A Proposal for Legalizing all Recreational Drugs

[POLL, is public and multiple choice]

I have come up with a model that I believe would allow me to support general legalization of all recreational drugs, and I'd like to know your opinions on the matter.

Good luck ammending the Constitution

I heard of people who now collect social security because they were on meth and now are manic depressive because of the use. Only 26 years old! How they even qualify for SS is beyond me? But I guess what I am getting at is I can't image what our country would be like if drug use was allowed to spread like the plague.

Countries like China and Russia would pass us up in no time if drugs became legal.

I heard of studies where a mouse was to pass through an elecrical charge to get to their food. The charge was gradually raised and they reached a point where they would not go to the food.
They replaced the food with a drug and the mice would die trying to get to the drug.

III

creativedreams said:

I heard of people who now collect social security because they were on meth and now are manic depressive because of the use. Only 26 years old! How they even qualify for SS is beyond me? But I guess what I am getting at is I can't image what our country would be like if drug use was allowed to spread like the plague.

Countries like China and Russia would pass us up in no time if drugs became legal.

Click to expand...

Please understand, that Ii agree with your position. But so many of our neighbors seem to think that we are backward for opposing total drug freedom. My proposal is just a way to illustrate what I would need to see to support the notion.

Let some other nation do the experimenting for us...There should be many willing or stupid enough to do this.....To the best of my knowledge, there is no proof that we will act as mice ..or sheep ??...and en-mass take drugs with no responsibility or acceptance of the consequences..

Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
two known examples from thousands..

I do favor the concept of legalized drugs (taxed and controlled) for those foolish enough to use them...
Our taxing abilities are so-so..; but I have doubts with the controlling..

Oftencold said:

[POLL, is public and multiple choice]

I have come up with a model that I believe would allow me to support general legalization of all recreational drugs, and I'd like to know your opinions on the matter.

These conditions would first have to be met:
​

1. A constitutional ban on all public funds spent on drug rehabilitation. (Exception: persons who became dependent through medical treatment or through the actions of others)
2. A constitutional provision that any recreational drug affected individual trespassing on private property for any reason shall have been deemed to have acted in a life threatening manner to legitimate occupants or visitors on said property. (Purpose: to exonerate anyone who uses any form of force, including deadly force to defend against drug affected trespasser.)
3. Loss of tax-free and non-profit status from any activities of any organization designed to provide drug rehabilitation services.
4. Complete absolution of responsibility by government at any level fort the quality, purity or efficaciousness of any recreational drug.
5. Severe penalties, at least comparable to those engendered by alcohol intoxication for any act damaging to life or limb while under the influence of recreational drugs.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much the most retarded plan ive ever heard. for anyone who has been addicted to drugs or has knowen anyone who has, knows that drug addiction is an illness not a crime. The ammount of money wasted on prison places for drug addicts, is astronomical, these are not violent people, they are ill people.

If you legalised recreational drugs, monitereed their purity, and reinserted tax revenues back into rehabilitation centers the country would not only have a far more mature attitute towards drugs but crime levels would plumet.

In Holland weed is legally sold in shops prevailance of lifetime use of weed is around 17%, in the USA where you can in some states go to prison for possesion prevailance of liftiem use is around 36%.

Oftencold said:

But so many of our neighbors seem to think that we are backward for opposing total drug freedom.

Click to expand...

You mean all our neighbors that have, for the most part, the same drug laws as we do?

That said... I am in favor of the legalization of recreational drugs-- and the legalization of purchasing medicine without prescriptions-- but I would not approve of your legislation. I would prefer the current status quo of the War on Drugs to the reckless policies you have proposed here. All pharmaceuticals should be subject to strict governmental regulations regarding their manufacture and sale, and I believe that a surtax on their purchase would be more than enough to pay for the kind of treatment programs you think should be abolished.

Besides, if we pay for these programs when drugs are illegal-- and the decision to use drugs still lies entirely with the user-- why should we not do so when they are legal and regulated? Do you also propose that we should deny Medicare benefits to drinkers and smokers, after they have paid for those services with their hard-earned money?

I do support your #2 and #5 proposals, however. I would support passing those even without legalizing anything else-- though I do believe that #5 is already the law in this country.

Oftencold said:

III
Please understand, that Ii agree with your position. But so many of our neighbors seem to think that we are backward for opposing total drug freedom. My proposal is just a way to illustrate what I would need to see to support the notion.

Click to expand...

Also I am going to assume thes drug laws include alcahol?

Oftencold said:

[POLL, is public and multiple choice]

These conditions would first have to be met:
​

1. A constitutional ban on all public funds spent on drug rehabilitation. (Exception: persons who became dependent through medical treatment or through the actions of others)

Click to expand...

I voted too lenient because of the exception in parentheses. good grief that would get expensive. actions of others??

creativedreams said:

I heard of people who now collect social security because they were on meth and now are manic depressive because of the use. Only 26 years old! How they even qualify for SS is beyond me? But I guess what I am getting at is I can't image what our country would be like if drug use was allowed to spread like the plague.

Countries like China and Russia would pass us up in no time if drugs became legal.

Click to expand...

My 7 y/o qualifies for SS.

Jerry said:

My 7 y/o qualifies for SS.

Click to expand...

Was it self inflicted from breaking the law and smoking meth?

creativedreams said:

Was it self inflicted from breaking the law and smoking meth?

Click to expand...

It was from being diagnosed with Autism.

My point was that age is not the only criteria for getting SS, as you assumed.

Jerry said:

It was from being diagnosed with Autism.

My point was that age is not the only criteria for getting SS, as you assumed.

Click to expand...

yeah I had a roommate in college who had minor CP and had been getting SS for years.

Jerry said:

It was from being diagnosed with Autism.

My point was that age is not the only criteria for getting SS, as you assumed.

Click to expand...

I guess I used the age thing because I was a little surprised at how young he was and how it only took a short of time of use for him to end up like that. Plus I am slightly against lawbreakers to end up with "welfare" handouts.

earthworm said:

Let some other nation do the experimenting for us...There should be many willing or stupid enough to do this.....To the best of my knowledge, there is no proof that we will act as mice ..or sheep ??...and en-mass take drugs with no responsibility or acceptance of the consequences..

Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
two known examples from thousands..

I do favor the concept of legalized drugs (taxed and controlled) for those foolish enough to use them...
Our taxing abilities are so-so..; but I have doubts with the controlling..

Click to expand...

Actually, I want those so inclined to take massive amounts of the stuff and die, thereby ceasing to burden the productive strata of society.

Drugs will never be legal as long as certain intelligence
agencies get their black budgets from them.

Korimyr the Rat said:

You mean all our neighbors that have, for the most part, the same drug laws as we do?

That said... I am in favor of the legalization of recreational drugs-- and the legalization of purchasing medicine without prescriptions-- but I would not approve of your legislation. I would prefer the current status quo of the War on Drugs to the reckless policies you have proposed here. All pharmaceuticals should be subject to strict governmental regulations regarding their manufacture and sale, and I believe that a surtax on their purchase would be more than enough to pay for the kind of treatment programs you think should be abolished.

Besides, if we pay for these programs when drugs are illegal-- and the decision to use drugs still lies entirely with the user-- why should we not do so when they are legal and regulated? Do you also propose that we should deny Medicare benefits to drinkers and smokers, after they have paid for those services with their hard-earned money?

I do support your #2 and #5 proposals, however. I would support passing those even without legalizing anything else-- though I do believe that #5 is already the law in this country.

Click to expand...

Drugs used for legitimate medicine, I would certainly like to see regulated for purity, etc. I draw a very distinct and wide distinction between drugs used professionally for health and those used to bloster weak egos.

But I would propose that the government wash its hands entirely of regulating recreational drugs. I see no government interest in policing controlling these substances once they were to be made legal. Anyone with the intelligence of a fruit fly should be aware that the decision to use them is the decision to accept the obvious risks.

I would abolish medicare if I had my way, and I'd certainly deny alcohol and tobacco related treatments to anyone entering the program in future.

Oftencold said:

Actually, I want those so inclined to take massive amounts of the stuff and die, thereby ceasing to burden the productive strata of society.

Click to expand...

The problem is, our society does not allow people to die when they are useless; it only allows them to die when they have exceeded our capacity to keep them alive. And exempting drug users from welfare and Social Security will not change this, because we simply will not allow them to turn around and die in the streets. We are a First World nation and are rightfully embarrassed at the notion that we might allow such a thing.

The only way to reduce the expense that drug users impose upon society is to reduce the damage that they do to themselves, their families, and their employers by their habits. Everything else leads to additional tax monies and reduced productivity for little to no benefit, aside from the warm feelings one gets from saying "I did something about the drug problem!"

Warm feelings are no basis for sound policy.

Oftencold said:

Drugs used for legitimate medicine, I would certainly like to see regulated for purity, etc. I draw a very distinct and wide distinction between drugs used professionally for health and those used to bolster weak egos.

Click to expand...

As do I, but I do not think this distinction applies to whether or not those drugs must be regulated. People do not die from drug abuse nearly as often as they are psychologically, intellectually, or physically crippled by it-- and cripples are a drag upon society no matter how their impairments occurred, whether they are taxpayer-supported or not. It is merely a difference of where and how efficiently that burden is carried.

Oftencold said:

But I would propose that the government wash its hands entirely of regulating recreational drugs. I see no government interest in policing controlling these substances once they were to be made legal. Anyone with the intelligence of a fruit fly should be aware that the decision to use them is the decision to accept the obvious risks.

Click to expand...

There are obvious risks to any intoxicant, certainly. But possibilities of negligent or malicious adulteration is not an obvious risk, nor one controllable by consumers, and it greatly magnifies the harm that drug abuse inflicts upon society. The government has a legitimate role in ensuring that our whiskey and gin do not contain lead or wood alcohol; they would have a similar role in ensuring the purity of our cannabis or cocaine if they were legal.

A person with a moderate cocaine habit can still be a productive citizen. A person who snorts a rail of powdered drain cleaner, even once, is much less capable.

cheat3 said:

Also I am going to assume thes drug laws include alcahol?

Click to expand...

By your spelling, I think I might know why this is relevant to you.

It would be my personal preference to do so. However, alcohol use is deeply embedded in our society and culture. I leave it to others to decide if it should be included.

Oftencold said:

[POLL, is public and multiple choice]

I have come up with a model that I believe would allow me to support general legalization of all recreational drugs, and I'd like to know your opinions on the matter.

Click to expand...

So far so good. I agree, all recreational drugs should be legalized.

oftencold said:

[*]A constitutional ban on all public funds spent on drug rehabilitation. (Exception: persons who became dependent through medical treatment or through the actions of others)

Click to expand...

Nope, I can't support that. Is it in our nation's economic interests to help people become productive individuals who contribute to our economy instead of permanently relying on the government. If a few thousand dollars of rehab can accomplish that, then we should absolutely spend public money on it.

oftencold said:

[*]A constitutional provision that any recreational drug affected individual trespassing on private property for any reason shall have been deemed to have acted in a life threatening manner to legitimate occupants or visitors on said property. (Purpose: to exonerate anyone who uses any form of force, including deadly force to defend against drug affected trespasser.)

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. This doesn't even make any sense. If a guy is drunk, or is high on marijuana, he shouldn't have to fear for his life if he pisses in your front yard. I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish with this provision...it sounds like just another way to continue the war on drugs, but with vigilantes instead of DEA officials.

oftencold said:

[*]Loss of tax-free and non-profit status from any activities of any organization designed to provide drug rehabilitation services.

Click to expand...

Like hospitals? Churches? Universities? :shock:

Why shouldn't they be allowed to provide drug rehabilitation services? One of the major selling points for ending the war on drugs is to allow people to seek treatment more openly. That point is lost if you're going to take their treatment options away from them. If someone recognizes that they have a problem and is trying to get help, that's great. I'd rather have the government spend a few thousand dollars for rehab, then a few hundred thousand dollars for a lifetime of welfare checks and/or prison cells.

oftencold said:

[*]Complete absolution of responsibility by government at any level fort the quality, purity or efficaciousness of any recreational drug.

Click to expand...

Here is a point that I can agree with. In fact, I'd take it a step further. Let's apply the same reasoning to ANY drug, and just abolish the FDA entirely.

oftencold said:

[*]Severe penalties, at least comparable to those engendered by alcohol intoxication for any act damaging to life or limb while under the influence of recreational drugs.

Click to expand...

Depends on the drug.

Kandahar said:

Absolutely not. This doesn't even make any sense. If a guy is drunk, or is high on marijuana, he shouldn't have to fear for his life if he pisses in your front yard.

Click to expand...

Perhaps off-topic, but I am of the opinion that people who are sober should fear for their lives when considering pissing in another man's yard uninvited. A man's home is his castle and his land is his domain.

Korimyr the Rat said:

The problem is, our society does not allow people to die when they are useless; it only allows them to die when they have exceeded our capacity to keep them alive. And exempting drug users from welfare and Social Security will not change this, because we simply will not allow them to turn around and die in the streets. We are a First World nation and are rightfully embarrassed at the notion that we might allow such a thing.

The only way to reduce the expense that drug users impose upon society is to reduce the damage that they do to themselves, their families, and their employers by their habits. Everything else leads to additional tax monies and reduced productivity for little to no benefit, aside from the warm feelings one gets from saying "I did something about the drug problem!"

Warm feelings are no basis for sound policy.



As do I, but I do not think this distinction applies to whether or not those drugs must be regulated. People do not die from drug abuse nearly as often as they are psychologically, intellectually, or physically crippled by it-- and cripples are a drag upon society no matter how their impairments occurred, whether they are taxpayer-supported or not. It is merely a difference of where and how efficiently that burden is carried.



There are obvious risks to any intoxicant, certainly. But possibilities of negligent or malicious adulteration is not an obvious risk, nor one controllable by consumers, and it greatly magnifies the harm that drug abuse inflicts upon society. The government has a legitimate role in ensuring that our whiskey and gin do not contain lead or wood alcohol; they would have a similar role in ensuring the purity of our cannabis or cocaine if they were legal.

A person with a moderate cocaine habit can still be a productive citizen. A person who snorts a rail of powdered drain cleaner, even once, is much less capable.

Click to expand...

My personal experience with dedicated drug abusers, is that there is no predictable limit to the damage they cause those around them, and that after the abuse becomes critical, only availability constrains the level of consumption.

Further, I have found that very few such individuals ever really recover. (I know that there are glowing exceptions, but they are rare.) While most of them live, they deny fulfilled lives to others.

I may be cold, but over the years my tolerance and concern has largely been exhausted for these people.

As an aside, you recognize something that should be obvious, but most of our fellows do not: that Government is not Society. I gleaned this from your references to Americans not letting the abusers die in the streets.

The implications for so many forgetting this fact are staggering.

I would like to explore this concept at length with you in the future.

Oftencold said:

My personal experience with dedicated drug abusers, is that there is no predictable limit to the damage they cause those around them, and that after the abuse becomes critical, only availability constrains the level of consumption.

Further, I have found that very few such individuals ever really recover. (I know that there are glowing exceptions, but they are rare.) While most of them live, they deny fulfilled lives to others.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, this is all the more reason that the drugs themselves must be made to do as little harm as possible, and that treatment must be as accessible as possible. You acknowledge yourself that the primary harm in drug abuse is not to the abuser himself-- who surely brought it upon himself-- but to the innocent, responsible people around him.

Oftencold said:

As an aside, you recognize something that should be obvious, but most of our fellows do not: that Government is not Society. I gleaned this from your references to Americans not letting the abusers die in the streets.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this is a case in which it makes more sense for the government to step in. Because Americans will not simply abandon our own people to die in the streets-- no matter how much they might deserve to-- the government washing its hands of the matter means that individuals, mostly the addict's family and friends, will be left to pick up the slack. And unlike the government, families can be broken and ruined by this burden.

Again, the principle is attempting to contain and reduce the harm that the drug addict might inflict upon others.

Oftencold said:

I would like to explore this concept at length with you in the future.

Click to expand...

It is a theme in many of my posts. Please feel free to address them as you see fit.

Korimyr the Rat said:

In my opinion, this is all the more reason that the drugs themselves must be made to do as little harm as possible, and that treatment must be as accessible as possible. You acknowledge yourself that the primary harm in drug abuse is not to the abuser himself-- who surely brought it upon himself-- but to the innocent, responsible people around him.

Click to expand...

To be blunt, it is the love and compassion of the people around the abuser, that generally allow the harm to grow so acute.

As I have said, very few of the abusers ever truly recover in my experience. The damage goes on and on, sometimes over decades. I might fell differently if I'd never been involved. But as things are, I tend to think it often best for all concerned if the dedicated abuser die more quickly and cease to aggravate the misfortunes of others.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Yes, but this is a case in which it makes more sense for the government to step in. Because Americans will not simply abandon our own people to die in the streets-- no matter how much they might deserve to-- the government washing its hands of the matter means that individuals, mostly the addict's family and friends, will be left to pick up the slack. And unlike the government, families can be broken and ruined by this burden.

Click to expand...

Families will certainly be hurt by the descent of those concerned, but this is inevitable. A quick demise of the affected is more likely to limit the suffering of the innocent.

I know this sounds heartless, but it is based on observation.

I can also tell you that I've experienced what I'm told was mild narcotic withdrawal following a serious injury and lengthy treatment.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Again, the principle is attempting to contain and reduce the harm that the drug addict might inflict upon others.

Click to expand...

I agree. I just no longer belive in any treatment other than the Earth is viable for most addicts.

Korimyr the Rat said:

It is a theme in many of my posts. Please feel free to address them as you see fit.

Click to expand...

I wish that we could, but conditions may prevent it in the foreseeable fuutre.