Should Cocaine and Heroin be legalized along with Marijuana?

[otokage007]

So everyone needs to have ambulances, operated only by EMT's, with ability to turn on siren going as fast as possible in certain emergencies. But reality is that an automobile for personal use has no unique benefit over an ambulance. Does it?

It has. An automobile is a primary necessity to live in modern society. What you could ask me is if automobile has unique benefits compared to public transport.

 

[Yerda]

Yes. Personal safety and the safety of everyone is just one of the things that makes me be against drug legalization.

If there was evidence that suggested that both harm to users and society are reduced by decriminilising some of these substances how would you respond?

 

[Yerda]

IAn automobile is a primary necessity to live in modern society.

The people who don't own cars don't live in modern society?

 

[otokage007]

If there was evidence that suggested that both harm to users and society are reduced by decriminilising some of these substances how would you respond?

Still I wouldn't support decriminalization. It may reduce some negative effects like narcotrafic and other stuff, but there are other options to achieve those results, more adecuate to me.

The people who don't own cars don't live in modern society?

They may live in modern society, but they will meet problems if they can't use a transport. Of course you don't have to own a car, you can use public transport or pay a Taxi. And before you tell me to use a bycicle, think there's a lot of people who live 10 kms from their job.

 

[Alceste]

I apologize for not reading the entire thread. My opinion is that the criminalization of recreational drug use is both intolerably costly and completely ineffective if the objective is to combat drug addiction. That goes for all drugs from coffee to crack. I believe dispassionate, research-based education (rather than hysterical prohibitionist propaganda) and widespread access to programs like rehab, supervised injection sites and psychiatric care would be more efficient at attaining the goal of reducing drug dependency.

I don't believe that reducing drug dependency is the goal of prohibitionists, though. Given the mountain of research that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the strategy I described is FAR more effective than prohibition, the actual objective of prohibitionists must be something else entirely. Stigmatizing, punishing and generally making life difficult for social misfits, outsiders, racial minorities and the poor, for example, or supplying a practically infinite pool of slave labour to enrich the owners of private prisons.

 

[Yerda]

Still I wouldn't support decriminalization. It may reduce some negative effects like narcotrafic and other stuff, but there are other options to achieve those results, more adecuate to me.

Fair enough. Can you elaborate?

They may live in modern society, but they will meet problems if they can't use a transport.

We all have problems.

Point was this: cars are dangerous. They kill thousands every year. They injure tens of thousands more. They contribute huge amounts of atmospheric CO2. They have a disproportionate impact upon the lives of poorer people, and you were quite right when you said people can use public transport.

Are the illegal drugs as dangerous to individuals and societies?

The merits of cycling and walking are best left to another debate.

 

[Yerda]

I don't believe that reducing drug dependency is the goal of prohibitionists, though.

For some I think they find it unpleasant to consider people using drugs without punishment.

 

[Alceste]

For some I think they find it unpleasant to consider people using drugs without punishment.

Some people find it uncomfortable to picture others doing ANYTHING pleasurable without punishment. I think that irrational, puritanical undercurrent is what drives drug policies in most developed nations.

 

[Acim]

An automobile is a primary necessity to live in modern society.

Of course you don't have to own a car, you can use public transport or pay a Taxi. And before you tell me to use a bycicle, think there's a lot of people who live 10 kms from their job.

Primary necessity but don't have to?

An ambulance is an automobile. All everyone needs is this one vehicle. There is no unique benefit in other vehicles. If there is, I'm sure we can manufacture ambulances, with one central manufacturer who can produce whatever feature the consumer may wish. Though unlikely is necessary.

 

[Acim]

I do wish to be as clear as possible that I think some hard core, illegal drugs, absolutely suck in the toll they take on society. And all things being equal, if made legal tomorrow, I do think abuse would ramp up, at least a little, and use would go up a few notches. Like say 15% of population currently uses some hardcore illegal substance, if made legal, I could see that going to around 40% usage, though mostly on experimental level. Try a few times, and get off, while abusers I could see going from say 5% to 15%.

But, I don't see "all things being equal" to how they are today if made legal. I think reality would be vast amounts of debate and hopefully sensible heads having sensible discussion. And is where mass education comes in. Not just educating potential users, but educating society about realistic impact. And hopefully, bringing in necessary perspective that shows less dark side of hardcore drug use. If that is ignored, as it is now, then a) it will never be made legal, which I'm sure means great news to some, but b) the problems we have now continue.

To correct B, then A needs to be reversed. But to reverse A, there are items that I think 'cooler heads' can conceive of to make transition as smooth as humanly possible. Like it may take us 5 years to enact legalization, and in that time, we will set up treatment centers, manifest significant well rounded educational campaigns, and decide on how controlled distribution will be, plus to what degree age of consent will come into play. All these things would help (right now) stave off serious problems we might experience, but are simply not possible if hardcore drug is perceived as, a) must be illegal, no critical analysis allowed and b) any analysis allowed must only present dark side, or is to be deemed 'deceptive.'

Keeping it illegal and keeping it 'dark,' benefits (highly) a certain faction of society, and that faction is gaining sense of power to 'absolutely corrupt.'

 

[otokage007]

Fair enough. Can you elaborate?

We all have problems.

Point was this: cars are dangerous. They kill thousands every year. They injure tens of thousands more. They contribute huge amounts of atmospheric CO2. They have a disproportionate impact upon the lives of poorer people, and you were quite right when you said people can use public transport.

Are the illegal drugs as dangerous to individuals and societies?

The merits of cycling and walking are best left to another debate.

Cars are a necesity, as I said. You have to use them or you won't fit the society you are in. And public transport is a car too, public transports have accidents too. So it would be stupid to ilegalize cars. You can't walk or use bycicle because your day timing would surely deny you that priviledge.

And yes, illegal drugs are dangerous and they only serve to have fun at costs of your health. So get a videogame if you want to be entertained.

 

[Yerda]

Cars are a necesity, as I said.

Sorry, when I said "car", I meant the automotive vehicles that people buy from dealers and each other and use to travel to work and to the shops and so on. These are very dangerous, leading to thoudands of deaths every year (in most developed and developing countries), and many more injuries of varying severity. They are most certainly not a necessity, since millions of people do not own them.

You insist that drugs are dangerous, and I accept that they are. Cars are more dangerous. On those grounds, your grounds that is, people should not be allowed to own cars.

You said earlier that there are ways to minimise the dangers posed by cars. Driving proficiency tests, road rules. There are also ways to minimise the dangers posed by drugs. Are you unaware of this or ignoring it?

And yes, illegal drugs are dangerous and they only serve to have fun at costs of your health.

As a reason for banning drugs this is comparable to:

Sugary foods rot your teeth and cause obesity. They should be banned. If you seek comfort hug someone.

 

[otokage007]

Sugary foods rot your teeth and cause obesity. They should be banned. If you seek comfort hug someone.

I won't go on with the cars issue, or the sugar issue because I feel the discussion is too ridiculous to waste my time.

On the contrary, we could speak of the hitman industry, slavery and prostitute trading. Legalization of those industries would finish the ilegal market, so come on, let's build a shop of hitmans, of slaves etc. I know we could have a lot of fun with them. :yes:

 

[no-body]

I won't go on with the cars issue, or the sugar issue because I feel the discussion is too ridiculous to waste my time.

On the contrary, we could speak of the hitman industry, slavery and prostitute trading. Legalization of those industries would finish the ilegal market, so come on, let's build a shop of hitmans, of slaves etc. I know we could have a lot of fun with them. :yes:

Difference is drugs aren't inherently harmful. Slavery and human trafficking hurts other people. An adult should be able to put whatever they want in their body, it's not the business of the government. If the person starts neglecting their kids or DUI then nail them for that, instead of the drugs.

I don't see this obsession with wanting to stop others from receiving chemical pleasure and/or altering their view point. As I've said before most of the time I think it's something personal--child, spouse, friend, whatever messed themselves up with a drug and instead of blaming the person they blame the drug or they claim they blame both which still makes little sense. Again a drug is an inanimate object that has no inherent properties or personality.

 

[Valjean]

I think the dangerousness of many recreational drugs is exaggerated. Physiologically, many are more benign than readily available over-the-counter drugs.
Often the greatest danger derives from their very illegality, ie: unknown purity and concentration, contamination, danger in procurement, unhygienic administration, &c.

 

[otokage007]

Difference is drugs aren't inherently harmful. Slavery and human trafficking hurts other people. An adult should be able to put whatever they want in their body, it's not the business of the government. If the person starts neglecting their kids or DUI then nail them for that, instead of the drugs.

I don't see this obsession with wanting to stop others from receiving chemical pleasure and/or altering their view point. As I've said before most of the time I think it's something personal--child, spouse, friend, whatever messed themselves up with a drug and instead of blaming the person they blame the drug or they claim they blame both which still makes little sense. Again a drug is an inanimate object that has no inherent properties or personality.

I could be a slave or a prostitute merchant if my prostitutes are fine with that. I don't see why the government has to put it's nose in my business!

Please

 

[no-body]

I could be a slave or a prostitute merchant if my prostitutes are fine with that. I don't see why the government has to put it's nose in my business!

Please

You are bringing up another topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with drug use. Ingesting a substance for intoxication is nothing like exploiting another human being for profit.

98% of the dangers from drug use come from the black market that surrounds it. Addiction isn't really that all big of a problem if you get a regular supply of what you need.

Instead of throwing money at a bunch of gestapo dea agents put it towards free rehabs and education instead for those that choose to be sober.

 

[Yerda]

I won't go on with the cars issue, or the sugar issue because I feel the discussion is too ridiculous to waste my time.

I am only trying to make it clear, to you, where I am seeing a double standard.

On the contrary, we could speak of the hitman industry, slavery and prostitute trading. Legalization of those industries would finish the ilegal market, so come on, let's build a shop of hitmans, of slaves etc. I know we could have a lot of fun with them. :yes:

Is you argument that legalising murder, or slavery, would improve individual and societal well-being? If it is not then you have constructed a strawman.

Assasination is illegal because it is wrong. People have a universal human right to life. Slavery is illegal (in most places) because it is a deprivation of liberty and no human being should be held as the property of another. I can't see the parallels with drugs.

By the way, I am also a proponent of decriminalising prostitution. At least, in so far that women choosing to sell sex shouldn't be punished by the law but protected by it. That's another subject.

 

[Acim]

IMO, why not go with legal drugs to help make the case.

Legal pharmaceuticals have history of killing people, some considered dangerous, and yet, are perceived by users and medical staff (based on education, research, and bias, don't forget bias) to be 'worth the risk.'

Yet, there are drugs that lead to death. If they are determined, alone, to lead to enough deaths, I think we all agree they get pulled. But if say 8 people died last year who all took (just making this up) Viagra, yet millions more didn't die, and liked the effects with knowledge of the risks, then one of 2 things are very likely to happen:
1 - Very very very likely that (biased) researches determine it wasn't Viagra (alone) that resulted in death of 8 individuals and so really the risk is minimal for that, but all 24 other side effects that come with this magic pill are still risk factors.

2 - Industry at certain level (let's call it manipulation) is likely to scrap Viagra in certain ways that will not go all that noticed by vast majority of users, and sell essentially same ingredients minus certain amounts of particular ingredients. And call it "New Coke" or something that doesn't sound like that Viagra drug that people had problems with. Hopefully people don't die from this variation, and if they do, we can always repeat this step. After all, we have billions of dollars to play with, and who's gonna stop us?