Time to decriminalize

[knapplc]

You're apparently presuming that the drug cartels will simply dry up and wither away if drugs are legalized? Where is the factual basis for that? Why would they stop rather than acting as a black market source?

The factual basis is these cartels are a direct result of the drugs being prohibited in the first place. There was never an illegal drug trade until we started prohibiting drugs. Take away their whole reason for existing, they don't exist.

 

Except that you can still buy black-market pharmaceuticals that are perfectly legal to this day.

Which market is bigger for those? Legal or black-market?

That's not the point. The point is the market exists, which means that simply legalizing cocaine won't eliminate these cartels.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

You also have to weigh the difference between providing the drug cartels with money, and having a nation running rampant with crack heads.

You have to realize the reason the illegal drug trade is such a lucrative business, is because people will get high whether it's legal or not. I don't believe there's any evidence that suggests we'll "have a nation running rampant with crack heads". That's pure conjecture, and I don't buy it.

While you may be right, I dont think it is too far out to say that by legalizing hard drugs, that there will be a substantial increase in users, potentially causing a substantial increase in those who are addicted. Which could have a very negative affect. Heck, it has been discussed in this thread that if these drugs were legalized that some people would like to try them.

[Husker_x]

AR's post about actions vs. possession pretty much says all that you need to say.

 

Take cannabis as an example. Even the ideally soon-to-be-legal realm, there is a massive difference between people who quite literally use marijuana recreationally, as a tool to help them relax, or to appreciate food and music more, and the wake-and-bakers who can't hold a job, who drop out of school after never showing up to class.

 

The point is that the drug itself is not the problem. Many, many, many, many people use cannabis regularly and are still fully functioning members of society who, like most sane people, just want to party on the weekends, or in the evenings when there's nothing better to do. Calling these people criminals and putting them in an orange jumper is completely irrational, and worse, immoral.

 

Add on top of that a two trillion dollar drug (waste) war which has done exactly nothing to curb drug use in this country--time to grow up, people, and recognize that people want what they want, and in a free country we should not impede their liberty unless it is infringing on others.

[knapplc]

Heck, it has been discussed in this thread that if these drugs were legalized that some people would like to try them.

Yeah, but those people were all degenerates.

[knapplc]

Honestly, I think a lot of the reason most countries prohibit drug use is the fear that it will have a negative impact on GDP. Stoned workers are less likely to want to work, or produce quality work.

 

I just watched some show where they talked about a country in Europe that had legalized a lot of hardcore drugs, and there wasn't much of a discernible effect. Am I misremembering or did anyone else watch this, or does anyone else know which country this is? I'm thinking Denmark or Switzerland or some northern European country. Not Holland, but maybe, since they've already got the legal pot thing going on.

[Enhance]

When it comes to the legalization, I would support it, but I think that it would have to come with some stipulations. I agree that the potential tax revenue is almost too beneficial to pass up anymore. But this is a very slippery slope. Do you all suggest that there would be an age like 21 such as alcohol put on marijuana? I would suggest legalization, however I think it would also be interesting to see what a stiffer penalty for minors would do.

If it were legalized, I think 21 would be the appropriate age. It's my honest belief that alcohol is worse than marijuana. I tried marijuana in high school and I have to say that I never experienced anywhere close to the debilitation or breakdown that one sees in those drug free commercials. I've consumed alcohol, and that has had far more adverse effects than marijuana on me.

 

Some might argue 21 is still too low of an age for many alcohol drinkers, but because that's the age society has said we're "responsible" at, I would marijuana would be in the same category. (there are also highway reasons for this age, but not going into that)

 

If it's legalized, I think the biggest thing they'd to work out is how to combat the smell. It reeks.

[The Dude]

That's not the point. The point is the market exists, which means that simply legalizing cocaine won't eliminate these cartels.

It would make the illegal cocaine market very, very tiny. Which would obviously mean there wouldn't be much money to be made in it. What would be their incentive for existing? They're in the business to make money.

 

Edit: Even if they could maintain their existence by other means, I still have a hard time supporting the policies that are responsible for their existence in the first place. Might as well learn from our mistakes. Prohibition has always created more violence, and always will.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Heck, it has been discussed in this thread that if these drugs were legalized that some people would like to try them.

Yeah, but those people were all degenerates.

lol, I wasn't taking a stab at you. I dont blame you at all.

[The Dude]

You also have to weigh the difference between providing the drug cartels with money, and having a nation running rampant with crack heads.

You have to realize the reason the illegal drug trade is such a lucrative business, is because people will get high whether it's legal or not. I don't believe there's any evidence that suggests we'll "have a nation running rampant with crack heads". That's pure conjecture, and I don't buy it.

While you may be right, I dont think it is too far out to say that by legalizing hard drugs, that there will be a substantial increase in users, potentially causing a substantial increase in those who are addicted. Which could have a very negative affect. Heck, it has been discussed in this thread that if these drugs were legalized that some people would like to try them.

 

"fear [of legalisation] is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates."

 

http://www.economist.com/node/13237193?story_id=13237193

[Lil' Red]

I'd support the legalization of marijuana since it isn't very harmful and the benefits to legalize it outweigh the benefits to fighting it. I wouldn't, however, support the legalization of hardcore drugs. They are much too harmful to the user and others around the user to be legalized.

[bennychico11]

Honestly, I think a lot of the reason most countries prohibit drug use is the fear that it will have a negative impact on GDP. Stoned workers are less likely to want to work, or produce quality work.

 

I just watched some show where they talked about a country in Europe that had legalized a lot of hardcore drugs, and there wasn't much of a discernible effect. Am I misremembering or did anyone else watch this, or does anyone else know which country this is? I'm thinking Denmark or Switzerland or some northern European country. Not Holland, but maybe, since they've already got the legal pot thing going on.

 

any of these:

http://www.druglibra...yths/myths4.htm

???

 

I found this funny:

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

You also have to weigh the difference between providing the drug cartels with money, and having a nation running rampant with crack heads.

You have to realize the reason the illegal drug trade is such a lucrative business, is because people will get high whether it's legal or not. I don't believe there's any evidence that suggests we'll "have a nation running rampant with crack heads". That's pure conjecture, and I don't buy it.

While you may be right, I dont think it is too far out to say that by legalizing hard drugs, that there will be a substantial increase in users, potentially causing a substantial increase in those who are addicted. Which could have a very negative affect. Heck, it has been discussed in this thread that if these drugs were legalized that some people would like to try them.

 

"fear [of legalisation] is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates."

 

http://www.economist...ory_id=13237193

We can agree to disagree. The U.S. is a whole different animal than Europe, in many aspects. Thats like me saying that just because those countries do well with socialized healthcare that the U.S. would also.

[308_Husker]

When it comes to the legalization, I would support it, but I think that it would have to come with some stipulations. I agree that the potential tax revenue is almost too beneficial to pass up anymore. But this is a very slippery slope. Do you all suggest that there would be an age like 21 such as alcohol put on marijuana? I would suggest legalization, however I think it would also be interesting to see what a stiffer penalty for minors would do.

If it were legalized, I think 21 would be the appropriate age. It's my honest belief that alcohol is worse than marijuana. I tried marijuana in high school and I have to say that I never experienced anywhere close to the debilitation or breakdown that one sees in those drug free commercials. I've consumed alcohol, and that has had far more adverse effects than marijuana on me.

 

Some might argue 21 is still too low of an age for many alcohol drinkers, but because that's the age society has said we're "responsible" at, I would marijuana would be in the same category. (there are also highway reasons for this age, but not going into that)

 

If it's legalized, I think the biggest thing they'd to work out is how to combat the smell. It reeks.

 

I would argue that it's too high. If you can make the decision to sign up for the armed services and go across seas and risk dying, then you're old enough to make the decision whether to drink alcohol. I would be okay with the legal age of smoking marijuana to be 18 as well. You can buy tobacco at that age, which is entirely way worse for you than cannabis.

[Enhance]

I would argue that it's too high. If you can make the decision to sign up for the armed services and go across seas and risk dying, then you're old enough to make the decision whether to drink alcohol. I would be okay with the legal age of smoking marijuana to be 18 as well. You can buy tobacco at that age, which is entirely way worse for you than cannabis.

All good points, but if I may counter...

 

I completely agree with you regarding the armed services. But, I think there's a significant difference between the 18-year-old who decides to sign up for the Army, and the 18-year-old who wants to join a fraternity/sorority and go to college. There's a difference in maturity there. I wouldn't be opposed to giving armed servicemen a liquor pass, but there's one other obstacle. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 said states had to raise their minimum drinking age to 21 lest they lose 10 percent of their highway funding - that's a serious amount of money, an amount no state was willing to give up. That's the biggest reason we have the drinking age where it is - money.

 

I can see states taking a similar stance towards marijuana, because it has similar impairing effects to alcohol i.e. loss of motor skill functions.

[Husker_x]

Honestly, I think a lot of the reason most countries prohibit drug use is the fear that it will have a negative impact on GDP. Stoned workers are less likely to want to work, or produce quality work.

 

I just watched some show where they talked about a country in Europe that had legalized a lot of hardcore drugs, and there wasn't much of a discernible effect. Am I misremembering or did anyone else watch this, or does anyone else know which country this is? I'm thinking Denmark or Switzerland or some northern European country. Not Holland, but maybe, since they've already got the legal pot thing going on.

 

I think it might be Portugal.

 

In Amsterdam, where pot is semi-legal, they have a lower instance of hard drug-related deaths than in the US. Part of the reason, or so I've heard, is that if you legalize cannabis, the dealers can only sell that. If it's a black market like we have now, the same guy who offers you weed with his right hand is offering heroin with his left.