• 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!

Legalize Hard Drugs?

Legalize hard drugs?


  • Total voters
    47
or look at it this way, person you've been buying off for year $40, bloke at gas station $140, 'cause he has to factor in all sorts of things.

There will be no 100 dollar swing. In fact, because you have have actual companies then growing the raw product it will become cheaper as now they don't have to smuggle things into the US. It can be shipped. Processing and refining can occur in companies in America. In the end, you're cutting out a huge, volatile, and violent cartel groups from the picture and replacing them with companies and wall street. They'll find the market efficiencies in relatively little time.
 
how do you propose to make the cartels go along with this?

like i've said, if you go directly to the growers, the cartels aren't above threatening them with violent reprisals for selling to americans, if you produce it wholly in america, the cost would be great that the cartels could simply undercut the governments price.

I am not going to ask the cartels if it is ok. I'll just do it and the cartels willl lose their revenue stream.

I could see that cartels may try to threaten growers. That will pass.

I do not think the legal price would be above the black market price.
 
I think there are a lot of serious consequences which can come with the legalization of hard drugs. Especially if you start allowing the pharmaceutical companies and wall street in on it. Designer drugs can be made which can be nearly instantly addicting.

That is a scary concept.
 
I wonder how many people who are for legalizing hard drugs have ever had an addict in their family that they themselves have had to deal with.

Yes, people VERY close to me, I have lost a cousin to heroin, and also seen my ex fiance become a shadow of her former self who to this day has not got the treatment she needs, and instead has lost all hope for the future and her life due to being treated as a criminal.

These events are pivotal events that had led to my exploring, and eventually accepting, and becoming strongly supportive of the legalization of drugs, one would have never been killed, and the other would have been able to get the treatment she needs, and have a future if it were not for this "War on Drugs"
 
So HI is going to grow enough coca,poppies and other plants to support the hard drug demand in our country?

You do know that there are huge tracts of Poppies growing legally in countries such as India already with ZERO black market involvement.. is it that hard to imagine cartels being separated from the rearing of drug producing crops when this already occurs on a large scale?
 
Yes, people VERY close to me, I have lost a cousin to heroin, and also seen my ex fiance become a shadow of her former self who to this day has not got the treatment she needs, and instead has lost all hope for the future and her life due to being treated as a criminal.

These events are pivotal events that had led to my exploring, and eventually accepting, and becoming strongly supportive of the legalization of drugs, one would have never been killed, and the other would have been able to get the treatment she needs, and have a future if it were not for this "War on Drugs"

Cry us all a river - how many of these people have you had to take care of? It is one thing to see somebody be on drugs, it is another to deal with a drug addict.

The fact that drug addicts are treated as 'criminals' would change how with the legalization of hard drugs? Do you think junkies would no longer exist if there wasn't a 'war on drugs'? Do you think most people would stop seeing your ex fiancee for what she is? A dirty junkie who would rather get high every day than deal with life?

The answer to these questions is a resounding 'no'. Drugs are not associated with filth, crime and social decay for no reason. It is because they usually all go hand in hand.
 
I'm on record as no here, because I think the options were a little too limited. My explanation, Marijuana should be legalized for all legal adults, and the ages of legal adulthood should all be set at one uniform standard, I personally like 18 because citizens can serve in the military, vote, and enter into legal contracts at that age, so this to me is the definition of adulthood. For harder drugs, meth/crack/PCP should remain illegal as it seems empirically that they permanently change behavioral patterns in users and personality within a short period of usage. For drugs such as heroine, cocaine, LSD, etc. I think that those physicians who already treat these addictions could be allowed to open clinics and charge market price plus reasonable markup for profit, this would bring the values down on the hard drugs and the secondary crimes should go down as these things would be more affordable, as well, the person consuming would not be allowed to leave the clinical setting until cleared by the physician to ensure public safety.

The clinic would be able to provide whatever entertainment they see fit, and could charge per use, weekly, monthy, or however else they see fit. As well, develop quicker field evidence standards and enforce all intoxicated operation of machinery as OWI, and end the "war on drugs". I think many drug related problems would evaporate at that point.
 
Cry us all a river - how many of these people have you had to take care of? It is one thing to see somebody be on drugs, it is another to deal with a drug addict.

The fact that drug addicts are treated as 'criminals' would change how with the legalization of hard drugs? Do you think junkies would no longer exist if there wasn't a 'war on drugs'? Do you think most people would stop seeing your ex fiancee for what she is? A dirty junkie who would rather get high every day than deal with life?

The answer to these questions is a resounding 'no'. Drugs are not associated with filth, crime and social decay for no reason. It is because they usually all go hand in hand.

Fist off I will take the ding here.. **** you.

this is deeply personal, and this is why I am reluctant to share my motivations.

Now.. I never claimed the junkies would never exist.. however, if we separate the drug problem from the criminal problem we can deal with it much more effectively. Our current policy aggravates these issues, it does nothing to treat them. A casual user with a career and a future goes in on a minor possession rap, she comes out with no hope, and no future and is depressed, and a potential drug addiction now has rocket fuel.

I will get back to responding here.. If we were face to face you would have gotten punched in the face.. and actually i am off to go punch something now.

I should have never responded to your question, and for the record.. yu will never get one ounce of respect from me.
 
Now.. I never claimed the junkies would never exist.. however, if we separate the drug problem from the criminal problem we can deal with it much more effectively. Our current policy aggravates these issues, it does nothing to treat them. A casual user with a career and a future goes in on a minor possession rap, she comes out with no hope, and no future and is depressed, and a potential drug addiction now has rocket fuel.
I completely agree with this. Drug addicts on the fence tend to feel trapped in the stigma with no options, if we take the stigma away and the prosecutorial threat, then addicts may feel more apt to seek treatment when they are tired of being a slave to the addiction. As well, I think if we facilitate a safe environment and a fair market price for these substances we take the desperation out of the addiction and would actually see a drastic reduction in secondary violence associated with the drug issue.
 
Fist off I will take the ding here.. **** you.

this is deeply personal, and this is why I am reluctant to share my motivations.

Now.. I never claimed the junkies would never exist.. however, if we separate the drug problem from the criminal problem we can deal with it much more effectively. Our current policy aggravates these issues, it does nothing to treat them. A casual user with a career and a future goes in on a minor possession rap, she comes out with no hope, and no future and is depressed, and a potential drug addiction now has rocket fuel.

I will get back to responding here.. If we were face to face you would have gotten punched in the face.. and actually i am off to go punch something now.

I should have never responded to your question, and for the record.. yu will never get one ounce of respect from me.

:roll: - I could write you an entire 3 page essay on how I use to be a drug addict, but I won't. What I will say is simply this - nobody goes to jail for a minor possession rap. Maybe in the 80s and maybe early 90s. But in the year 2010? No. You have to do something serious for any cop to want to take the time to do more than simply take drugs away from you.

If that minor "possession rap" made your girlfriend want to get deeper into drugs, then I guess she didn't learn her lesson now did she? But then again, that is kind of the point - most drug addicts don't - some do - the overwhelming majority don't. It is the reason you see the streets of NYC littered with heroin addicts, crack addicts and meth users.
 
I wonder how many people who are for legalizing hard drugs have ever had an addict in their family that they themselves have had to deal with.

Most of the addicts I've had to deal with (in my family) were alcoholics.
 
You are basing this off the premise that drug use (hard drugs) would increase by a substantial percentage. However, i do not believe it functions @ 1:1.

I disagree. I think we would see a substantial increase. There are 3 types of people: 1) those that will use regardless; 2) those that won't use regardless; 3) those whose use will be significantly based on the drug's legality. The potential for criminality is a deterent for these people. Without that, ateadt some will use, and with the highly addictive qualities of these substances, one will find a significant increase. Folks don't use meth "every once in a while".
 
I think we should legalize hard drugs to remove the criminal element from drug distribution and pay for treatment with taxes. Who agrees with me?

Neither agree nor disagree.
This is dangerous ground, much studying is necessary.
Marajuana is one thing..
What you say makes a ton of sense.
 
I disagree. I think we would see a substantial increase. There are 3 types of people: 1) those that will use regardless; 2) those that won't use regardless; 3) those whose use will be significantly based on the drug's legality. The potential for criminality is a deterrent for these people. Without that, ateadt some will use, and with the highly addictive qualities of these substances, one will find a significant increase. Folks don't use meth "every once in a while".
Do we have any proof for this, or is proof even possible?
At one time, all of the drugs were legal, then along came a problem. The response was to make drugs illegal.
Did this work?
 
Am I wrong to assume that drug addicts can't hold a job? I say we just deal with the difficulties of keeping it illegal. It really messes with our communities and our fellow citizens and should not in any way be encouraged or accepted.
 
'cuz nothing compares to weed..
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOAOTJhefkM"]YouTube- Musical Comedy- "Nothing Compares to 2 U" -political comedy- MC Blitzen[/nomedia]
 
Or maybe we've dealt with an addict. Or was one ourselves. And still happen to think that people should be free to make those choices for themselves.

You operate under the false premise that being an addict is a choice.
 
I used to do crystal meth in the 70's. It is so good/bad that it makes you feel like superman, at first but before you know it you lose the beginners high which turns into a living nightmare after continued use.

Back then it was hard to come by. You usually had to know a hard core biker to get it. Once, after running out of it I found myself crawling around the carpet looking for specks of meth.

I've seen it kill people in less than a year.

It will make your teeth fall out.

That's why I voted no.
 
Honestly, I don't know why people do meth when there are much better, less dangerous drugs out there....like pot. But I'm not sure I'd tell someone they couldn't. I'd tell someone they're stupid for doing so. May as well go drink the drano that's under your sink seeing as that's one of the components of meth. But if people want to kill themselves, I say fine; don't involve others. And notify someone so that your apartment doesn't start to smell bad.
 
I disagree. I think we would see a substantial increase. There are 3 types of people: 1) those that will use regardless; 2) those that won't use regardless; 3) those whose use will be significantly based on the drug's legality. The potential for criminality is a deterrent for these people. Without that, ateadt some will use, and with the highly addictive qualities of these substances, one will find a significant increase. Folks don't use meth "every once in a while".
It seems obvious that you do NOT support legalization of "hard drugs".
Given that, what changes/improvements, if any, would you apply to the current law enforcement methods in use against the illegal production, transport, sale, and usage of such?

Or are the current methods on target, and simply need tweaking?
 
I think we should legalize hard drugs to remove the criminal element from drug distribution and pay for treatment with taxes. Who agrees with me?

My intuitive impulse is in favor of legalization of all drugs, but you have to realize that what you’ve advanced isn’t a very economically detailed idea. You probably realize that the negative externalities associated with high rates of hard drug usage are severe (and they could potentially end up being more coercive and authoritarian than the prohibition of drugs), but perhaps you believe that your Pigovian solution of sin taxing legalized products will cut consumer demand. That would work fine with, say, firearms. But as hard drugs are physically and psychologically addictive substances, they’d be highly inelastic goods. First-year micro students typically laugh when they hear that cigarettes are technically classified as “necessities” because of their low elasticity, but it’s a testament to the addictive nature of nicotine.

With the negative externalities imposed by widespread smoking already violating the libertarian non-aggression principle, legalization of hard drugs isn’t necessarily the straightforward libertarian idea you might think it to be.
 
Questions for those who support the legalization of "Hard Drugs".

What type of restrictions/rules would those legally permitted to produce/transport/sell such be under?

Would there be quality standards?

Transportation security standards?

Could they be held legally liable, like bars, if one of their customers wrecked while driving home under the influence of one of these drugs?

What about advertizing?

Would there be restrictions on advertizing drugs to minors, like cigarettes companies currently are held to?
 
Questions for those who support the legalization of "Hard Drugs".

What type of restrictions/rules would those legally permitted to produce/transport/sell such be under?

Would there be quality standards?

Transportation security standards?

Could they be held legally liable, like bars, if one of their customers wrecked while driving home under the influence of one of these drugs?

What about advertizing?

Would there be restrictions on advertizing drugs to minors, like cigarettes companies currently are held to?

I can't answer these questions because I do not favor a single standard for everyone. I believe state and local governments should regulate drugs in a manner that best suites their specific needs. Eventually, the places with the most effective regulatory frameworks would thrive and serve as an example of how to properly regulate drugs. I don't see why anyone would object to this.
 
Do we have any proof for this, or is proof even possible?
At one time, all of the drugs were legal, then along came a problem. The response was to make drugs illegal.
Did this work?

Proof really isn't possible in this circumstance. One can presume this logically because of the addictive qualities of these drugs. Heroin, for example, triggers certain parts of the brain that other drugs either do not, or do so in a far lesser capacity. Therefore, logically, we know that as these substances are more addictive, their use increases when the amount of people use them. These drugs are not like alcohol, which can be used recreationally, and without concern for addiction, at least in some.
 
Back
Top Bottom