Should Cocaine and Heroin be legalized along with Marijuana?

[Vendetta]

Drug-related crime

For all you Wikipedia people

 

[Vendetta]

Right, like when alcohol was illegal.

Do you believe that alcohol should be criminalized? If not, why not?

If it were criminalized, what benefits do you see resulting from this?

Good question. I drink alcohol so my comment is biased. Drinking alcohol should be criminalized. There is no physiological benefit and in fact domestic violence is in large part due to alcohol. The benefits of criminalizing alcohol we would see a sharp decline in domestic violence and other drug related crimes.

 

[Acim]

Dude, you can't legalize all controlled substance and say "as long as you know the risks its ok."

I haven't said this. You seem to feel I've implied this and have said nothing else that supports this position. Facepalm back at you for being so lazy.

I have seen whole families torn apart over "smack" (heroin) and "blow"( cocaine).

In a society where it is legal or illegal?

When dope addicts don't have the money to satisfy their fix they come to hospitals to get high. They don't have medical insurance so they come in as cash accounts and basically get their basic high (Ativan, demoral etc) then get released after doctors find nothing wrong with them.

In a society where it is legal or illegal?

Cause 'nothing wrong with them' strikes me as 'idiotic doctor.' Most addicts at that stage display several signs, all of which could be met with education that is now deemed mandatory / ongoing now that you are in hospital seeking to get a fix. The cost for such treatment could be high. Compared to cost of 'war on drugs' and ripple effects from that, I would call it miniscule.

The minimal stay by these addicts alone is thousands of dollars and taxpayers foot the bill. So you're saying by your logic that just because there is a drug war and since we are not fighting it efficiently or aren't winning we legalize it? Yet you offer no solution to the increase in medical expenses and how it directly willeffect taxpayers? Again your logic is flawed

Or perhaps your understanding of my logic is flawed. Just maybe.

There is enormous cost to taxpayers under current system. If legalization occurs, cost can a) be madeup through legal sales (only partially) and b) be realized through sense of cost savings from the fight. If not accounted for in transition over to legalized substances, then yes, the logic would be flawed, and deemed idiotic that we legalized this stuff since it still seems to cost us money.

One can look to prohibition of alcohol as example, though not ideal since some substances that were widely popular were kept illegal in that paradigm. So not entirely fair, but okay example. The cost of prohibition was enormous and wouldn't have been made legal if it were simply "we can't win." We could easily live in America where alcohol is still illegal. But cost and benefits were weighed out on both sides and there are many benefits to keeping it legal. Doesn't mean families weren't still torn apart over that substance, nor deaths resulted as people used legal substance in idiotic ways (i.e. driving under influence), but all of that comes back to education and how truly honest we are with ourselves about usage. In many ways, we've been in huge denial about alcohol for lots of years. AA has helped correct some denial, but even AA has own brand of denial.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The benefits of criminalizing alcohol we would see a sharp decline in domestic violence and other drug related crimes.

So, is it your contention that crime related to alcohol actually decreased during prohibition?

 

[Acim]

I drink alcohol so my comment is biased. Drinking alcohol should be criminalized.

I don't drink alcohol and hope it is never again criminalized.

But since we live in world where other substances are criminalized, then bottom line in this thread is 'you win.' If you are staying consistent with your logic and what you've stated (about alcohol), I would think you might be on bandwagon to make alcohol illegal (to sell and use).

Good luck with that.

 

[no-body]

Good question. I drink alcohol so my comment is biased. Drinking alcohol should be criminalized. There is no physiological benefit and in fact domestic violence is in large part due to alcohol. The benefits of criminalizing alcohol we would see a sharp decline in domestic violence and other drug related crimes.

You need to read up more on prohibition, Doctors and medical examiners, etc where begging the government to end prohibition from all the deaths they where witnessing before prohibition even started. The logic from the prohibitionist side was eerily similar to what we see today "if someone is so hung up to drink that they die from it, then they deserve it"

It's almost impossible to control the production of Alcohol because it is so easy to make, and all you do is get people to want to thumb their nose at authority for telling them what to do. Crimes would actually increase if you made Alcohol illegal.

I mean unless you support the government killing people and storming into peoples houses and businesses SWAT team style. In a decade you might get people to quit drugging and drinking, but at what cost?

 

[no-body]

Drug-related crime

For all you Wikipedia people

People are going to commit crimes no matter what. Spend the money wasted on harassing people for ingesting a substance into something productive, like education and rehab.

 

[Requia]

I have seen whole families torn apart over "smack" (heroin) and "blow"( cocaine).

And how exactly were these families helped by the drug war?

 

[Valjean]

If the "smack" and "blow" were available under medical supervision, like any other prescription drug, I doubt many of these families would have been so devastated.

As far as cannabis vs alcohol, India offers an interesting example. I don't know if the laws are more homogenous today, but in the past there used to be a lot of drug law variation among the various states. In those where marijuana was illegal and alcohol legal it was pot that was associated with with crime and social dysfunction. In states where pot was legal but alcohol prohibited the reverse was true.

 

[Falvlun]

Drug-related crime

For all you Wikipedia people

And how much of that drug-related crime is due to these drugs being illegal? If you could by a bag of coke at your gas station, then you wouldn't need to be all sneaky and nefarious in your dealings to obtain it.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

There is no natural benefit in personal use of cocaine except in anesthesia and even then its not pure cocaine from my understanding.

IIRC, it's used to enhance the effects of other medications, kinda like Tylenol with Codeine. The two enhance each other in a medication.

 

[Yerda]

The benefits of criminalizing alcohol we would see a sharp decline in domestic violence and other drug related crimes.

People wouldn't stop drinking. During prohibition alcohol consumption dropped (slightly) only for the length of time it took to get illegal manufacture up and running. It then rocketed past pre-prohibition levels and has been decreasing since.

If you could erase alcohol from existence it would, in part, solve these problems. The same goes for heroin, crack, meth and whatever else you decide you don't like. But criminalising a substance is not the same as erasing it out of existence. In fairness, that's an easy enough mistake to make, but it's not the actual issue.

The decriminalisation of herion would mean the possibility of treating heroin addicts with heroin. This may seem a bit counter-intuitive (it certainly was to me) but there are many medical supporters - I can link you to a decent article written by a doctor if you like. Almost all the evidence points to large reductions in drug related crime and better treatment for the actual addicts, which for me is a genuine concern.

I saw your comments about families harmed by drugs. I have first hand experience of what it feels like to be a member of such a family and I fully support the decriminalising of heroin (and crack, meth, and so on).

 

[gnomon]

I actually don't support a whole scale decriminalization of drugs.....yet.

First I would like to see the government do two major things. Decriminalize marijuana production, distribution and use as well as reform law enforcement tactics in enforcing drug policies. Let's see what we can do with that first. I think a lot of people would like to see those two things especially as more and more news stories of raids gone bad, abuse of RICO laws and corruption come to light.

 

[Vendetta]

People wouldn't stop drinking. During prohibition alcohol consumption dropped (slightly) only for the length of time it took to get illegal manufacture up and running. It then rocketed past pre-prohibition levels and has been decreasing since.

If you could erase alcohol from existence it would, in part, solve these problems. The same goes for heroin, crack, meth and whatever else you decide you don't like. But criminalising a substance is not the same as erasing it out of existence. In fairness, that's an easy enough mistake to make, but it's not the actual issue.

The decriminalisation of herion would mean the possibility of treating heroin addicts with heroin. This may seem a bit counter-intuitive (it certainly was to me) but there are many medical supporters - I can link you to a decent article written by a doctor if you like. Almost all the evidence points to large reductions in drug related crime and better treatment for the actual addicts, which for me is a genuine concern.

I saw your comments about families harmed by drugs. I have first hand experience of what it feels like to be a member of such a family and I fully support the decriminalising of heroin (and crack, meth, and so on).

Decriminalizing drugs don't solve the problem. All of these assertions are speculatory. Cocaine, Meth, and Heroin are highly addictive. Simply educating people doesnt solve the issue. We can educate people to be abstinent but that doesnt stop contracting HIV/AIDS. The point is controlling the issue, not stopping it. If you have updated evidence please show me. So far all I see is "all the evidence points to thus and so..." To me, a researcher, that isn't good enough.

 

[Vendetta]

You need to read up more on prohibition, Doctors and medical examiners, etc where begging the government to end prohibition from all the deaths they where witnessing before prohibition even started. The logic from the prohibitionist side was eerily similar to what we see today "if someone is so hung up to drink that they die from it, then they deserve it"

It's almost impossible to control the production of Alcohol because it is so easy to make, and all you do is get people to want to thumb their nose at authority for telling them what to do. Crimes would actually increase if you made Alcohol illegal.

I mean unless you support the government killing people and storming into peoples houses and businesses SWAT team style. In a decade you might get people to quit drugging and drinking, but at what cost?

 

[Vendetta]

And how exactly were these families helped by the drug war?

Um, the opposite effect occured :sarcastic

 

[Vendetta]

If the "smack" and "blow" were available under medical supervision, like any other prescription drug, I doubt many of these families would have been so devastated.

As far as cannabis vs alcohol, India offers an interesting example. I don't know if the laws are more homogenous today, but in the past there used to be a lot of drug law variation among the various states. In those where marijuana was illegal and alcohol legal it was pot that was associated with with crime and social dysfunction. In states where pot was legal but alcohol prohibited the reverse was true.

The problem with your logic is you cannot supervise what is easily accessible on the streets. Even if you could, the amount of resources and personnel would cost the State/Government tens of millions of dollars. Simply educating an addict isn't enough because at some point, you're going to have to depend on the reformed addict to not relapse.

 

[Vendetta]

I don't drink alcohol and hope it is never again criminalized.

But since we live in world where other substances are criminalized, then bottom line in this thread is 'you win.' If you are staying consistent with your logic and what you've stated (about alcohol), I would think you might be on bandwagon to make alcohol illegal (to sell and use).

Good luck with that.

Well there is no physiological benefit to alcohol with the exception of moderate use. However over consumption increases the liklihood of liver damage and kidney disease.

 

[Acim]

Decriminalizing drugs don't solve the problem.

It addresses the problem(s). Solution will come from education, what exactly we are willing to teach, how often, at what stage of a person's life. As long as it is illegal, education can be had, but it can't be fair. We can't bring in people who are non addicts and who talk about benefits they receive from the drug, why the drug use doesn't automatically lead to negative / horrific consequences. I cannot think of anyone in current system that would be involved in that sort of education. While I can see persons who would be involved in that if it were legal and education was looking to be fair and well rounded.

All of these assertions are speculatory.

What does speculatory mean? And which of Jaiket's? Really, all of them? Like where Jaiket says, "I saw your comments about families harmed by drugs. I have first hand experience of what it feels like to be a member of such a family" - that would be speculatory?

Cocaine, Meth, and Heroin are highly addictive.

Yes. And yet some users are not addicts and/or they are able to function in our society. As obese people may function okay in our society. Other users (addicts) are able to function less or not function (well) at all.

Simply educating people doesnt solve the issue.

I believe it does. Depends on how 'simple' the education is. If it is of variety of, "don't do it," and that is totality of 'education' then I agree, "simply educating people doesn't solve the issue." If something in vein of mandatory class for say 5th graders, then 8th graders, then 12 graders, I think it could go long ways toward solution, especially if all facets of use and known consequences are allowed in curriculum. If only 'scaring straight,' then I believe people will try it, find out fear mongers lied, and use it while essentially learning from own experience just how addictive it is.

Mind you, education and usage are incredibly skewed by legality.

We can educate people to be abstinent but that doesnt stop contracting HIV/AIDS.

Similar, but analogy would fall short if asking crossover questions, such as, what would you suggest be made illegal to address the issue of contracting HIV/AIDS?

Furthermore, education is more like advertorial rather than formal education. Nor is your assumption that abstinence based on what others, including myself, are saying. Education doesn't mean (for me), we teach don't do it, but instead provide as much reasonable, known data as we have available (whether pro use or against use) and allow sensibilities of learners to be guide. Add this into environment where it is legal and peer education would be far different than it is now. Instead of the risky kids who are cool essentially explaining that society has lied to you about usage, it would be openly understood in way that I honestly can't compare it to anything current other than "making money" since we still live in world where we don't talk openly / honestly about legal substances, like alcohol and cigarettes.

The point is controlling the issue, not stopping it.

Exactly.

If you have updated evidence please show me. So far all I see is "all the evidence points to thus and so..." To me, a researcher, that isn't good enough.

Prohibition (of alcohol) is related to this discussion. Even weed is related. You may concede that it is far less addictive, but there are people that vehemently disagree with you, and will you similar tactics to what you are using to insist it must stay illegal or we are in worse danger than that of drug war and mass use we currently have.

 

[Acim]

Well there is no physiological benefit to alcohol with the exception of moderate use. However over consumption increases the liklihood of liver damage and kidney disease.

Can you think of any substance where over consumption wouldn't lead to increases in the likelihood of damages to the user?