Legalizing recreational drug use

Mycroft said:

Any of them...if a State chooses to do so.

The Feds...they should keep their nose out of State business.

Click to expand...

Your one of those... God Bless.

sly said:

But not hashhish?

Click to expand...

I could be convinced

sly said:

But not hashhish?

Click to expand...

Eh, it's included

Lovebug said:

I could be convinced

Click to expand...

Well, the best kind of hash is just compressed bits of the part of the marijuana flower that contains the THC that makes people high. It gets shaken off and strained. Actual hash, there is.

There's now ways of extracting an oil resin - without adding any bad chemicals - that can be vaporized so as not to harm the lungs. I suppose one could vaporize hash though, too.




Really, the only concern is getting really cheap weed and maybe the producer sprayed it with anti-fungicides/pesticides. But the way they're doing that in legalization states excludes that possibility.

Part 1

Mr Person said:

What gives someone the idea that it's their place to tell someone else that they can't

Click to expand...

A good question Mr Person. I would answer that it is on the basis that bodily autonomy is not unlimited especially when it creates severely negative externalities. We recognize this in laws that are designed to restrain people from engaging in acts of self-harm or suicide. I would argue that what is essentially unprescribed medication that alters one's mental state so severely that it can lead to violent reactions that lead to the harm of oneself or others creates such a major externality that it is incumbent upon a responsible government to ban the recreational use of such drugs.

Turning away from mind-altering drugs to drugs that might not simply be mind-altering but are highly addictive (to the point that the addict is willing to do practically anything and everything to achieve their next high), if we are to treat drug addiction as a disease, no responsible government should allow its citizens to voluntarily infect themselves and thereby harm others. Diseased people are quarantined until they no longer suffer from their disease. One does not have any recognizable right to voluntarily go and contract ebola or tuberculosis and then walk around freely shaking hands and using their friends guest towels.

Mr Person said:

Anyway, if potential harm is bad in your view, I hope you have never drank alcohol and also campaign for its immediate prohibition.

Click to expand...

If it were practical, I certainly would. If I could snap my fingers and make alcohol and knowledge of its production disappear from the world, I would do so in a heartbeat. The production, sale, and consumption of alcohol under the supposedly "regulated" conditions that we have now would be an utter joke if it did not lead to literally tens of thousands of deaths in the United States every year. Unfortunately, my side lost the cultural and propaganda war in the war against alcohol due to ineffective enforcement mechanisms that did not punish demand, only the supply. We will most likely lose the cultural war in the war against drugs. I will simply rage against the dying of the light and preemptively mourn the thousands of lives that will be lost for the sake of billionaires lining their pockets on the suffering and misery of others. By the time my wife and I are ready to retire, I do not imagine it will be unusual for me to see commercials for legalized designer methamphetamine with "please light up responsibly" afterword at the end.

Mr Person said:

And if "mind altering" is some kind of universal problem, I do hope coffee isn't in the picture. (It's also addictive).

Click to expand...

Well let me be clear: I am referring to drugs that radically alters or impairs one's ability to perceive reality and can lead to the harm oneself or others. Coffee is an addictive stimulant. And if coffee lead to severe health issues (which it may), or people taking leave of their senses and violently beating their family members in sudden fit of pique, I would be for its prohibition as well.

Part 2

Mr Person said:

PS: marijuana, LSD, mushrooms are not "highly addictive". In fact they have zero physical addiction potential. They are only potentially "psychologically addictive", but so too is chocolate, sex, video games and anything else a person might like a lot. Frankly, it seems to me that the people who voice the most support of the War on Drugs tend to have the least amount of knowledge about said drugs.

Click to expand...

Hence why I said "and/or" not simply "and." I know that marijuana, LSD and mushrooms, while sensory-impairing and mind alternating, are not addictive. Let us not insult one another's intelligence and please approach the topic with a modicum of moral seriousness.

Mr Person said:

PSS: legalization would cut out "drug gangs". We don't see a huge black market for tobacco and alcohol, do we? But we did see a huge market for alcohol during prohibition, didn't we? And didn't that give rise to the mafia? Why yes, yes it did.

Click to expand...

It depends on the drug. Legalizing cocaine, for example, will not cut out the drug gangs, because the United States has no jurisdiction over the countries that in which coca plants can be grown; the range in which the plants can be grown is limited to Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Thus those still very-violent drug cartels which would still be able to control the supply, no matter what the United States did. Much like how despite we opened up trade with the People's Republic of China, the Chinese fascist government continues to use slave labor in many of their factories. So by purchasing cocaine, one is putting money into the hands of the most bloody and violent organizations in the Western Hemisphere. I know there are many attorneys who are perfectly okay with that in order to get their high, and will remain just as okay with it if cocaine were to simply become "regulated and taxed." I am not one of them.

Mr Person said:

Simply put: moralist stances on how drugs are bad because they are "mind-altering" are the antithesis of good policy. They're what has driven this utterly failed and deeply harmful War on Drugs. They're also usually rife with hypocrisy because the person uttering the support isn't actually against anything "mind-altering" or anything potentially dangerous. They like their coffee and they don't want to ban skiing. What they're really saying is: the things I do are OK, but those things those other people do are NOT OK. It's not a logical stance.

Click to expand...

Well, the opposite of moralistic policies are amoral policies in which we ostensibly tax and regulate human vice, and pretend that by engaging in a policy of "regulation" the harm is somehow mitigated. As I stated before: we have literally tens of thousands of deaths per year due to alcohol, a substance that is highly regulated but that is constantly abused because of its extremely wide availability. Having seen the harm that this one drug causes, I have no wish to open the floodgates to other equally harmful drugs to inundate the market, however "regulated" they supposedly are. Because at least at the moment we can arrest and imprison drug dealers for selling cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Once these drugs are available in every supermarket and Kwik-e-Mart alongside cigarettes and alcohol, I believe that any possibility at staunching their flow is over. I do not promote the idea of an ineffective anti-drug war. I promote the idea of a strong anti-drug laws that severely penalize drug possession like those of Japan's or South Korea's, neither of which are Hellholes by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr Person said:

If you want to end drug use, you won't. Humans always have done this. If you want to reduce it, you need to focus on root causes of the demand - and those causes have absolutely nothing to do with legal or illegal status of the given substance.

Click to expand...

That is not an argument against drug criminalization. Humans have also always engaged in a variety of horrible acts that have long been made criminal for the furtherance of their own pleasure; crimes that I am sure you would never advocate decriminalizing. I know I cannot end drug use, any more than I can hope to end rape, theft or murder. My only desire is to mitigate the harm to communities by punishing those who engage in the sales, distribution and purchase of drugs, and to deter those who might be tempted from walking down this path by an effective regime like those seen in Japan and South Korea.

Turning the question to you: What is your argument in favor of the legalization of any of the drugs listed in the poll?

Waddy said:

Make ALL drugs legal. After legalizing one or two why stop there; just make all drug use legal. Along with it make people take personal responsibility for their drug use; don't expect taxpayers to provide rehab or any other kind of treatment. After all, one major reason cited for legalization is the high cost ($51billion) of fighting the War On Drugs. So it makes no sense turning around and spending that on treatment. We're all about saving the money, right. And no longer allow drug use as an excuse for committing crimes or traffic accidents. Being high is no excuse. So, yeah, make drugs legal but make people responsible for their choices. Good policy.

Click to expand...

It's cheaper to treat addiction as a medical problem, rather than lock people up. While I appreciate the concept of personal responsibility, in practice, dealing with addiction (or not dealing with it) in that matter does nothing to actually help society. The tax-dollars spent for rehabilitation centers would be well-spent, and taxpayers would ultimately be funding less than what they are now through our failed enforcement measures.

Masterhawk said:

The war on drugs has earned a fair amount of controversy over the past decade. 374,000 Americans are currently serving time for drug crimes as the most serious offense. Enforcing drug prohibition has costed the government $51 billion per year.

The illegal drug trade is largely responsible for high crime rates in Latin America.

Because of this, many Americans are in favor of ending the war on drugs and most are in favor of legalizing regulated marijuana for adult use. Most polls don't show other drugs, perhaps because the movement for drug legalization has focused on marijuana because it's effects are more mild than cocaine or heroin.

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of legalizing, taxing, and regulating virtually every type of drug. I do not think drug prohibition does much of anything to deter to use of drugs at all, and the proverbial 'toothpaste' has been out of the tube for a very long time now.

Marijuana is a good start. It's easily one of the most, if not the most benign example available, and thus even younger conservatives are warming up to this idea. My hope is that once this turns out to be a rather successful change of policy, it will open the door dealing with other drugs in much the same matter.

I don't think too kindly about drugs like meth, cocaine, and heroin, but I realize that people are going to use these drugs regardless of law or enforcement, and that we aren't actually dealing with the problem in an effective manner.

Something like LSD is a bit different in terms of weight the risks. It's my understanding that it's either impossible to become addicted to, or at least very difficult to become addicted to; you can't actually 'trip' two days in row without substantially increasing the amount, and even then, there's diminishing returns on that. The real danger with LSD is in it's potency, and how much someone takes. A tiny 'dose' is a mild high for most people. A ten-strip in the hands of an inexperienced user is pure insanity. I expect proper legislation to address this.

None of those drugs should be legal for recreational purposes (only legal, of course, for medical reasons).


We are doing a great disservice to youth by letting them think that it is harmless to themselves (and society) to use those drugs to help them cope with the stress of living.


BUT no one should be arrested for using those drugs. I understand that Texas once gave marijuana smokers 1,000 years in prison. And Singapore will hang drug smugglers. Such punishment is cruel and inhuman beyond words.


I believe the police should be able to confiscate those drugs but NOT able to take any action against those who possessed them.


ABOVE ALL the government should use education as a way to persuade young (and old) people NOT to use those drugs. It seems that the anti-tobacco campaign, for example, has been quite successful in reducing cigarette smoking. It may take time, but a smart and gentle anti-drug campaign will probably be able to convince many people why they should avoid those drugs.

Masterhawk said:

The war on drugs has earned a fair amount of controversy over the past decade. 374,000 Americans are currently serving time for drug crimes as the most serious offense. Enforcing drug prohibition has costed the government $51 billion per year.

The illegal drug trade is largely responsible for high crime rates in Latin America.

Because of this, many Americans are in favor of ending the war on drugs and most are in favor of legalizing regulated marijuana for adult use. Most polls don't show other drugs, perhaps because the movement for drug legalization has focused on marijuana because it's effects are more mild than cocaine or heroin.

Click to expand...

Where's the option for none? That gets my vote.

Masterhawk said:

The war on drugs has earned a fair amount of controversy over the past decade. 374,000 Americans are currently serving time for drug crimes as the most serious offense. Enforcing drug prohibition has costed the government $51 billion per year.

The illegal drug trade is largely responsible for high crime rates in Latin America.

Because of this, many Americans are in favor of ending the war on drugs and most are in favor of legalizing regulated marijuana for adult use. Most polls don't show other drugs, perhaps because the movement for drug legalization has focused on marijuana because it's effects are more mild than cocaine or heroin.

Click to expand...

Where is the option to make all of them illegal?

DH Kirkwood said:

It's cheaper to treat addiction as a medical problem, rather than lock people up. While I appreciate the concept of personal responsibility, in practice, dealing with addiction (or not dealing with it) in that matter does nothing to actually help society. The tax-dollars spent for rehabilitation centers would be well-spent, and taxpayers would ultimately be funding less than what they are now through our failed enforcement measures.

Click to expand...

Why would you need jail if drugs were legal? Money saved there. Why taxpayer rehab if drug use is a personal responsibility? Money saved there. Rehab is a type of enabling; if the drugs get the better of you then the taxpayer will bail you out by providing rehab. Maybe better to let drug users face the consequences of their actions. That might just discourage drug use.

Masterhawk said:

The war on drugs has earned a fair amount of controversy over the past decade. 374,000 Americans are currently serving time for drug crimes as the most serious offense. Enforcing drug prohibition has costed the government $51 billion per year.

The illegal drug trade is largely responsible for high crime rates in Latin America.

Because of this, many Americans are in favor of ending the war on drugs and most are in favor of legalizing regulated marijuana for adult use. Most polls don't show other drugs, perhaps because the movement for drug legalization has focused on marijuana because it's effects are more mild than cocaine or heroin.

Click to expand...

This wont go good, BUT.... Another question to the main question.

Why DRUGS to begin with, WHY not address the root issue?

X amount of PEOPLE go on their HAPPY lives NEVER touching, seeing or getting into it DRUGS.

WHY do we need to make "DRUGS" legal in the first place?

MY OPINION

1) Drugs seem to be used for a couple reasons?
1a) Pain reliever after an injury, that then becomes an addiction.
1b) Escape from reality
1c) Lack of anything better to do
1d) Peer Pressure
1e) Fitting in
(Am I missing anything?)

2) Of all those listed above. Is this not society and the way of parenting @ a young age?
2a) Injuries and monitoring of controlled substance by both parent and doctor to catch the signs PRIOR to addiction. This is Self accountability and RESPONSIBILITIES. NO ONE WANTS to take responsibilities....ever...always blaming others

2b) Escape from Reality lack of better things..(lumping them) As this now comes to personal issues of Hobbies and enjoyment. Some people rely on things to "enhance" their experience, I get it... Its like going to a bar..... you go to drink.... But there are people that come and dont drink just hang out.... its a comrade thing, Again going back to self accountability and understanding what is important in life I guess

2c) Peer pressure and fitting in.... Again i see this as parenting and self accountability. Had this discussing with some co-workers we all have kids ranging from 1-18 and we talked about how to protect them I agreed when I was 16,17,18 No matter what my parents said Dont do it.... I was still enticed. BUT there was borders and boundaries that I STILL respected and stayed away from. Why? Involvement.




Anyways my WHOLE RANT....

It wont Solve the problem.... But we can and SHOULD address the root issues..... by just legalizing it is just enabling though's that are already addicted.... We need to protect our future and our children, by teaching the future of what is prudent and not..... dusting our hands and or legalizing across the board... is not taking responsibility... but.... alas thats par for the course.

phattonez said:

Where is the option to make all of them illegal?

Click to expand...

On top of the mountain of dead Americans that the war on drugs has already caused.

Waddy said:

Why would you need jail if drugs were legal? Money saved there. Why taxpayer rehab if drug use is a personal responsibility? Money saved there. Rehab is a type of enabling; if the drugs get the better of you then the taxpayer will bail you out by providing rehab. Maybe better to let drug users face the consequences of their actions. That might just discourage drug use.

Click to expand...

This isn't a hypothetical question here. We've already seen ample evidence that a strong focus on rehabilitation, when paired with decriminalization, can and will reduce drug use and overdoses. See Portugal's system for evidence.

Jesse Booth said:

This isn't a hypothetical question here. We've already seen ample evidence that a strong focus on rehabilitation, when paired with decriminalization, can and will reduce drug use and overdoses. See Portugal's system for evidence.

Click to expand...

Portugal is a mess. Drug use everywhere. Decriminalize, and then the druggies are on their own. That will also reduce drug use, and far cheaper.

Waddy said:

Why would you need jail if drugs were legal? Money saved there. Why taxpayer rehab if drug use is a personal responsibility? Money saved there. Rehab is a type of enabling; if the drugs get the better of you then the taxpayer will bail you out by providing rehab. Maybe better to let drug users face the consequences of their actions. That might just discourage drug use.

Click to expand...

That's moronic. For one thing, if jail-time isn't a deterrent, then neither is the consequence of addiction by itself. Secondly, addiction is a problem that affects society as a whole, so even if we approach this like sociopaths, it still makes sense to actually do something about it.

Renae said:

It's illegal. Nexty silly question?

Click to expand...

... not where I live... It is illegal in SOME places, but the list is getting smaller every two years. Ten years from now, there will be very few states where it isn't legal.

How about none of the above?

DH Kirkwood said:

That's moronic. For one thing, if jail-time isn't a deterrent, then neither is the consequence of addiction by itself. Secondly, addiction is a problem that affects society as a whole, so even if we approach this like sociopaths, it still makes sense to actually do something about it.

Click to expand...

Your response is asinine. Jail time has never been a deterrent, but the visual consequences of say, prolonged meth use can be a very potent deterrent. There are people who use rehab as an enabler. Whenever they feel the drugs are getting too much, they go into rehab. Soon as things are better, they revert to the old habits. They know they're backstopped, so they can avoid taking personal responsibility. Hey, if it gets too bad, there is always rehab. BTW; how does someone else's drug problem affect "society as a whole"? That's a crock. It might affect them and their immediate family, but unless they're illegally driving under the influence it affects me not.

Felis Leo said:

Well, I will speak out as one of the few voices in favor of fighting a war on drugs, though I would prefer a strategy that is actually efficacious, like that of Japan's or Korea's rather than our rudderless system as it stands right now. So I vote "none." None of these unprescribed mind-altering and/or highly addictive drugs should be decriminalized, nor should any be made legal for sale. And the people who pay money to drug gangs and cartels to support their pleasure should be imprisoned along with the people who engage in the process of distributing, marketing and selling these drugs to meet the demand.

Click to expand...

Where do you get the authority to keep someone else from owning or using a drug?

Anarchon said:

Where do you get the authority to keep someone else from owning or using a drug?

Click to expand...

Where do "I" get the authority? I have no such authority, Anarchon, nor do I lay claim to it. It is the state that has the authority. And the reason I believe the state should have such authority is because of the incredible amount of harmful negative externalities that are created from the production, distribution, sale and most importantly the use of currently-illegal mind-altering drugs and addictive drugs. Anywhere where unprescribed drug use becomes widespread, misery, crime and death follows. And not just the misery and death of the drug-users, but of the drug-users's families who often have to deal with the loss of a child's life, or having to care for a son or daughter for the rest of their lives because they lost their child to mental illness brought on by the degenerative nature of unprescribed mind-altering chemicals.

And that is to say nothing of the associated crimes that many drug addicts commit when they lose their jobs due to their habits and are willing to rob, extort, defraud and burglarize their neighbors and family members to feed their habit. This is especially the use of hard addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin/opioids, methamphetamine and their various derivatives. Can anyone argue that what many inner-city communities need is unrestricted recreational drug use of crack cocaine and methamphetamine in order to better their situations? Can anyone argue that what many communities in Appalachians need is to decriminalize opioid sales and possession in order to stop men and women dying like flies from opioid addiction? I argue that no community is made better by decriminalizing vice or treating drug use as no different than drinking coffee or soda, but they can certainly be made far, far worse.

Just to lay my cards on the table, Anarchon, I am not worshipper of state authority. I am very distrustful of governmental power. But I believe that the harms of widespread unprescribed drug use is an area in which state intervention is wholly justified. We may argue on the means, but I believe the ends of minimizing illegal drug use is a good goal. If you believe that I am wrong, please tell me why you think I am.

Felis Leo said:

Where do "I" get the authority? I have no such authority, Anarchon, nor do I lay claim to it. It is the state that has the authority.

Click to expand...

Where did the state get that authority, if not from you? If they gave it to themselves, it can't be legitimate. They couldn't have got it from you, since you admit you don't have it to give. I know they didn't get it from me.

Waddy said:

Portugal is a mess. Drug use everywhere. Decriminalize, and then the druggies are on their own. That will also reduce drug use, and far cheaper.

Click to expand...

No, Portugal WAS a mess. In the 90's. They've made an incredible turnaround in the last 16 years, specifically because they provide rigorous health education and a support dystem to help people get away from substance abuse & dangerous drug habits. https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic....riminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

If they had just decriminalized & left people to their own devices, they wouldn't have fixed jack ****.

Jesse Booth said:

No, Portugal WAS a mess. In the 90's. They've made an incredible turnaround in the last 16 years, specifically because they provide rigorous health education and a support dystem to help people get away from substance abuse & dangerous drug habits. https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic....riminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

If they had just decriminalized & left people to their own devices, they wouldn't have fixed jack ****.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm hard line on this, but I just can't understand drug use, or really self-destructive behaviors in general. In this day and age, who doesn't know drugs are a bad idea? Who doesn't know to question a doctor who wants to prescribe an addictive drug, even for pain relief? Who doesn't know smoking is BAD? Who doesn't know that drinking a fifth every day is abnormal, and fries your liver? Who doesn't know that a gun should be secured if there are kids in the house? Who doesn't know a steady diet of cheeseburgers will probably kill you? Who doesn't know that unprotected casual sex has serious consequences? Do people actually live under rocks? Yet we view them all as victims, and must kick in to pay their costs. Screw it; if they're that stupid maybe it's natures way of thinning the herd.