Drug Prohibition - For or Against?

[cm husker]

Just want to gauge people's receptiveness to legalization. Please note, you may choose multiple options in the poll.

 

Personally, I'm for legalizing most, if not all drugs, even though I don't use them myself.

To me, the only valid reason to make prohibit or otherwise restrict behavior is to reduce harm to society. The goal of all public policy should be harm prevention or reduction. If I thought that prohibition accomplished this, I'd be for prohibition. However, in myriad ways, prohibition has increased harm associated with illegal drugs. I'd much rather see the multi-billion dollar per year prohibition apparatus refocused (and downsized) to address personal use and overall harm reduction through alternative means (even radically creative means) while also eliminating the many multi-billions of dollars per year illegal narcotics industry.

 

I would love to read people's thinking regarding where you stand on prohibition and why you hold those positions. I'd also be curios to see how many of those who are for prohibition would be willing to reconsider their positions, and if so, what facts would need to be presented to change your perspective?

 

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I want a new drug.

Once that don't cost too much, or come in a pill .

[cm husker]

I want a new drug.

Once that don't cost too much, or come in a pill .

 

Here you go, though sometimes it costs a bunch depending on your choice (cough: scientology cough):

 

[cm husker]

p.s., i'm kidding. i'm not personally religious, but i have great respect for people who have faith.

[cm husker]

Interesting results so far... I'm curious why people think marijuana should be legal but not other drugs. Can anyone weigh in on why/how they draw that distinction?

[QMany]

I'm curious why people think marijuana should be legal but not other drugs. Can anyone weigh in on why/how they draw that distinction?

I would guess it has to do with the inherent dangers of each drug, such as marijuana overdoses v. herion/crack cocaine overdoses.

[cm husker]

 

 

I'm curious why people think marijuana should be legal but not other drugs. Can anyone weigh in on why/how they draw that distinction?

I would guess it has to do with the inherent dangers of each drug, such as marijuana overdoses v. herion/crack cocaine overdoses.

Valid point. But I don't think legalization of those drugs would increase overdoses and may actually reduce them by bringing use "above board," making the product more transparent and using saving from prohibition to implement policies to reduce use or make use safer.

[TGHusker]

Give me a couple of years to see how Colorado turns out to answer that on marijuana. I think for medical reasons - OK for general use like cigs - I want to see how crazy Co gets or doesn't get.

 

Prescription drugs should be available without a prescription --- wouldn't that be an oxymoron then?? I would be ok wt this except for the highly addictive drugs.

[Red Dead Redemption]

p.s., i'm kidding. i'm not personally religious, but i have great respect for people who have faith.

 

I want a new drug.

One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you.

[cm husker]

I'll send you the webcam link, RDR

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Prescription drugs should be available without a prescription --- wouldn't that be an oxymoron then?? I would be ok wt this except for the highly addictive drugs.

As a general rule on the prescription drugs.....no. Some drugs even if they aren't addictive can be extremely harmful if taken by the general public without a doctor's supervision.

 

Now, there are also a lot of them that I bang my head as to why they need a prescription.

But, the prescription process is in place for good reasons.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

Prescription drugs should be available without a prescription --- wouldn't that be an oxymoron then?? I would be ok wt this except for the highly addictive drugs.

As a general rule on the prescription drugs.....no. Some drugs even if they aren't addictive can be extremely harmful if taken by the general public without a doctor's supervision.

 

Now, there are also a lot of them that I bang my head as to why they need a prescription.

But, the prescription process is in place for good reasons.

 

 

As long as the general public is aware of the risks, then how are prescription drugs distinguishable from other narcotics? For example, adderall is basically PEDs for nerds. There are few side effects for most people and it's already given out by doctors like candy. Why should it be treated as a prescription drug?

 

To get at the heart of this, we'd have to identify the prescription drugs that need to be restricted for public safety reasons and determine if they are actually subject to public recreational use. Most prescription drugs aren't going to be be abused recreationally (e.g., heart medication, blood thinners, etc).

 

I'm thinking it's stuff like viagra, adderall, steroids that may be feared, but what are we really gaining in terms of public safety by keeping those drugs by prescription only? And by keeping them by prescription only, we force costs up on consumers and create black markets.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Prescription drugs should be available without a prescription --- wouldn't that be an oxymoron then?? I would be ok wt this except for the highly addictive drugs.

As a general rule on the prescription drugs.....no. Some drugs even if they aren't addictive can be extremely harmful if taken by the general public without a doctor's supervision.

 

Now, there are also a lot of them that I bang my head as to why they need a prescription.

But, the prescription process is in place for good reasons.

 

 

As long as the general public is aware of the risks, then how are prescription drugs distinguishable from other narcotics? For example, adderall is basically PEDs for nerds. There are few side effects for most people and it's already given out by doctors like candy. Why should it be treated as a prescription drug?

 

To get at the heart of this, we'd have to identify the prescription drugs that need to be restricted for public safety reasons and determine if they are actually subject to public recreational use. Most prescription drugs aren't going to be be abused recreationally (e.g., heart medication, blood thinners, etc).

 

I'm thinking it's stuff like viagra, adderall, steroids that may be feared, but what are we really gaining in terms of public safety by keeping those drugs by prescription only? And by keeping them by prescription only, we force costs up on consumers and create black markets.

 

There are some drugs that are flat out deadly if they are mixed with other prescription drugs. If my father could just see some advertisement about some drug and go buy it and then the next day see some other drug and then go buy it.......it would be a disaster. He is old and eats up ads like that.

 

He would be dead in a year.

 

Having a doctor involved puts a buffer in the mix that can monitor that.

[cm husker]

The mixing issue is a good point. I think that still goes more to information sharing but it's a good point.

 

I guess it does boil down to expecting the consumers of a drug to understand a risk and weigh it versus needing the government to create/support buffers to protect people from themselves.

[NUance]

 

p.s., i'm kidding. i'm not personally religious, but i have great respect for people who have faith.

I want a new drug.

One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you.

 

 

I want a new drug

One that won't hurt my head.