• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Drug War.

Drug War stance.

  • Total voters
    30
Thoreau

Thoreau

Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
102
Reaction score
26
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I just wanted to know where everyone stands on the Drug War. It is a large poll but I wanted close to every opinion represented. So what is your opinion of the drug war? Pick a number that best describes your views.

1.) Stay the course. Keep the laws the way they are, and only increase funding to match inflation and a rising population.

2.)Amp up the drug war. Increase funding exponentially, add more mandatory minimums, militarize all borders with troops, allow for militarized drug checkpoints within country, eliminate treatment as an alternative to sentencing, give police more power in searching, use the powers of the patriot act to investigate drug crimes etc.

3.)Demand and harm reduction dominated policy. Focus transferred from justice department to medical based policy. Treatment over prosecution. Harm reduction such as clean needle exchange, methadone maintenance clinics, etc.

4.)Legalize marijuana and/or other "soft" drugs. Recognize that drugs are not equally harmful, possibly contain policies from #3 as well.


5.)Decriminalization. Focus away from the user and focus resources toward targeting supply, while still making use an infraction. May or may not be coupled with policies from #3.

6.)Legalize all drugs. Apply regulations for the sale such as age restrictions, standardize the potency and control for impurities. May or may not be taxed based on political preferences...

7.)Medical marijuana. Federally recognized as a legal medication, otherwise recreational use is illegal/decriminalized.

8.)Others?!
 
Last edited:
I'm the full legalization type of guy. That system can come with problems especially with designer drugs with pharmaceuticals. Make something that doesn't kill you or your productivity (at least not for some time of usage), but is instantaneously addicting. Things like that could be kinda bad. But mostly I would go the full legalization route.
 
other - each of the 50 states decides for themselves.

If we end entitlement programs, I would support full on legalization of everything and anything. until then, I would support legalization of most, decriminalization of a few others.
 
I was a foot soldier in the "war on drugs". We lost. Time we admitted that and move on.

Seriously... enlightening people so the demand goes away is the only real solution to the drug and alcohol problems. Prohibition doesn't work.
 
Ikari said:
I'm the full legalization type of guy. That system can come with problems especially with designer drugs with pharmaceuticals. Make something that doesn't kill you or your productivity (at least not for some time of usage), but is instantaneously addicting. Things like that could be kinda bad. But mostly I would go the full legalization route.
Click to expand...

Even though the nicotine in tobacco is recognized as the most addictive substance known, it still only produces dependence symptoms in 32% of those who use it according to the institute of medicine. Compare that to the same results they found for heroin 23%, cocaine 17%, alcohol 15% and marijuana (including hashish) 9%.
 
Full legalization on the national level. The Constitution doesn't grant the Feds legal authority to interdict this. At most, it could implement tariffs. Those could reasonably be applied to drug treatment programs, since I'm not going to pretend the nanny state is going to evaporate in my lifetime.

The principal of federalism leads to local control, funded internally by each state.

From a purely libertarian viewpoint, there's no valid reason to interdict the drug trade.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Full legalization on the national level. The Constitution doesn't grant the Feds legal authority to interdict this. At most, it could implement tariffs. Those could reasonably be applied to drug treatment programs, since I'm not going to pretend the nanny state is going to evaporate in my lifetime.

The principal of federalism leads to local control, funded internally by each state.

From a purely libertarian viewpoint, there's no valid reason to interdict the drug trade.
Click to expand...

My position is that the government can not interdict the drug trade, it is impossible to have policy that contradicts the most basic principle of economics. "when there is a demand there is a supply."

And nor should they since drug use in and of itself does not harm another of their person or property.
 
Last edited:
Part of me says "full legalization". The other part of me remembers the time in college I decided to drive while I was high, and stopped to let a pinecone cross the road because I thought it was a hedgehog.
 
Singularity said:
Part of me says "full legalization". The other part of me remembers the time in college I decided to drive while I was high, and stopped to let a pinecone cross the road because I thought it was a hedgehog.
Click to expand...

I am sure that would be considered the same as a DUI, regardless of whether the drug is licit or illicit.
 
Thoreau said:
Even though the nicotine in tobacco is recognized as the most addictive substance known, it still only produces dependence symptoms in 32% of those who use it according to the institute of medicine. Compare that to the same results they found for heroin 23%, cocaine 17%, alcohol 15% and marijuana (including hashish) 9%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but scientists are really smart, I'm sure they would be able to make something well more addictive than nicotine.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, but scientists are really smart, I'm sure they would be able to make something well more addictive than nicotine.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Soma from Brave New World. I doubt that people will try it when they see their peers succumbing to it. The same reason while 95% of the population is not going to go out and try meth, crack and heroin the day it become legal, they know the dangers of it and will stay away from it, I sure as hell know that the laws have no effect on what drugs I do or do not do.
 
Last edited:
Thoreau said:
I doubt that people will try it when they see their peers succumbing to it.
Click to expand...

I think that you just underestimated the stupidity of a good chunk of our population.
 
Ikari said:
I think that you just underestimated the stupidity of a good chunk of our population.
Click to expand...

No, empirical evidence says otherwise. Like I said, Tobacco is the most addictive drug, and it is legal for those 18 and older. Yet tobacco use in this country decreases to the lowest level on record each and every year. This is because of education and the fact that smelling like burnt popcorn and ammonia is not seen as cool or sexy any more.
 
I have a hard time with this issue. Part of me thinks that prohibition does not work well, and it's alot of money spent futilely. Another part of me remembers what I was like before I learned to, as Nancy Reagan put it, "just say no to drugs", and how subtly assiduous the problems where, and think that even if the money spent is inefficient to the job, it's better than giving up.

I think overall, that at the current time, I just see no overwhelming reason to significantly change our drug policy.
 
Singularity said:
Part of me says "full legalization". The other part of me remembers the time in college I decided to drive while I was high, and stopped to let a pinecone cross the road because I thought it was a hedgehog.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Nice one...
 
Thoreau said:
...the proliferation of hard drugs that otherwise were not popular pre-drug war (Meth, crack, cocaine)...
Click to expand...

I would like to go more into detail with this one. It is argued that the widespread use of cocaine of the 1970s directly correlated with the clampdown on pharmaceutical stimulants used in the 1960s, the clampdown on cocaine imported in the 1980s resulted in the production of crack, the resulting clampdown on crack in the same era, resulted in the meth production of the 1990s that we see today.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I have a hard time with this issue. Part of me thinks that prohibition does not work well, and it's alot of money spent futilely. Another part of me remembers what I was like before I learned to, as Nancy Reagan put it, "just say no to drugs", and how subtly assiduous the problems where, and think that even if the money spent is inefficient to the job, it's better than giving up.

I think overall, that at the current time, I just see no overwhelming reason to significantly change our drug policy.
Click to expand...
Removing the legal penalties for drug use doesn't mean giving up on discouraging and minimizing their use. Laws aren't required to effectively discourage drug use. We should continue to have programs like "just say no" and "look what happened to this addict" while doing away with programs like "get tough" and "zero tolerance."
 
Last edited:
Binary_Digit said:
Laws aren't required to effectively discourage drug use. We should continue to have programs like "just say no" and "look what happened to this addict" while doing away with programs like "get tough" and "zero tolerance."
Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you are saying, and by no means do I entirely disagree. My idea is just that, to me, things do not rise to the level I think is needed to change the status quo. Drug policy in the country is not ideal, but I fear that twiddling with it won't help, and could hurt.
 
Redress said:
I understand exactly what you are saying, and by no means do I entirely disagree. My idea is just that, to me, things do not rise to the level I think is needed to change the status quo. Drug policy in the country is not ideal, but I fear that twiddling with it won't help, and could hurt.
Click to expand...

I posted an lengthy response to your post that got deleted some how.

What about the unintended consequences that can be attributed to the Drug War inflating the price of drugs? Such as violence in Mexico (over 5,000 cartel related murders a year), at least 90% of all gang activity, the funding of terror groups and regimes, and other social costs that permeate our country?
 
I see no reason not to make them all legal.
 
Redress said:
I have a hard time with this issue. Part of me thinks that prohibition does not work well, and it's alot of money spent futilely. Another part of me remembers what I was like before I learned to, as Nancy Reagan put it, "just say no to drugs", and how subtly assiduous the problems where, and think that even if the money spent is inefficient to the job, it's better than giving up.

I think overall, that at the current time, I just see no overwhelming reason to significantly change our drug policy.
Click to expand...

I don't want to pry too much, so ignore me if it too personal, but did the illegality or other nature of the drug war somehow help you eventually say no and straighten your life out?
 
Thoreau said:
I posted an lengthy response to your post that got deleted some how.

What about the unintended consequences that can be attributed to the Drug War inflating the price of drugs? Such as violence in Mexico (over 5,000 cartel related murders a year), at least 90% of all gang activity, the funding of terror groups and regimes, and other social costs that permeate our country?
Click to expand...

How much would any savings in that area be offset by increased costs due to a probable increased prevalence of drug use?
 
ARealConservative said:
I don't want to pry too much, so ignore me if it too personal, but did the illegality or other nature of the drug war somehow help you eventually say no and straighten your life out?
Click to expand...

Not entirely, though it did have an effect.

Edited for completeness: After the half dozenth time you have the police come cruising up the street when you are in your car making a deal, you really start thinking "I got to change something". That was far from the only reason, but it had a definite effect.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
did you ever get in drug related legal troubles?
Click to expand...

I was incredibly lucky, and never got busted. Way too may close calls.

I think I see where you are going with this, will see shortly I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom