious and meaningful because people can choose to exercise it for harm to self or others.  Effective use of freedom is a testament to wisdom and intelligence.

You missed the point, or ignored it. Water intoxication can occur just by drinking too much water. Breathing air too high in oxygen is damaging, and can cause brain damage and blindness. (http://www.praxair.com/praxair.nsf/0/e88be35d13ef81f685256a860081e837/$FILE/p4638h.pdf)

The upside is that the same MSDS mentions that excessive O₂ use can cause dizziness, poor coordination, tingling sensation, visual and hearing disturbances - (I call that a great night out) and prolongation of adaptation to darkness (IT MAKES ME INTO BATMAN! YES!)

On a more sober note, harsh prescriptive laws won't work in the long term (I wouldn't believe the Singapore govt stats - Singapore maybe a parliamentary republic in name, but how many different parties have actually run the place?)

The harder it is to get drugs, the more desirable they seem. I think decriminalising them is the best bet, along with much more education and harm minimisation than exists currently. Ensure that people know society looks on illegal drugs as 'unacceptable' in the same way smoking is, and take away the glamour of doing something illegal.

I've also wondered how much money pharmaceutical companies would make developing party drugs that are guaranteed non-addictive and safe? Would you still be against drugs they were safe and non-addictive? Or do you just not like people havin' fun?

BTW, I don't take illegal drugs Edit: or take legal drugs illegally in case you are wondering.

Of course, this is why you don't do those things that can put you in danger.  Why risk death for temporary pleasure when there are plenty of natural ways to have fun?


That just seems like simple denialism.  The stats are the stats, harsher drug laws work for Singapore and they could work in the US. 


As I pointed out before, once you are addicted you are no longer exercising freedom.  You are controlled by the drug and compelled to continue using it.  Addiction directly results in harm to others as addicts resort to theft or crash cars in intoxicated states or any other number of things that can occur when you are in a state of intoxication.  Your freedom to punch ends at my nose.


Food is neccesary for people to live.  Abuse is a shame, but food can't be banned like drugs can.  You don't die if you don't get high.


No drug is ever without side effects.  That is okay if their use is medically necessary, but not when the goal is only some immature fun.

Please define 'drug' and 'side effect' so I can show you some counter examples
And there you have it. Rarity is against immature fun. Nuff said.

Why do you trust the interpretation of the "singapore stats" from a single news article? The more in-depth stats (source= singapore government) show that DRUG ABUSE IN SINGAPORE HAS RISEN MORE THAN 4-FOLD SINCE 2005. This is an increase of 70% per year. It is a huge increase. The stats are the stats, after all, so draconian drug laws must not work.

Also, people can live without love. I personally think we should ban love because it leads to irrational behavior and any number of bad decisions, even leading to violence (especially against women). Do you agree or disagree?

Nice link there - Narconon is a Scientology front used to push vulnerable people towards their 'religion'.

Rarity, do you happen to be a Scientologist?

If so, I'm interested in how your beliefs affect your views on drugs. What is the official Scientology position on drugs?  

If not, were you aware of the background to the the link you posted?

This was posted somewhere and reminded me how ineffective the war on drugs is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency



So, Rarity (or those of a similar mindset), how much are you willing to pay each year to stop this from happening?

Rarity must be high