Prohibition against drugs, or anything else is illegal

No government has the legal right to impose prohibition against drugs. The fact is that every individual has the natural right to do what ever they choose with their own bodies.
The government has no legal right to pass laws encroaching on the rights of the individual.

jdog said:

No government has the legal right to impose prohibition against drugs. The fact is that every individual has the natural right to do what ever they choose with their own bodies.
The government has no legal right to pass laws encroaching on the rights of the individual.

Click to expand...

When a person chooses to subsidize groups like the Mexican cartels by purchasing illegal drugs, whatever punishment they get, that's on them.

Plenty of people have been killed by addicts. One of the government's main responsiblities is to protect citizens from other citizens.

Tigerace117 said:

When a person chooses to subsidize groups like the Mexican cartels by purchasing illegal drugs, whatever punishment they get, that's on them.

Plenty of people have been killed by addicts. One of the government's main responsiblities is to protect citizens from other citizens.

Click to expand...

If drugs were not illegal, there would be no cartels. If someone is murdered, then that is a crime, but the taking of drugs is not.

jdog said:

No government has the legal right to impose prohibition against drugs. The fact is that every individual has the natural right to do what ever they choose with their own bodies.
The government has no legal right to pass laws encroaching on the rights of the individual.

Click to expand...

I think government's have a right and an obligation to regulate drug sales. However, the government has clearly made certain recreational drugs illegal for reasons that are clearly unhelpful. I think the best course of actions is to make all drugs legal, but limit people's access to get them --i.e. medical professionals can distribute the hard drugs, etc.

Shooting heroin or smoking crack is highly inadvisable, to put it mildly, but people will do it. That's not going to change. I'd much rather cartels weren't making money off of it, I'd much rather people who did it did so under some level of medical supervision, and I'd rather it were regulated so it is much less likely to end up in the hand's of minors. None of that is possible with drugs being legal.

And there's marijuana, which makes absolutely no sense for it to be illegal. You can't OD off of marijuana, which literally makes it safer than caffeine.

Tigerace117 said:

When a person chooses to subsidize groups like the Mexican cartels by purchasing illegal drugs, whatever punishment they get, that's on them.

Plenty of people have been killed by addicts. One of the government's main responsiblities is to protect citizens from other citizens.

Click to expand...

That's an unserious analysis. If the government were the distributor of drugs, they wouldn't be getting the drugs from the cartels in the first place. Citizens might hurt each other, but that always was, and always should be, illegal.

jdog said:

No government has the legal right to impose prohibition against drugs. The fact is that every individual has the natural right to do what ever they choose with their own bodies.
The government has no legal right to pass laws encroaching on the rights of the individual.

Click to expand...

Hey if you feel that argument is a winner go on ahead.

But in court that dog don't hunt. There has never been any legal precedent for the idea of complete autonomy over your body, it is subject to the rules of the state

jdog said:

If drugs were not illegal, there would be no cartels. If someone is murdered, then that is a crime, but the taking of drugs is not.

Click to expand...

That's extremely utopian thinking. Did making beer legal again put the Mob out of buisness?

Nope.

Tigerace117 said:

That's extremely utopian thinking. Did making beer legal again put the Mob out of buisness?

Nope.

Click to expand...

Because they moved into other illegal businesses that the government tried to prohibit like drugs, thats why. Before Prohibition the mob was weak, it was when government began to ban things that they rose in power because of the black market.

jdog said:

No government has the legal right to impose prohibition against drugs. The fact is that every individual has the natural right to do what ever they choose with their own bodies.
The government has no legal right to pass laws encroaching on the rights of the individual.

Click to expand...

The government is charged with the safety of the population. Certain substances pose a public health risk if allowed to be used. It's common sense. In a functioning society the members don't necessarily have the right to harm themselves, be unproductive, or be a net drain on the society's resources.

FieldTheorist said:

I think government's have a right and an obligation to regulate drug sales. However, the government has clearly made certain recreational drugs illegal for reasons that are clearly unhelpful. I think the best course of actions is to make all drugs legal, but limit people's access to get them --i.e. medical professionals can distribute the hard drugs, etc.

Shooting heroin or smoking crack is highly inadvisable, to put it mildly, but people will do it. That's not going to change. I'd much rather cartels weren't making money off of it, I'd much rather people who did it did so under some level of medical supervision, and I'd rather it were regulated so it is much less likely to end up in the hand's of minors. None of that is possible with drugs being legal.

And there's marijuana, which makes absolutely no sense for it to be illegal. You can't OD off of marijuana, which literally makes it safer than caffeine.

Click to expand...

First, you are rational enough to realize that when you make something that people want or desire for personal consumption illegal it only creates a black market to provide the supply. But then you suggest such drugs be treated like a prescription, administered by medical professionals and provided by licensed pharmaceutical companies. You do realize that prescription drugs are also sold on the black market for various reasons?

IMO drugs use of any kind and possession for such use should be completely legal. If a person wants to play Russian roulette with drugs, more power to them. On the other hand, the sale of drugs which are debased or poisonous leading to physical harm or death should be considered crime on a par with battery and murder. Furthermore, IMO FDA regulations should apply so that major pharmaceutical companies don't maintain a monopoly, and small producers (marijuana farmers, makers of LSD, MDMA, etc.) can get licensed and inspected to sell legally in competition.

The next step is real education. Honest information starting at grade levels in school where a juvenile is likely to encounter access to drugs. This rather than the scare tactics currently in use, which never work since a typical first time user of most types of illicit drugs is rarely harmed. As a result they rightfully dismiss the validity of any information because they were lied to, unfortunately to the point were they overlook or refuse to accept factual information that might save them down the line of use and abuse.

I believe those two steps; proper and honest education and an open market without criminal consequences for the user would better that the system we currently advocate.

PoS said:

Because they moved into other illegal businesses that the government tried to prohibit like drugs, thats why. Before Prohibition the mob was weak, it was when government began to ban things that they rose in power because of the black market.

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't say they were weak; but prohibition helped them gain strength.

Of course, at this point legalization isn't exactly going to shut down the massive drug cartels.

Captain Adverse said:

First, you are rational enough to realize that when you make something that people want or desire for personal consumption illegal it only creates a black market to provide the supply. But then you suggest such drugs be treated like a prescription, administered by medical professionals and provided by licensed pharmaceutical companies. You do realize that prescription drugs are also sold on the black market for various reasons?

Click to expand...

This is true, to a degree, except that there's no real question that having, for instance, marijuana be legal and regulated has made it harder, not easier, for minors to get their hands on it. Yes, there's still an illegal, unregulated marijuana black market; no, it's not at all the same size. I view that as a good thing. As for prescriptions, I didn't say that I'd make hard drugs prescriptions, but I would prefer to see them dispensed, and preferably administered, in controlled environments.

Where you want to draw the line on how much regulation you want to insert is another question. I'm certainly open to a discussion regarding where that line is set.

IMO drugs use of any kind and possession for such use should be completely legal. If a person wants to play Russian roulette with drugs, more power to them. On the other hand, the sale of drugs which are debased or poisonous leading to physical harm or death should be considered crime on a par with battery and murder. Furthermore, IMO FDA regulations should apply so that major pharmaceutical companies don't maintain a monopoly, and small producers (marijuana farmers, makers of LSD, MDMA, etc.) can get licensed and inspected to sell legally in competition.

Click to expand...

I agree. Although as a side comment, I believe that the entire medical industry --from making the drugs to educating the doctors to maintaining the health facilities-- should be publicly-owned syndicates with certain centralized/national mandates. But that's the subject of another conversation.

The next step is real education. Honest information starting at grade levels in school where a juvenile is likely to encounter access to drugs. This rather than the scare tactics currently in use, which never work since a typical first time user of most types of illicit drugs is rarely harmed. As a result they rightfully dismiss the validity of any information because they were lied to, unfortunately to the point were they overlook or refuse to accept factual information that might save them down the line of use and abuse.

I believe those two steps; proper and honest education and an open market without criminal consequences for the user would better that the system we currently advocate.

Click to expand...

I agree with this quite heavily.

Tigerace117 said:

When a person chooses to subsidize groups like the Mexican cartels by purchasing illegal drugs, whatever punishment they get, that's on them.

Plenty of people have been killed by addicts. One of the government's main responsiblities is to protect citizens from other citizens.

Click to expand...

The ignorance you display here is totally awesome dude!

If it weren't for prohibition, the Mexican drug cartels would not exist.

Tigerace117 said:

When a person chooses to subsidize groups like the Mexican cartels by purchasing illegal drugs, whatever punishment they get, that's on them.

Plenty of people have been killed by addicts. One of the government's main responsiblities is to protect citizens from other citizens.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

jdog said:

If drugs were not illegal, there would be no cartels. If someone is murdered, then that is a crime, but the taking of drugs is not.

Click to expand...

It's hard to argue that making any self administered drugs legal isn't going to lead to addiction (a loss to society in and of it's own right), which leads loss of income, and then property theft to support that addiction, if not other even more violent crimes against others.

Head that whole scenario off at the pass, by making addictive drugs controlled substances. Granted, there are other side effects of that, which are less desirable. I'm open as t better ways to mitigate those, besides make any and all drugs legal.

Thoreau72 said:

The ignorance you display here is totally awesome dude!

If it weren't for prohibition, the Mexican drug cartels would not exist.

Click to expand...

That's like saying if Prohibition had never happened the Mob never would have existed. It's naive at best.

Tigerace117 said:

Well, I wouldn't say they were weak; but prohibition helped them gain strength.

Click to expand...

Prohibition did more than help them gain strength, they were able to become some of the wealthiest men in the nation and even bought cops and politicians. Prior to that they were just glorified street gangs. You seriously need to read up on history.

Of course, at this point legalization isn't exactly going to shut down the massive drug cartels.

Click to expand...

Even though it will seriously weaken them to the point of being insignificant, I'll humor you- according to your logic we should keep drugs illegal and keep the cartels rich because legalizing drugs wont eliminate them completely- is that what youre saying now?

digsbe said:

The government is charged with the safety of the population. Certain substances pose a public health risk if allowed to be used. It's common sense. In a functioning society the members don't necessarily have the right to harm themselves, be unproductive, or be a net drain on the society's resources.

Click to expand...

Yep... I don't and shouldn't have the right to infect myself with a highly contagious disease and go out in public. Maybe I'm immune to it, so it has no negative effect on me, so by my personal standard, the disease is completely harmless, but it does have an effect on society. We shouldn't allow access to certain drugs that have no redeeming benefit and lots of down side (crack and krokodile are a couple of examples).

PoS said:

Prohibition did more than help them gain strength, they were able to become some of the wealthiest men in the nation and even bought cops and politicians. Prior to that they were just glorified street gangs. You seriously need to read up on history.


Even though it will seriously weaken them to the point of being insignificant, I'll humor you- according to your logic we should keep drugs illegal and keep the cartels rich because legalizing drugs wont eliminate them completely- is that what youre saying now?

Click to expand...

No, because there's no way to keep them from crowding out the smaller dealers if hard drugs are legalized. Just because you make their main source of income legal doesn't stop them, or even slow them down. If anything, those psychos will up the violence to terrorize the populace into submission.

Tigerace117 said:

No, because there's no way to keep them from crowding out the smaller dealers if hard drugs are legalized. Just because you make their main source of income legal doesn't stop them, or even slow them down. If anything, those psychos will up the violence to terrorize the populace into submission.

Click to expand...

Do you think they crowded out mom and pop liquor stores after Prohibition was lifted?

PoS said:

Do you think they crowded out mom and pop liquor stores after Prohibition was lifted?

Click to expand...

Did the mob make a habit of rubbing out random citizens simply to cause terror?

Tigerace117 said:

Did the mob make a habit of rubbing out random citizens simply to cause terror?

Click to expand...

Yeah, they did. Now answer my question. Did the mob get run out of the liquor business after it was legalized?

PoS said:

Yeah, they did. Now answer my question. Did the mob get run out of the liquor business after it was legalized?

Click to expand...

Nope. No, actually, they did not get run out of the liquor buisness.

Thoreau72 said:

The ignorance you display here is totally awesome dude!

If it weren't for prohibition, the Mexican drug cartels would not exist.

Click to expand...

If it weren't for cartels no cartels would exist.

Tigerace117 said:

Nope. No, actually, they did not get run out of the liquor buisness.

Click to expand...

Show me some links that prove that the mob still made money on liquor after Prohibition was lifted.

Tigerace117 said:

No, because there's no way to keep them from crowding out the smaller dealers if hard drugs are legalized. Just because you make their main source of income legal doesn't stop them, or even slow them down. If anything, those psychos will up the violence to terrorize the populace into submission.

Click to expand...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

PoS said:

Show me some links that prove that the mob still made money on liquor after Prohibition was lifted.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia