It's time to legalize drugs

[ShackledNation]

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

I agree. The redeeming value argument is bogus. Value is subjective. If people use a certain drug, it is because they prefer using the drug to not using it. It has value to them.

Are not cost and benefits determined by supply and demand? To me the cost and benefit argument is just the same as redeeming value. Each individual can decide the costs and benefits of whatever drug they please. There are no benefits to banning any drug. People still use them in the same proportions, illegal or not.

I disagree slightly. Banning does make access harder, and does allow the state to prosecute for sales and possession. Cost/benefit in the case of drug banning does not equate directly to supply and demand, although they are related. When you look at cost and benefit in this case you are looking at both the individual and society as a whole.

In my opinion, hyper addictive drugs, ones where most users end up not being able to control thier use (crack, heroin, meth) are too risky to legalize. By banning we create a stigma attached to them. What we have now however, with a general ban on ALL drugs except the "big 3" (booze, nictoine and caffine) is we dilute the seriousness of the reasons why the harder drugs ARE banned.

Lifting the ban on marginal drugs, pot, E, Shrooms (im still up in the air on acid) allows law enforcement and treatment centers to concentrate on the hard core addicts, instead of recreational users. I know some people can use heroin recreationally, but the percentage is far lower than for recreational pot users.

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming banning drugs reduces use of drugs. It does not. The people who would use the drugs if they were legal break the law and use them illegally anyway. Those who do not use drugs now will not suddenly use them if they are legal. In fact, since the 1970 ban on hard drugs like meth, usage has actually increased.

"The Mental Health Services Administration — a government agency — has reported that marijuana, ecstasy, and methamphetamine use has recently increased."
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1102c.asp

Alcohol has far worse effects on society than these other drugs. Drunk driving is a huge cause of death for teenagers. Alcoholism affects more Americans than any other drug and is behind many abusive relationships. Many acts of homicide are committed under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death in American society. These are all costs of alcohol. Yet it is legal. It really doesn't seem to make sense to me, with all due respect, to say the costs of meth are worse than the costs of alcohol.

 

[martybegan]

I agree. The redeeming value argument is bogus. Value is subjective. If people use a certain drug, it is because they prefer using the drug to not using it. It has value to them.

Are not cost and benefits determined by supply and demand? To me the cost and benefit argument is just the same as redeeming value. Each individual can decide the costs and benefits of whatever drug they please. There are no benefits to banning any drug. People still use them in the same proportions, illegal or not.

I disagree slightly. Banning does make access harder, and does allow the state to prosecute for sales and possession. Cost/benefit in the case of drug banning does not equate directly to supply and demand, although they are related. When you look at cost and benefit in this case you are looking at both the individual and society as a whole.

In my opinion, hyper addictive drugs, ones where most users end up not being able to control thier use (crack, heroin, meth) are too risky to legalize. By banning we create a stigma attached to them. What we have now however, with a general ban on ALL drugs except the "big 3" (booze, nictoine and caffine) is we dilute the seriousness of the reasons why the harder drugs ARE banned.

Lifting the ban on marginal drugs, pot, E, Shrooms (im still up in the air on acid) allows law enforcement and treatment centers to concentrate on the hard core addicts, instead of recreational users. I know some people can use heroin recreationally, but the percentage is far lower than for recreational pot users.

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming banning drugs reduces use of drugs. It does not. The people who would use the drugs if they were legal break the law and use them illegally anyway. Those who do not use drugs now will not suddenly use them if they are legal. In fact, since the 1970 ban on hard drugs like meth, usage has actually increased.

"The Mental Health Services Administration — a government agency — has reported that marijuana, ecstasy, and methamphetamine use has recently increased."
The Drug War Is Expanding by Laurence M. Vance

Alcohol has far worse effects on society than these other drugs. Drunk driving is a huge cause of death for teenagers. Alcoholism affects more Americans than any other drug and is behind many abusive relationships. Many acts of homicide are committed under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death in American society. These are all costs of alcohol. Yet it is legal. It really doesn't seem to make sense to me, with all due respect, to say the costs of meth are worse than the costs of alcohol.

I think the ban would be far more effective if it were targeted on only the more harmful drugs. There is also the consideration of how much of a percentage of users are functional, vs. nonfunctional. For alcohol the functional # is pretty high, for meth I would think its far lower.

I think the only real way to remove the ban on them in a cost effective manner would be to legalize them, but if you use them to excess, the state gets power of attorney over you, placing you in one of two places:

1. treatment to clean you up. At that point you have proved you cant use it, and use becomes illegal FOR YOU

2. hospice type care, where you can use to your hearts content, and as long as you use, you have to stay.

Maybe total lifting of drug bans is a good way to go. However, I would try it with pot first and see what happens. We would get emprical data on drug legalization, rather than theoretical.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who says marijuana has no redeeming value? Who gets to determine what has redeeming value? The free market. The reason people smoke weed is because it has redeeming value to them.

Pointing out hypocrisy in current laws is not a fallacy. The fallacy is central economic planning. It is the notion that government knows what has redeeming value to people (even though redeeming value is completely subjective) so government can tell people what they can or cannot not buy.

Does crack or meth have redeeming value? Because if you want to make the argument that gov't can't ban those things too then you'd have to explain their redeeming value to society.

Frankly your arguments are pathetic retreads of standard narco-libertarian fare. I am losing interest rapidly in this discussion as your ability to express yourself and factual knowledge are pitiful.

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

Alcohol, tobacco, etc have been legal for most of this country's history and have been used widely. That is one of the issues. Both of them are intertwined in the country's history, culture, and society. Marijuana is not. It is an alien to American culture, as with most other drugs.
The history alone is a good reason to distinguish them.

But if people claim alcohol has bad effects then why would they want to compound the issue by legalizing something else?

 

[martybegan]

Does crack or meth have redeeming value? Because if you want to make the argument that gov't can't ban those things too then you'd have to explain their redeeming value to society.

Frankly your arguments are pathetic retreads of standard narco-libertarian fare. I am losing interest rapidly in this discussion as your ability to express yourself and factual knowledge are pitiful.

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

Alcohol, tobacco, etc have been legal for most of this country's history and have been used widely. That is one of the issues. Both of them are intertwined in the country's history, culture, and society. Marijuana is not. It is an alien to American culture, as with most other drugs.
The history alone is a good reason to distinguish them.

But if people claim alcohol has bad effects then why would they want to compound the issue by legalizing something else?

Current drug prohibitions are mostly a product of the early 20th century, some even the late 20th century.

For most drugs the fact that they couldn't be refined or synthesized prior to the 1900's is more the reason they are not part of "american culture" than for any other reason.

Just by looking at the negative effects of prohibition we can see the effects of pot bans.

 

[Baron]

o, it is time to vote out liberals from all parliaments!

 

[ShackledNation]

Does crack or meth have redeeming value? Because if you want to make the argument that gov't can't ban those things too then you'd have to explain their redeeming value to society.

Frankly your arguments are pathetic retreads of standard narco-libertarian fare. I am losing interest rapidly in this discussion as your ability to express yourself and factual knowledge are pitiful.

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

Alcohol, tobacco, etc have been legal for most of this country's history and have been used widely. That is one of the issues. Both of them are intertwined in the country's history, culture, and society. Marijuana is not. It is an alien to American culture, as with most other drugs.
The history alone is a good reason to distinguish them.

But if people claim alcohol has bad effects then why would they want to compound the issue by legalizing something else?

All drugs were legal for most of this country's history. Marijuana, meth, crack, and all other drugs were legal (if they existed). Most weren't banned until the 1970s.

Like some drugs, the television was not invented until well into the 20th century. Cell phones were not invented until the late 20th century. Following the same line of reasoning you put forth, these items should have been banned because they were changes in the American culture that had no historical precedent in America.

Marijuana was a drug more commonly used by Mexicans. Mexican food, under your same definition of alien to American culture, would therefore have to be banned, because it originated not in America but Mexico, just like marijuana.

Are you arguing anything alien to American culture should be banned? Does government get to define American culture? Historically slavery was part of American culture. Does that mean we should reinstate slavery? Taken to its logical conclusions, your argument sounds a bit totalitarian to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

Alcohol, tobacco, etc have been legal for most of this country's history and have been used widely. That is one of the issues. Both of them are intertwined in the country's history, culture, and society. Marijuana is not. It is an alien to American culture, as with most other drugs.
The history alone is a good reason to distinguish them.

But if people claim alcohol has bad effects then why would they want to compound the issue by legalizing something else?

All drugs were legal for most of this country's history. Marijuana, meth, crack, and all other drugs were legal. Most weren't banned until the 1970s.

Marijuana was a drug more commonly used by Mexicans. Mexican food, under your same definition of alien to American culture, would therefore have to be banned, because it originated not in America but Mexico, just like marijuana.

Are you arguing anything alien to American culture should be banned? Does government get to define American culture? Historically slavery was part of American culture. Does that mean we should reinstate slavery? Taken to its logical conclusions, your argument sounds a bit totalitarian to me.

Gosh you really are a tiresome programmed narco-libertarian hack, aren't you?
Buh bye

 

[The Rabbi]

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

Alcohol, tobacco, etc have been legal for most of this country's history and have been used widely. That is one of the issues. Both of them are intertwined in the country's history, culture, and society. Marijuana is not. It is an alien to American culture, as with most other drugs.
The history alone is a good reason to distinguish them.

But if people claim alcohol has bad effects then why would they want to compound the issue by legalizing something else?

Current drug prohibitions are mostly a product of the early 20th century, some even the late 20th century.

For most drugs the fact that they couldn't be refined or synthesized prior to the 1900's is more the reason they are not part of "american culture" than for any other reason.

Just by looking at the negative effects of prohibition we can see the effects of pot bans.

Hemp was certainly available. So was opium. A few people used laudanum, but mostly as a medicine, not for recreational use.
This bolsters my point. Drugs were not really a traditional part of society, whereas alcohol was. So alcohol is "grandfathered" in.

 

[ShackledNation]

Alcohol, tobacco, etc have been legal for most of this country's history and have been used widely. That is one of the issues. Both of them are intertwined in the country's history, culture, and society. Marijuana is not. It is an alien to American culture, as with most other drugs.
The history alone is a good reason to distinguish them.

But if people claim alcohol has bad effects then why would they want to compound the issue by legalizing something else?

All drugs were legal for most of this country's history. Marijuana, meth, crack, and all other drugs were legal. Most weren't banned until the 1970s.

Marijuana was a drug more commonly used by Mexicans. Mexican food, under your same definition of alien to American culture, would therefore have to be banned, because it originated not in America but Mexico, just like marijuana.

Are you arguing anything alien to American culture should be banned? Does government get to define American culture? Historically slavery was part of American culture. Does that mean we should reinstate slavery? Taken to its logical conclusions, your argument sounds a bit totalitarian to me.

Gosh you really are a tiresome programmed narco-libertarian hack, aren't you?
Buh bye

When the ignoramus sees the absurdity of his own positions, ad hominem takes their place so he doesn't have to question them.

 

[martybegan]

Alcohol, tobacco, etc have been legal for most of this country's history and have been used widely. That is one of the issues. Both of them are intertwined in the country's history, culture, and society. Marijuana is not. It is an alien to American culture, as with most other drugs.
The history alone is a good reason to distinguish them.

But if people claim alcohol has bad effects then why would they want to compound the issue by legalizing something else?

Current drug prohibitions are mostly a product of the early 20th century, some even the late 20th century.

For most drugs the fact that they couldn't be refined or synthesized prior to the 1900's is more the reason they are not part of "american culture" than for any other reason.

Just by looking at the negative effects of prohibition we can see the effects of pot bans.

Hemp was certainly available. So was opium. A few people used laudanum, but mostly as a medicine, not for recreational use.
This bolsters my point. Drugs were not really a traditional part of society, whereas alcohol was. So alcohol is "grandfathered" in.

So basically we go with the old "If I don't like it, ban it". However if I do like it, then well everything is just peachy.

Bit of a stretch to enjoy your maker's mark while denying a person the ability to legally smoke the dried remains of a plant.

 

[The Rabbi]

Current drug prohibitions are mostly a product of the early 20th century, some even the late 20th century.

For most drugs the fact that they couldn't be refined or synthesized prior to the 1900's is more the reason they are not part of "american culture" than for any other reason.

Just by looking at the negative effects of prohibition we can see the effects of pot bans.

Hemp was certainly available. So was opium. A few people used laudanum, but mostly as a medicine, not for recreational use.
This bolsters my point. Drugs were not really a traditional part of society, whereas alcohol was. So alcohol is "grandfathered" in.

So basically we go with the old "If I don't like it, ban it". However if I do like it, then well everything is just peachy.

Bit of a stretch to enjoy your maker's mark while denying a person the ability to legally smoke the dried remains of a plant.

Did I use too many big words in my post that you couldn't understand it? Or are you toking up early today?

 

[ShackledNation]

Hemp was certainly available. So was opium. A few people used laudanum, but mostly as a medicine, not for recreational use.
This bolsters my point. Drugs were not really a traditional part of society, whereas alcohol was. So alcohol is "grandfathered" in.

So basically we go with the old "If I don't like it, ban it". However if I do like it, then well everything is just peachy.

Bit of a stretch to enjoy your maker's mark while denying a person the ability to legally smoke the dried remains of a plant.

Did I use too many big words in my post that you couldn't understand it? Or are you toking up early today?

When the ignoramus sees the absurdity of his own positions, ad hominem takes their place so he doesn't have to question them.

 

[Steelplate]

From 1885-1929, Coca Cola had small, but significant amounts of cocaine in it. After 1929, they stopped using it.

Cannabis was used since the 1600's... primarily as Hemp... actually, it was required for all communities to grow hemp. It was used medicinally and recreationally from the early 1800's.

Opiates... we all know about opiates... they've been used forever.

So right there are the big three.. Cocaine, Pot, and opiates. they do have a history in our society. Now... am I advocating for legalization for all three of these drugs? No. However, the least harmful of those three is Pot. I'd even venture to say that it is less harmful than alcohol. So i do support the legalization of marijuana.

 

[cbirch2]

From 1885-1929, Coca Cola had small, but significant amounts of cocaine in it. After 1929, they stopped using it.

Cannabis was used since the 1600's... primarily as Hemp... actually, it was required for all communities to grow hemp. It was used medicinally and recreationally from the early 1800's.

Opiates... we all know about opiates... they've been used forever.

So right there are the big three.. Cocaine, Pot, and opiates. they do have a history in our society. Now... am I advocating for legalization for all three of these drugs? No. However, the least harmful of those three is Pot. I'd even venture to say that it is less harmful than alcohol. So i do support the legalization of marijuana.

Without a doubt. Marijuana and opiates have a history older than alcohol. People figured out how to light a plant on fire a long time before they figured out how to distill alcohol.

 

[cbirch2]

And anyone that thinks marijuana should be illegal is delusional. Other drugs are debatable but marijuana is a clean cut choice. legalize it now.

 

[The Rabbi]

From 1885-1929, Coca Cola had small, but significant amounts of cocaine in it. After 1929, they stopped using it.

Cannabis was used since the 1600's... primarily as Hemp... actually, it was required for all communities to grow hemp. It was used medicinally and recreationally from the early 1800's.

Opiates... we all know about opiates... they've been used forever.

So right there are the big three.. Cocaine, Pot, and opiates. they do have a history in our society. Now... am I advocating for legalization for all three of these drugs? No. However, the least harmful of those three is Pot. I'd even venture to say that it is less harmful than alcohol. So i do support the legalization of marijuana.

So a soft drink maker for a brief period. An unproven assertion about hemp. And a pain-relieving pharmaceutical.
That's it? Really?
You haven't proven anything, other than you can't understand a simple post.

 

[cbirch2]

From 1885-1929, Coca Cola had small, but significant amounts of cocaine in it. After 1929, they stopped using it.

Cannabis was used since the 1600's... primarily as Hemp... actually, it was required for all communities to grow hemp. It was used medicinally and recreationally from the early 1800's.

Opiates... we all know about opiates... they've been used forever.

So right there are the big three.. Cocaine, Pot, and opiates. they do have a history in our society. Now... am I advocating for legalization for all three of these drugs? No. However, the least harmful of those three is Pot. I'd even venture to say that it is less harmful than alcohol. So i do support the legalization of marijuana.

So a soft drink maker for a brief period. An unproven assertion about hemp. And a pain-relieving pharmaceutical.
That's it? Really?
You haven't proven anything, other than you can't understand a simple post.

Anyone that thinks alcohol was being used by humans before opiates is delusional.

 

[The Rabbi]

From 1885-1929, Coca Cola had small, but significant amounts of cocaine in it. After 1929, they stopped using it.

Cannabis was used since the 1600's... primarily as Hemp... actually, it was required for all communities to grow hemp. It was used medicinally and recreationally from the early 1800's.

Opiates... we all know about opiates... they've been used forever.

So right there are the big three.. Cocaine, Pot, and opiates. they do have a history in our society. Now... am I advocating for legalization for all three of these drugs? No. However, the least harmful of those three is Pot. I'd even venture to say that it is less harmful than alcohol. So i do support the legalization of marijuana.

Without a doubt. Marijuana and opiates have a history older than alcohol. People figured out how to light a plant on fire a long time before they figured out how to distill alcohol.

I just saw an article about a guy who researches early alcohol use. The oldest remains were a 9,000 year old brew from China.
Any evidence people used marijuana 9,000 years ago?

 

[The Rabbi]

From 1885-1929, Coca Cola had small, but significant amounts of cocaine in it. After 1929, they stopped using it.

Cannabis was used since the 1600's... primarily as Hemp... actually, it was required for all communities to grow hemp. It was used medicinally and recreationally from the early 1800's.

Opiates... we all know about opiates... they've been used forever.

So right there are the big three.. Cocaine, Pot, and opiates. they do have a history in our society. Now... am I advocating for legalization for all three of these drugs? No. However, the least harmful of those three is Pot. I'd even venture to say that it is less harmful than alcohol. So i do support the legalization of marijuana.

So a soft drink maker for a brief period. An unproven assertion about hemp. And a pain-relieving pharmaceutical.
That's it? Really?
You haven't proven anything, other than you can't understand a simple post.

Anyone that thinks alcohol was being used by humans before opiates is delusional.

Any proof there? Or are you stoned? Again.

 

[cbirch2]

From 1885-1929, Coca Cola had small, but significant amounts of cocaine in it. After 1929, they stopped using it.

Cannabis was used since the 1600's... primarily as Hemp... actually, it was required for all communities to grow hemp. It was used medicinally and recreationally from the early 1800's.

Opiates... we all know about opiates... they've been used forever.

So right there are the big three.. Cocaine, Pot, and opiates. they do have a history in our society. Now... am I advocating for legalization for all three of these drugs? No. However, the least harmful of those three is Pot. I'd even venture to say that it is less harmful than alcohol. So i do support the legalization of marijuana.

So a soft drink maker for a brief period. An unproven assertion about hemp. And a pain-relieving pharmaceutical.
That's it? Really?
You haven't proven anything, other than you can't understand a simple post.

Besides none of that even matters. What possible logical reason do you have to continue spending hundreds of millions of dollars arresting, processing, and imprisoning people for smoking marijuana on their own time. Its pointless. Its a nonviolent crime and the only crime associated with it comes from that fact that its sold by criminals.