My view has changed a little over the past couple of years, mainly as a result of some reading on the subject.  I've always thought that the "softer" drugs such as cannabis should be legally sold under license - the reasons for cannabis originally being made illegal are completely spurious, and there is no rationale (by which I mean a *rational* rather than emotional reason) for cannabis being illegal while similarly harmful drugs are legal.

Recently, after reading an excellent book on the history of drugs over the last three thousand years or so, I've realized that there is a very strong argument for legalization across the board.  Here goes:

1. Historical
The main argument for keeping drugs illegal is that it is the only way of keeping down consumption.  This is not borne out by the history: drug usage has increased year on year since the "war on drugs" began.  Use of opiates today is at many dozens of times the level it was when opium and morphine were legally available, and is hundreds of times the social problem that it was.  It is true that circumstances have changed, and legalization would not guarantee a reduction in use and abuse, it renders false the biggest argument for continued prohibition.

2. Economic i
Far and away the biggest argument for legalization is the huge economic cost of the drug trade, with the humungous profits involved being untaxed and going to the worst possible section of society.  It will never be possible to get all drug dealers off the streets while the demand is there and there is such a large amount of money to be made peddling the stuff.  And the dealers themselves will have a strong vested interest in getting as many people hooked on as many drugs as possible, while being totally unconcerned by the ethics of the matter.  Legalization will take the profit motive away from these people: there will be nothing for them to gain from enticing another person onto heroin or crack if that person can get clean, medical quality drugs from a legitimate source.

3. Economic ii
The cost of the "war on drugs" in police time, prison time, etc. is unreal: it would make a noticeable difference to the tax bill of everyone in the UK/US if they didn't have to spend time chasing down drug runners and petty crime by addicts.

4. "The wrong signal" fallacy
The people who argue against legalization often use the phrase "this would send the wrong signal to <pick vulnerable group who need looking after and insert here>".  All I can say to that is the status quo is not exactly working, is it?  More people than ever, and lots more children than ever, are getting drawn into the world of illicit drugs - including an unprecedented number of children dealing drugs to their "friends" (I use the quotes, as I'm not sure what kind of friend would do this).  The dealing side is hardly surprising, as for some kids the only people they see in their daily lives who have money to spare are those who've gained that money by selling drugs.  IMO legalization would improve this state of affairs rather than make things worse - we certainly can't send a much worse signal to children of today than is going out right now.

5. Health
The majority of deaths and health problems associated with drug taking today do not come from the drug but from whatever it has been cut with: heroin on the streets has even been known to have been cut with rat poison (NFI why: it seems odd that a dealer might use something that would reduce the number of customers, though even that doesn't kill everyone who takes it, I guess).  Pharmaceutical quality and measured strength would reduce health risks for everyone taking the stuff.

6. Honest reasons for making decisions
There are no standard criteria for defining whether a drug should be illegal or not: arguments about health hazards, addiction, behaviour problems, etc. always fall down somewhere.  For example, why is LSD illegal?  It has no known health hazards (other than problems with ergot contamination - which is an argument for it being made to pharmaceutical standards, rather than prohibition), is not addictive and does not cause the people who take it to behave in an antisocial way.  Ditto ecstasy: there is no reason other than a knee-jerk "it's a drug, ban it" for ecstasy being illegal.

Please feel free to argue before you vote - who knows, some of us might have their minds changed.

i definitely think legalization/decriminalization is the way to go, although i might push back on this characterization of ecstasy as a drug ona  par with marijuana. X is a very powerful drug with very dangerous biochemical effects. the thing is, it overtakes your mood so powerfully you don't feel it, but ecstasy will seriously mess up your body chemistry. (it's not automatically a lie just because nancy reagan says it, you know!)

marijuana is generally much more mild. people a lot of times go, oh, but won't everybody be doing LSD and PCP if you legalize it? But i actually think the effects of these drugs, just doing them on its own, will scare off most people from doing them more than once or twice because they're so powerful and potentially so profound. frankly, i think most people would receive doing LSD on about the same level as they'd receive drinking bleach. so you really don't have to worrry about the homecoming queen becoming an acid fiend. i actually think in most cases, it would turn the homecoming queen into an obsessed fingerpainter who never shaved her armpits and never touched LSD again, which i actually think would be a good thing. but the anxiety against such things happening is probably why it's not legal now.

okay.

this is not to say there shouldn't be legal proscriptions against using drugs like LSD and PCP, the scariest of the scary, but they shouldn't be the sort of thing that destroys your life. if you get caught with LSD for personal consumption you're basically prosecuted like a drug pusher! and that makes no sense.

drugs like X, cocaine and heroin, euphorics, these need to be treated differently -- because they feel so good, and offer few spiritual, intellectual, or emotional benefits -- at least as they're sold on the streets -- they should be controlled differently. i think you have to be pretty tough on these because they WILL trick you into trashing your life. but having the law make an example of you by by giving you twenty years in prison and thereby trashing your life anyway sorta defeats the purpose.

marijuana should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes. but possibly with an additional rationing program so you cant get more than a certain amount per week or month. enough to get well and flummoxed a time or two if you so choose, but not enough that you spend your whole life in your mom's attic watching reruns of "fantasy island." which is not to say that's not fun. but i'm just sayng the establishment shouldn't sponsor chemical dependency if it can be avoided. and this is in no way to disparage chemical dependency; personally, i'm a huge fan.

powerful but meaningful hallucinogens, like psilocybin, peyote, and my beloved, terrifying and respected salvia divinorum, should be available in government-sponsored (NOT government) programs for controlled consumption by people seeking enlightenment or personal insight. most drugs with a history of use by tribal shamans have a reason for such use, and we do our society a great detriment by denying their benefits. at the same time, they're incredibly dangerous in the wrong dosages or settings. i suggest communities that are interested. find, interview, and employ responsible people with experience with these drugs to run well-thought-out programs where they're used in ways that really exploit their positive mental, spiritual, and emotional effects. it'd be sorta like meetup groups! unfortunately, i think we'd need a government that didn't suck as much as our current government happens to be in order for this to work. in an ideal world a scenario like this -- responsible, competent and experienced citizens working with the government under safe but free-thinking and creative conditions -- could work with effective, professionally produced LSD, ecstacy, etc. but i think sticking with measured doses of naturally occurring psychedelics would be a good start.

wow. i had no idea i'd devoted so much thought to this.

I pretty much second Philbo and Tia.

Marijuana should be regulated the same as alcohol. 

I'm more for decriminalization when it comes to psychedelics.  LSD is not a safe drug, but it does not promote criminal or antisocial behavior.  The dangers of acid per se are psychiatric.  One argument for legalization rather than decriminalization for psychedelics is quality control.  I wouldn't want my kid dropping acid, but if he's going to drop acid, I'd rather it be pure than cut with strychnine.  The "rave" drugs, such as Ecstacy," are suspicious substances.  Yes, Ecstasy is a milder high than LSD, but it's organically injurious to the brain. 

I have never taken LSD.  That's because I decided never to take it, not because LSD is illegal. 

I would keep cocaine and heroin illegal.  I've seen the damage they can do.  These drugs are too destructive.  I would change the penal codes.  Do away with Rockefeller-type drug laws.  No jail time for possession.  Mandatory treatment for addiction.  Jail time for trafficking and sales.  It does not help to send addicts to prison.

The one compelling argument for legalization of cocaine and opiates is legalization would kick the legs out from under the international drug cartels.  It might also reduce street crime.

I still don't like the idea of some "hard" drugs being legal.  I have witnessed the damage they can do. 

I would like to see the money the government wastes on the failed "drug war" put to better use. 

I haven't addressed all my opinions on this matter.  That would take an entire book!

certain psychedelics of the aforementioned nature -- shrooms, salvia -- should also be useable by license. you do some tests, like driving tests (and how fkin cool would THAT be?!?) and then if you pass you get a card that you can show to your bro at 7-11 and they give you a gram of psilocybin or salvia, no questions asked.

and if a bunch of dumbasses do stupid sheesh after getting said approvals, it alll gets rethought. be responsible yall! society requires it.

certain psychedelics of the aforementioned nature -- shrooms, salvia -- should also be useable by license. you do some tests, like driving tests (and how fkin cool would THAT be?!?) and then if you pass you get a card that you can show to your bro at 7-11 and they give you a gram of psilocybin or salvia, no questions asked.

and if a bunch of dumbasses do stupid sheesh after getting said approvals, it alll gets rethought. be responsible yall! society requires it.


If the state made psychedelics available retail, it would be best to do so through pharmacies.  A licensed pharmacist is the only retailer allowed to fill a prescription for a controlled substance.  Futhermore, pharmacists would know how to store a volitile substance such as LSD and psilocybin.  These substances deteriorate in certain levels of heat and light.  If you had a license to get 250 mcg of LSD, the provider would have to  make sure you were in fact getting the correct dose.  Apu at the QuickiMart is not qualified. 

Who would conduct these tests?  What criteria would you have to meet? 

A mental health professional is not going to declare you fit to trip on LSD.  Too much liability.  One of the problems in the first place with using psychedelics in clinical settings is the idiosyncratic reactions of patients.  LSD is too darn unpredictable.  You can be as sane as Socrates and still have a horror trip.  The big appeal of LSD and other psychedelics as recreational drugs is their lack of predictability.  It's a little adventure for your mind!

Drugs are illegal because they can really mess up your life.  >:(

Even superstars like Whitney Houston, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrisson, and John C. Holmes have seen their careers ruined by drug addition.  :-\\

Drugs are illegal because they can really mess up your life.  >:(


So can alcohol, smoking, overeating, undereating, gambling, sex addictions, shopping addictions, and running into a wall head-first.

Drugs are illegal because they can really mess up your life.  >:(

Even superstars like Whitney Houston, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrisson, and John C. Holmes have seen their careers ruined by drug addition.   :-\\

I'm surprised at you, LB.  I thought you would consider drugs a matter of personal responsibility.  The drug that messes up more lives than any other is alcohol, and any person having attained the age of 21 years can buy it as frequently and in any quantity he or she wants (would you support prohibition?)

I could go down to the packie and buy a bottle of hooch every day.  I don't because I don't want to be an alcoholic.  I could drive down I-91 to Holyoke or Springfield and buy some rock or some smack.  I have no interest in those drugs because they can really mess up your life.  I could go visit my friend X tonight and buy a big bag of weed.  I don't because I know I'll start smoking it habitually.  I don't enjoy marijuana when it's a habit, and when it's a habit, I don't get stuff done.  My friend X runs a small business and works 14 hours a day.  Every night he takes big bong hits.  I don't have that kind of self-discipline.  Know yourself and take personal responsibility for the substances you ingest, is that too much to ask?

"Drugs are bad for you" is a compelling reason for prohibition.  However, it is not a truly conservative position.  It is Big Government and Nanny State.  Drug prohibition is the state imposing upon individual liberty, is it not?

Drugs are illegal because they can really mess up your life.  >:(

Even superstars like Whitney Houston, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrisson, and John C. Holmes have seen their careers ruined by drug addition.   :-\\

You're missing the point: what evidence there is shows that illegality does not reduce consumption: since being made illegal, drug use has gone sky high (so to speak).

So can alcohol, smoking, overeating, undereating, gambling, sex addictions, shopping addictions, and running into a wall head-first.


At least we'll be safe from alcohol, smoking, and overeating when the Dems take the House, Senate, and Presidency in '08 and ban what the Republicans didn't get around towards banning over the last 8 years.  Anorexics should be safe (not enough to make for good campaign donations), gamblers already got whacked when the 'pubs banned online gambling in exchange for donations from the casino lobby, neither wing of the Party wants to deal with perverts off Capitol Hill, both wings of the Party require ongoing consumption, and the auto insurance lobby has both wings of the Party bought and paid for.

So - investmentwise, buy your fast food and junk food companies and your mega-industrial agribusinesses.  The junk food industry will have "new healthy recipe" marketing campaigns, and the agribusiness sectors will have guaranteed markets (with guaranteed margins; it'll be illegal to buy the cheaper stuff!) for trans-fat-free frying oils.

Both wings of the Party are good for business, you just have to time your investments accordingly.  It ain't a free market, but it still pays the rent.

You're missing the point: what evidence there is shows that illegality does not reduce consumption: since being made illegal, drug use has gone sky high (so to speak).


I'd have to look up the data to specify, but heroin didn't become a problematic street drug in Britain until it was outlawed.  

Like I said, I'm not a pothead because I don't want to be a pothead, not because marijuana is illegal.

At least we'll be safe from alcohol, smoking, and overeating when the Dems take the House, Senate, and Presidency in '08 and ban what the Republicans didn't get around towards banning over the last 8 years.  Anorexics should be safe (not enough to make for good campaign donations), gamblers already got whacked when the 'pubs banned online gambling in exchange for donations from the casino lobby, neither wing of the Party wants to deal with perverts off Capitol Hill, both wings of the Party require ongoing consumption, and the auto insurance lobby has both wings of the Party bought and paid for.

So - investmentwise, buy your fast food and junk food companies and your mega-industrial agribusinesses.  The junk food industry will have "new healthy recipe" marketing campaigns, and the agribusiness sectors will have guaranteed markets (with guaranteed margins; it'll be illegal to buy the cheaper stuff!) for trans-fat-free frying oils.

Both wings of the Party are good for business, you just have to time your investments accordingly.  It ain't a free market, but it still pays the rent.

A little off-topic here, but I'm against government restriction of trans-fats.  However, if trans-fats got prohibited, you'd still have your favorite junkfoods, and I'll bet they would taste even better. 

Similar problem with corn syrup.  A huge portion of the obesity epidemic is the result of snack food makers switching from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup.  Cane sugar isn't good for you, but it's not nearly as bad for you as high fructose corn syrup, and it tastes better. 

Before the wonderful advent of trans-fats in mass-produced junkfoods, you had plenty of yummy biscuits, pastries, and confectionery.  If we have to wave goodbye to trans-fats, you're not going to get stuck eating rice cakes for the rest of your life!

I'd have to look up the data to specify, but heroin didn't become a problematic street drug in Britain until it was outlawed.
Opiate usage has been around for thousands of years: it has only become a problem for society since it became illegal. In Rome 2k years ago there were 700 outlets selling opium; however there is no Latin word for "addict" - it simply wasn't a problem.  Admittedly, heroin is many times as addictive, but history suggests that reasonable, socially-acceptable usage is possible without it screwing up your life.

The other question, I guess, is what about those drugs that *don't* screw up your life, but are illegal anyway?

Opiate usage has been around for thousands of years: it has only become a problem for society since it became illegal. In Rome 2k years ago there were 700 outlets selling opium; however there is no Latin word for "addict" - it simply wasn't a problem.  Admittedly, heroin is many times as addictive, but history suggests that reasonable, socially-acceptable usage is possible without it screwing up your life.

The other question, I guess, is what about those drugs that *don't* screw up your life, but are illegal anyway?

Drugs don't screw up people's lives. People screw up people's lives.

I'll bet there were addicts galore in the ancient world.  Society just didn't intervene.  The addict just died.  No problem.

My view has changed a little over the past couple of years, mainly as a result of some reading on the subject.  I've always thought that the "softer" drugs such as cannabis should be legally sold under license - the reasons for cannabis originally being made illegal are completely spurious, and there is no rationale (by which I mean a *rational* rather than emotional reason) for cannabis being illegal while similarly harmful drugs are legal.

Recently, after reading an excellent book on the history of drugs over the last three thousand years or so, I've realized that there is a very strong argument for legalization across the board.  Here goes:

1. Historical
The main argument for keeping drugs illegal is that it is the only way of keeping down consumption.  This is not borne out by the history: drug usage has increased year on year since the "war on drugs" began.  Use of opiates today is at many dozens of times the level it was when opium and morphine were legally available, and is hundreds of times the social problem that it was.  It is true that circumstances have changed, and legalization would not guarantee a reduction in use and abuse, it renders false the biggest argument for continued prohibition.



The main reasons I see drugs as staying illegal are fear and the government's inability to admit they have made a huge mistake. I otherwise agree with what you have said here.



2. Economic i
Far and away the biggest argument for legalization is the huge economic cost of the drug trade, with the humungous profits involved being untaxed and going to the worst possible section of society.  It will never be possible to get all drug dealers off the streets while the demand is there and there is such a large amount of money to be made peddling the stuff.  And the dealers themselves will have a strong vested interest in getting as many people hooked on as many drugs as possible, while being totally unconcerned by the ethics of the matter.  Legalization will take the profit motive away from these people: there will be nothing for them to gain from enticing another person onto heroin or crack if that person can get clean, medical quality drugs from a legitimate source.

3. Economic ii
The cost of the "war on drugs" in police time, prison time, etc. is unreal: it would make a noticeable difference to the tax bill of everyone in the UK/US if they didn't have to spend time chasing down drug runners and petty crime by addicts.



True, but the government gets billions of our tax dollars by keeping everything illegal, while providing the illusion that they actually care about public safety at all. Think of all the poor DEA agents, lawyers, judges, prison workers, etc. who would be out of jobs if drugs became legal tomorrow. I wouldn't doubt if the government has done economic studies concerning legalization and concluded that they make more money by keeping everything the way it is now: illegal. After all, capitalism is still king. And the government looks like the good guys by giving that small time pot dealer 10 years in prison.



4. "The wrong signal" fallacy
The people who argue against legalization often use the phrase "this would send the wrong signal to <pick vulnerable group who need looking after and insert here>".  All I can say to that is the status quo is not exactly working, is it?  More people than ever, and lots more children than ever, are getting drawn into the world of illicit drugs - including an unprecedented number of children dealing drugs to their "friends" (I use the quotes, as I'm not sure what kind of friend would do this).  The dealing side is hardly surprising, as for some kids the only people they see in their daily lives who have money to spare are those who've gained that money by selling drugs.  IMO legalization would improve this state of affairs rather than make things worse - we certainly can't send a much worse signal to children of today than is going out right now.



You nailed that.



5. Health
The majority of deaths and health problems associated with drug taking today do not come from the drug but from whatever it has been cut with: heroin on the streets has even been known to have been cut with rat poison (NFI why: it seems odd that a dealer might use something that would reduce the number of customers, though even that doesn't kill everyone who takes it, I guess).  Pharmaceutical quality and measured strength would reduce health risks for everyone taking the stuff.



Or by how the drug is made. This is especially true with the current methamphetamine epidemic over here. Meth can be made about a 100 different ways, and by people with zero background in chemistry. It's destructive enough when pure, but add in a whole slew of extremely toxic cooking by-products and you have street meth, which combined with its extremely addictive qualities and exorbitant price (considering it costs next to nothing to make), and you have a drug that is ruining town after town.

By legalizing drugs you also get rid of some crime-related deaths resulting from drugs; that is the murders resulting from addicts needing that next fix and doing anything to get it.



6. Honest reasons for making decisions
There are no standard criteria for defining whether a drug should be illegal or not: arguments about health hazards, addiction, behaviour problems, etc. always fall down somewhere.  For example, why is LSD illegal?  It has no known health hazards (other than problems with ergot contamination - which is an argument for it being made to pharmaceutical standards, rather than prohibition), is not addictive and does not cause the people who take it to behave in an antisocial way.  Ditto ecstasy: there is no reason other than a knee-jerk "it's a drug, ban it" for ecstasy being illegal.

Please feel free to argue before you vote - who knows, some of us might have their minds changed.


LSD has never directly killed anyone (that is, by OD); there have been a few cases of those jumping to their deaths thinking they could fly, or by accident. It is not addictive; IMO caffeine has more potential for abuse, assuming equal legality. Cutting of LSD with strychnine is a complete myth, why it still exists to this day is beyond me.

Ecstasy's ban was knee-jerk, and the DEA went against overwhelming evidence that it should be placed no higher than Schedule III to place it in Schedule I. It is not, however, without risk. I have been to raves, and while not under the influence of that drug, I have seen people dance themselves past the point of exhaustion and collapse. Of course, dancing for 6 hours straight in a 90*F room and not talking in fluids could cause the same result, sans drugs. You are correct in that it's not anti-social, rather the opposite the true.

Ecstasy, while generally classified as a phenethylamine, is chemically 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine; it is a stimulant, as are all amphetamines and their derivatives/off-shoots. Chronic use has risks that are not negligible.

The bigger questions are what to do if these drugs are legalized. Lets say everything is made legal (which is how I voted, whith caveats and exceptions noted later*). For example, who is going to manufacure LSD? Drug companies now already get sued into oblivion, and sometimes rightly so, but who would assume the risk of making such a thing?

Would you have to sign a form upon purchase saying basically "I hereby relieve any and everyone who had a hand in manufacturing, distributing, selling, etc., this hit of acid of any and all legal and/or financial liability, in any form whatsoever. I am an informed adult and am 100% responsible for my own actions."

Actually, that doesn't sound too bad...

The second concern I have is this: who would sell drugs, legally? I definitely don't want a 7-11 employee able to sell me a gram of smack if I so wanted it. OTOH, I dislike the government run (state run) ABC stores we have in VA that are the only places to buy liquor. Given the fact that no system will ever be perfect, I would chose tight and legal control (i.e., a state-run drug store) over loose and legal control (i.e., Joe Dumbass at 7-11, who may still be in high school and can't even count back change correctly).

Even if/when drugs are legal, and their price plummets, there will still be a real chance of theft, so a secured sellling place with cameras, safes, guards, etc. (like a bank) is perhaps the best way to go.

My third concern is probably the hardest to address. I have no problem with 99.9% of the things that happen in the word that don't involve harming other people, whether that be financially, physically, emotionally or whatever. So, I don't care if you smoke 10 lbs a pot an hour, it doesn't bother me. However, if you get in a car while baked out of your skull and kill someone, I'm all for your ass spending a very long time in a very small prison cell. IOW; rewriting a consider number of laws to give harsher penalties for crimes committed against while under the influence of whatever.

*Many of the harder drugs (heroin, crack, meth) are not going to have victimless use, no matter their legal status or cost. However, I would rather have crack legal and available at 10$ a bottle (of 500 rocks, like Tylenol), than have a crack addict stab me at an ATM because he needs money for his next high.

I would consider a mix of decriminalization (for harder drugs) and legalization (for everything else), but I believe we would still have most of the problems we have now.

That's kinda long and perhaps a bit off-topic, but not nearly all that is worthy of considering/debating.

The drug that messes up more lives than any other is alcohol, and any person having attained the age of 21 years can buy it as frequently and in any quantity he or she wants.

This is a true statement.
Trust me...

I agreed with most of your post, save this line:


Mandatory treatment for addiction. 

While in theory treatment is an excellent idea, in practice, treatment programs and facilities have a miserable success rate. If you have about 10 hours free time, I encourage you to visit this website:

Orange Papers

Having been to AA myself for a while, I can say that, save some disagreement about level of cultish-ness he assigns to AA (and NA), everything is right on the money.

There are non-AA and NA treatment programs, but they are fairly rare.

This isn't exactly on topic, but I'm curious, whatever happened to Hash and Ludes?  Hashish.. I think could be considered a 'mild' drug. And I know quite a few people who might be a little more tolerable if they would/could  down a lude and chill out! :P

This isn't exactly on topic, but I'm curious, whatever happened to Hash and Ludes?   Hashish.. I think could be considered a 'mild' drug. And I know quite a few people who might be a little more tolerable if they would/could  down a lude and chill out! :P


Both were kinda early 70s drugs in terms of popularity. AFAIK, hash is considered the same as marijuana and is schedule one. Methqualone was placed in schedule one by the mid-eighties, and was schedule two for a good ten years before that.

This isn't exactly on topic, but I'm curious, whatever happened to Hash and Ludes?   Hashish.. I think could be considered a 'mild' drug. And I know quite a few people who might be a little more tolerable if they would/could  down a lude and chill out! :P

I dunno,man...what did happen to the hash and 'ludes...I've been asleep for the past 36 hours, how should I know?
:-\\

Actually, Elvis et all the Quaaludes.


I agreed with most of your post, save this line:

While in theory treatment is an excellent idea, in practice, treatment programs and facilities have a miserable success rate. If you have about 10 hours free time, I encourage you to visit this website:

Orange Papers

Having been to AA myself for a while, I can say that, save some disagreement about level of cultish-ness he assigns to AA (and NA), everything is right on the money.

There are non-AA and NA treatment programs, but they are fairly rare.



I have seen the Orange Papers, never did read them all the way through.  The reason the medical profession is so cautious about prescribing opiates and benzodiazepines is addiction is extremely tough to beat--especially for those prone to addiction.  No treatment program has a chance without the consent of the addict's will.  Even then, the struggle between the will and the addiction is fierce.  The addict needs to keep trying.  If I was a judge, I would not want to send a drug addict to prison.  No secret it's easy to get drugs in prison for the right price.  However, I couldn't just send the addict off to resume his addiction scot-free.


This is a true statement.
Trust me...

Oh, I trust you.


The main reasons I see drugs as staying illegal are fear and the government's inability to admit they have made a huge mistake. I otherwise agree with what you have said here.

True, but the government gets billions of our tax dollars by keeping everything illegal, while providing the illusion that they actually care about public safety at all. Think of all the poor DEA agents, lawyers, judges, prison workers, etc. who would be out of jobs if drugs became legal tomorrow. I wouldn't doubt if the government has done economic studies concerning legalization and concluded that they make more money by keeping everything the way it is now: illegal. After all, capitalism is still king. And the government looks like the good guys by giving that small time pot dealer 10 years in prison.
I would doubt the government has not done such a study! Even if no such study exists, the aggregate of interests in keeping drugs illegal carry enough collective clout to keep legislatures in check.  However, capitalism, as it is lionized, is not really king.  Whether it's prison building contracts or Third World development, the so-called "private sector" serves as a way to transfer public wealth into a few private hands.  That's why I said on another post, competition among small businesses might exist.  If Bob's garage gives better service for cheapter than Tom's garage, Bob's garage will get more business.  However, mega-corporations from Wal-Mart to Halliburton don't "compete" in any real sense of the word.

LSD has never directly killed anyone (that is, by OD); there have been a few cases of those jumping to their deaths thinking they could fly, or by accident. It is not addictive; IMO caffeine has more potential for abuse, assuming equal legality. Cutting of LSD with strychnine is a complete myth, why it still exists to this day is beyond me.
I am convinced LSD can precipitate short-term psychoses.  Most of the time a bad trip is just a bad trip.  It's a horrible experience, but once the drug wears off, the person squares away with reality.  Some people have psychological makeup that makes them vulnerable to psychiatric upset even after the drug wears off.  The same problem can occur with very high doses, or repeated trips in a short period of time.  I've seen no evidence that acid can make you crazy for life.  The long-term mental illnesses the Syd Barrett-types encountered following abuse of LSD was probably latent in the first place.  Many users are in their teens and early 20s when schiziphrenia usually manifests itself.  LSD might speed things up a bit. 
I've never heard strychnine was used to dilute LSD, but as a chemical adhesive to chemically bind the LSD to the blotter paper.  I might have fallen for an urban myth.

Drugs are illegal because they can really mess up your life.  >:(

Even superstars like Whitney Houston, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrisson, and John C. Holmes have seen their careers ruined by drug addition.   :-\\
again, this nice, but imo falst, idea that the government cares about the people's welfare.

drugs are illegal as a tool for maintaining control of the population by providing a convenient excuse for having unregulated police powers.

I voted for "All drugs should be legalized and sold under license". And lets just say I've been around a few users of various "harder" drugs, so I'm aware of the ways in which they affect people.

Marijuana is the only one I'd considering legalizing possibly.

"I don't think I should be shot, for selling pot, it's just my little way of saying Hi."

E's are good and smokin' a joint has never hurt anybody. I'm all for banging up dudes who are shirting crack and skag, but jesus christ, if somebody wants to chill out with a joint.. or get their body going with some E's.. who are you.. or I.. to stop them?

I'm surprised at you, LB.  I thought you would consider drugs a matter of personal responsibility.  The drug that messes up more lives than any other is alcohol, and any person having attained the age of 21 years can buy it as frequently and in any quantity he or she wants (would you support prohibition?)

I could go down to the packie and buy a bottle of hooch every day.  I don't because I don't want to be an alcoholic.  I could drive down I-91 to Holyoke or Springfield and buy some rock or some smack.  I have no interest in those drugs because they can really mess up your life.  I could go visit my friend X tonight and buy a big bag of weed.  I don't because I know I'll start smoking it habitually.  I don't enjoy marijuana when it's a habit, and when it's a habit, I don't get stuff done.  My friend X runs a small business and works 14 hours a day.  Every night he takes big bong hits.  I don't have that kind of self-discipline.  Know yourself and take personal responsibility for the substances you ingest, is that too much to ask?

"Drugs are bad for you" is a compelling reason for prohibition.  However, it is not a truly conservative position.  It is Big Government and Nanny State.  Drug prohibition is the state imposing upon individual liberty, is it not?


I did not say that I AGREED with making drugs illegal.  I just stated WHY they are illegal.

I did not say that I AGREED with making drugs illegal.  I just stated WHY they are illegal.
if drugs are illegal because they might ruin your life, why does the government ruin your life if they catch you taking them? the theory patently makes no sense. this is so obviously NOT why drugs are illegal.

Drugs are illegal because the government can't find a way to make money off of them yet.

Drugs are illegal because the government can't find a way to make money off of them yet.


Drugs are illegal becuase keeping them illegal is the way the government makes money off them. 

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris.  "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it.  You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.  There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- One of the villians from Atlas Shrugged, speaking of a different form of overregulation that served the same purposes.  Emphasis added by poster.

I don't know how to answer this. First of all, I have said many times that I think marijuana should be legalized. With the other drugs, I really think they need to be controlled somehow. The problem is not drug use but drug abuse-and that includes prescription drugs, too. Most drugs (both legal & illegal) IMO have a useful purpose. There were a series of tests done with LSD a long time age that proved it could help those with schizophrenia. But then, Timothy Leary introduced it into the mainstream and then all tests were stopped because LSD became a "bad" drug. There have been cases where most drugs help certain ailments. However, a lot of the problem stem with the pharmaceutical companies. They don't want "natural" drugs (like marijuana, cocoa leaves, etc.) to cut into their profits from "synthetic" drugs. Another part of the problem is lies spread by the establishment. (Like marijuana being the "gateway" drug, etc.) Drugs are not "good" or "bad" but how you use them can be "good" or "bad".




Cat

Marijuana may not be a "gateway" drug for everyone, but in my own circle of friends and acquaintances that I have, the ones who did harder drugs, did so AFTER having used marijuana.  So I think for some people it is, maybe not for all. 

I agree that marijuana should be decriminalized only because throwing someone in jail for having a joint on them makes about as much sense as walking around with a pancake on your head.  Of all the drugs people can do, I hardly think weed is the worst.  I personally don't do drugs and won't do them, but some of the drug laws are absurd, even in my own mind.  Heroin, crack, cocaine, hallucinogens....these need to be more tightly controlled.

Drugs are illegal becuase keeping them illegal is the way the government makes money off them. 

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris.  "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it.  You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.   There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- One of the villians from Atlas Shrugged, speaking of a different form of overregulation that served the same purposes.  Emphasis added by poster.
well hell that might be the only paragraph in atlas shrugged whose politics i agree with! although i bet it turns out the liberal bureaucrats are behind the drug laws right? how unlike in real life.

Marijuana may not be a "gateway" drug for everyone, but in my own circle of friends and acquaintances that I have, the ones who did harder drugs, did so AFTER having used marijuana.  So I think for some people it is, maybe not for all. 


Of course, fact is, even a 12 year old can score some herb.. it's not that easy to score brown or speed or coke.

That's why so many people start off smoking pot.

well hell that might be the only paragraph in atlas shrugged whose politics i agree with! although i bet it turns out the liberal bureaucrats are behind the drug laws right? how unlike in real life.

Funny, I always called it Atlas Drugged.

One has to remember, Ayn Rand is not philosophy.  Ayn Rand is not economic theory.  Ayn Rand is not political science.
Ayn Rand is FANTASY.  Her work has no more bearing on the true nature of mankind than Harry Potter.
Neo-liberal economics, including guys like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, also belong to a world of fantastical notions. 
When neo-liberal economics are applied to real societies the results are disasterous.  These simplistic ideas sound elegant because they are simplistic.  Neo-liberalism, such as supply side economics, is a good sell to the common man because it always sounds like the common man will benefit from them.  The common man never does.  The rich get astronomically richer, the middle class shrinks, and the poor get even poorer. 

Folks are surprised when the libertarianism for the common man never emerges when self-proclaimed free-marketeers get elected.  Why doesn't pot get legalized?  Why don't we get rid of the DMV?  Why are all these gun control laws still on the books? Why is the government so nosy about my personal life? 
Ah, the liberty is not for persons in the flesh, but persons as corporations.
Thus the drug war rages on.

  1) Legalize: Benefits include quality control, tax revenues, and more accurate consumption-related data (including work-related accidents, drug-induced car wrecks, domestic violence, etc..)

  2) Educate: Part of the current problem with the Drug War is that the indoctrinated children eventually discover that they were lied to.  It's easy to tell the ones who never figure this out: they still insist on a scenario which seems to declare the violence of drug prohibition to be unique among prohibitions, though history shows this isn't true.  In the end, the lack of education has the effect of augmenting the number of poor decisions made in reactionary states.  How many times have I had to advise my friends that just because marijuana won't kill you the way they said doesn't mean coke won't make your brain explode.  To the other, I've never known a coke casualty, either, despite the statistics.  I've known one heroin casualty, and at least one meth casualty, and also a host of faces and names that have drifted of into obscurity for whom I can only hope for the best...

  3) Rehabilitation: It seems like a litany here - addicts presently must confess to crimes in order to get treatment.  To receive addiction treatment for any of a number of substances acknowledges that the addict has behaved illegally.  This mindset is not conducive to rehabilitation...

  4) Economy: Like most social ills, drug abuse finds much of its cause nested amid economic issues.  There is a catch-22 here: economic equalization will reduce these social ills; reduction of these social ills will help economic equalization...

  5) Amnesty: Set the drug-war prisoners free - that is, all possession, distribution, and use offenses officially overlooked.  The crimes against property and life must necessarily stand, for being high is no excuse for murder, as such.  But right now, as the number of prison beds devoted to possession, distribution, and use increases, the number of prison beds for crimes against property and life dwindles - and this is amid a trend of building prisons faster than schools groove ;) on all...

"Softer drugs should be legalized".


For the record, I'm not condoning smoking weed (I'm pretty much a goody two shoes - I don't do it myself and wouldn't want to), but as many people have argued, it's noticeably less dangerous than alcohol. Out of all the drugs out there, at least it doesn't make you violent or erratic, it just makes you talkative and act like Cheech and Chong. ;D

Seriously though, I think it should be restrictively legal in about the same sense that alcohol is. You should be fined/arrested if you're in public or especially behind the wheel stoned, but if people want to do it responsibly (i.e. on the couch at home), that's not that big of a deal. There's also medicinal purposes, of course.

Funny, I always called it Atlas Drugged.

One has to remember, Ayn Rand is not philosophy.  Ayn Rand is not economic theory.  Ayn Rand is not political science.
Ayn Rand is FANTASY.  Her work has no more bearing on the true nature of mankind than Harry Potter.
Neo-liberal economics, including guys like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, also belong to a world of fantastical notions. 
When neo-liberal economics are applied to real societies the results are disasterous.  These simplistic ideas sound elegant because they are simplistic.  Neo-liberalism, such as supply side economics, is a good sell to the common man because it always sounds like the common man will benefit from them.  The common man never does.  The rich get astronomically richer, the middle class shrinks, and the poor get even poorer. 



  Although I'd actually claim that Ayn Rand was quite the philosopher, if not one that makes many uncomfortable.  She's a, uh...Free Market Nietzsche? ???  I think perhaps only Nozick would have appreciated that sort of person.  Continental Philosophy is too Socialist, and Analytic Philosophy too Liberal...

    For argument's sake....

  Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Thus beginning the long life task of screaming at every individual who thinks Rand is either a good writer or even a semi-decent philosopher groove ;) on...

 

They're illegal because they ruin lives. Whether the government ruins them as well or not, that's still the law, and that's the reason.

They're illegal because they ruin lives.

Drugs don't runin lives.  People ruin lives.

How did I know we'd see that statement again?  Drugs DO ruin people's lives.  The same as people ruin lives.  To say that one does and the other doesn't, absolves one of the blame.  The drugs do as much damage to the body as the person who is using the drugs is doing. 

Drugs don't runin lives.  People ruin lives.


The people choose to do the drugs, but it is the drugs that do the damage.

They're illegal because they ruin lives.


As Beth said earlier, so does overeating, alcoholism, eating disorders, shopping addictions etc.

I'm not talking about the various chemical reactions.

I'm talking about the struggle between free will and addiction.  
"Free will" is easier applauded than applied and "addiction" is easier condemned than overcome.  

We have teach young people about the dangers of drugs using better methods than scare tactics.  If a person develops a drug problem, the chemical dependency/abuse can lead to that person's demise.  In the end, it takes the strength of the addict's will to beat the psychological addiction--even after the addict no longer has the physical addiction.

The heroin itself might not kill you.  The loss of everything you have ever worked for, your family, your friends, downward social drift, crime, disease, exposure to the elements, and such peripheral issues of addiction can punctuate your life without you ever overdosing.

Analogously, I favor gun control, but I still believe guns don't kill people, people kill people.  

They're illegal because they ruin lives.


But useing your bizare California-hippy logic only drugs that are illegal ruin lives.. other drugs are fine. After all, the pharmacutical companies wouldn't be pumping out countless tons of anti-depressants if they weren't helping people, right?  ::) I mean, it's not like any of these LEGAL drugs mess with brain chemicals and patterns is it?

They're illegal because they ruin lives. Whether the government ruins them as well or not, that's still the law, and that's the reason.

You (like the majority of people, unfortunately) haven't thought about this, have you?  Drugs ruined fewer lives when they were legal, and the associated criminality ruins more lives than the drugs themselves.  So what logic is there in prohibition?

Funny, I always called it Atlas Drugged.

One has to remember, Ayn Rand is not philosophy.  Ayn Rand is not economic theory.  Ayn Rand is not political science.
Ayn Rand is FANTASY.  Her work has no more bearing on the true nature of mankind than Harry Potter.
Neo-liberal economics, including guys like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, also belong to a world of fantastical notions. 
When neo-liberal economics are applied to real societies the results are disasterous.  These simplistic ideas sound elegant because they are simplistic.  Neo-liberalism, such as supply side economics, is a good sell to the common man because it always sounds like the common man will benefit from them.  The common man never does.  The rich get astronomically richer, the middle class shrinks, and the poor get even poorer. 

Folks are surprised when the libertarianism for the common man never emerges when self-proclaimed free-marketeers get elected.  Why doesn't pot get legalized?  Why don't we get rid of the DMV?  Why are all these gun control laws still on the books? Why is the government so nosy about my personal life? 
Ah, the liberty is not for persons in the flesh, but persons as corporations.
Thus the drug war rages on.
i always thought ayn rand was fine. a writer about on a par with stephen king, although mr. king has much better fleshed out characters. she was a talented pop novelist with cute books and a decent engaging style who somehow managed to get herself taken seriously as a "philosopher" by people who hadn't thought excessively about what philosophy actually is. i mean, objectivism? it SOUNDS like a philosophy. hoarding stuff for yourself to prove youre part of the productive class -- that's a "philosophy," right? well, no, not exactly.

One has to remember, Ayn Rand is not philosophy.  Ayn Rand is not economic theory.  Ayn Rand is not political science.
Ayn Rand is FANTASY.  Her work has no more bearing on the true nature of mankind than Harry Potter.
Neo-liberal economics, including guys like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, also belong to a world of fantastical notions. 
When neo-liberal economics are applied to real societies the results are disasterous.  These simplistic ideas sound elegant because they are simplistic.  Neo-liberalism, such as supply side economics, is a good sell to the common man because it always sounds like the common man will benefit from them.  The common man never does.  The rich get astronomically richer, the middle class shrinks, and the poor get even poorer. 

Folks are surprised when the libertarianism for the common man never emerges when self-proclaimed free-marketeers get elected.  Why doesn't pot get legalized?  Why don't we get rid of the DMV?  Why are all these gun control laws still on the books? Why is the government so nosy about my personal life? 
Ah, the liberty is not for persons in the flesh, but persons as corporations.
Thus the drug war rages on.



One has to remember, Karl Marx is not philosophy.  Karl Marx is not economic theory.  Karl Marx is not political science.
Karl Marx is FANTASY.  His work has no more bearing on the true nature of mankind than Atlas Shrugged.
Progressive politicians, including guys like Hugo Chavez and Che Guevera, also belong to a world of fantastical notions.  When progressivist economics are applied to real societies the results are disastrous.  These simplistic ideas sound elegant because they are simplistic.  Progressivism, such as Marxist economics, is a good sell to the common man because it always sounds like the common man will benefit from them.  The common man never does.  The rich get astronomically richer, the middle class shrinks, and the poor get even poorer. 

Folks are surprised when the socialism for the common man never emerges when self-proclaimed progressives get elected.  Why doesn't pot get legalized?  Why don't we get rid of the DMV?  Why are all these gun control laws still on the books? Why is the government so nosy about my personal life? 

Ah, the liberty is not for persons in the flesh, but persons only insofar as they can take their places as interchangeable parts within  collectives.

Thus the poverty war rages on.  (And when health care is paid out of taxpayer revenues, get ready for escalations on the wars on smoking, trans fats, foie gras...)

i always thought ayn rand was fine. a writer about on a par with stephen king, although mr. king has much better fleshed out characters. she was a talented pop novelist with cute books and a decent engaging style who somehow managed to get herself taken seriously as a "philosopher" by people who hadn't thought excessively about what philosophy actually is. i mean, objectivism? it SOUNDS like a philosophy. hoarding stuff for yourself to prove youre part of the productive class -- that's a "philosophy," right? well, no, not exactly.

I always called it Objectionable-ism.
:D
What really turned me off to Ayn Rand is she was a fink for the "House Unamerican Activities Committee."
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html

She later wrote of how it was perfectly fine for the federal government to nose into people's personal lives.  HUAC just wants people to be honest and answer the question.  If their testimony causes them to lose their career, the federal government can't be held accountable for that.  That's the doing of private business.

If private business kept outed communists on the payroll, did the government respect their rights to do so?  No.
"This company keeps in its employ known comm'nists...."
::)

One has to remember, Karl Marx is not philosophy.  Karl Marx is not economic theory.  Karl Marx is not political science.
Karl Marx is FANTASY.  His work has no more bearing on the true nature of mankind than Atlas Shrugged.
Progressive politicians, including guys like Hugo Chavez and Che Guevera, also belong to a world of fantastical notions.  When progressivist economics are applied to real societies the results are disastrous.  These simplistic ideas sound elegant because they are simplistic.  Progressivism, such as Marxist economics, is a good sell to the common man because it always sounds like the common man will benefit from them.  The common man never does.  The rich get astronomically richer, the middle class shrinks, and the poor get even poorer. 

Folks are surprised when the socialism for the common man never emerges when self-proclaimed progressives get elected.  Why doesn't pot get legalized?  Why don't we get rid of the DMV?  Why are all these gun control laws still on the books? Why is the government so nosy about my personal life? 

Ah, the liberty is not for persons in the flesh, but persons only insofar as they can take their places as interchangeable parts within  collectives.

Thus the poverty war rages on.  (And when health care is paid out of taxpayer revenues, get ready for escalations on the wars on smoking, trans fats, foie gras...)

Touche!  There's some truth here.  Though, I doubt you would find any scholar outside right-wing think tanks who would tell you Ayn Rand is in the same league with Karl Marx!

One has to remember, Karl Marx is not philosophy.  Karl Marx is not economic theory.  Karl Marx is not political science.
Karl Marx is FANTASY.  His work has no more bearing on the true nature of mankind than Atlas Shrugged.
Progressive politicians, including guys like Hugo Chavez and Che Guevera, also belong to a world of fantastical notions.  When progressivist economics are applied to real societies the results are disastrous.  These simplistic ideas sound elegant because they are simplistic.  Progressivism, such as Marxist economics, is a good sell to the common man because it always sounds like the common man will benefit from them.  The common man never does.  The rich get astronomically richer, the middle class shrinks, and the poor get even poorer. 

Folks are surprised when the socialism for the common man never emerges when self-proclaimed progressives get elected.  Why doesn't pot get legalized?  Why don't we get rid of the DMV?  Why are all these gun control laws still on the books? Why is the government so nosy about my personal life? 

Ah, the liberty is not for persons in the flesh, but persons only insofar as they can take their places as interchangeable parts within  collectives.

Thus the poverty war rages on.  (And when health care is paid out of taxpayer revenues, get ready for escalations on the wars on smoking, trans fats, foie gras...)


I wonder, Foo Bar, if you have ever read Karl Marx, and I don't mean just the Communist Manifesto.  His writing is philosophican, it inspires political science, and it is a very profound analysis of how capitalism works.  You might try A Conbtribution to the Critique of Political Economy , the passage that begins "In the social production of their lives men enter into relations..."  In point of fact, both Marx's observations and his methodology are highly relevant to everyone's life, and as far from fantasy as one can get.  One of the problems, of course, is that everyone knows what Marx said,  but few have read him.  Thiose who have know that his writings are not a cook book, he has very little to say about Socialism - that's whu his major work is called CAPITAL!  Interestingly, most of the things he calls for in the C. Manifesto have been achieved in one form or another.  I can't comment on Ms Rand since I haven't read more than a few pages of her turgid prose. 

though i disagree with virtually all of karl marx's writings, i think he's thinking on a much deeper level than ms. rand. ms. rand is a pop star, marx actually IS a philosopher.

I wonder, Foo Bar, if you have ever read Karl Marx, and I don't mean just the Communist Manifesto.  His writing is philosophican, it inspires political science, and it is a very profound analysis of how capitalism works.  You might try A Conbtribution to the Critique of Political Economy , the passage that begins "In the social production of their lives men enter into relations..."  In point of fact, both Marx's observations and his methodology are highly relevant to everyone's life, and as far from fantasy as one can get.  One of the problems, of course, is that everyone knows what Marx said,  but few have read him.  Thiose who have know that his writings are not a cook book, he has very little to say about Socialism - that's whu his major work is called CAPITAL!  Interestingly, most of the things he calls for in the C. Manifesto have been achieved in one form or another.  I can't comment on Ms Rand since I haven't read more than a few pages of her turgid prose.   

Nice to see you again, Don Carlos!  Don't be such a stranger.  I'd like to say I'm going to read some Marx on this xmas night, but I'll probably just veg out in front of the tube until I doze off!
:P


though i disagree with virtually all of karl marx's writings, i think he's thinking on a much deeper level than ms. rand. ms. rand is a pop star, marx actually IS a philosopher.

Ayn Rand is the cotton candy of the philosophical diet.

But useing your bizare California-hippy logic only drugs that are illegal ruin lives.. other drugs are fine. After all, the pharmacutical companies wouldn't be pumping out countless tons of anti-depressants if they weren't helping people, right?  ::) I mean, it's not like any of these LEGAL drugs mess with brain chemicals and patterns is it?



I'm not saying that those don't. I didn't specify whether they were illegal or not.

I'm not saying that those don't. I didn't specify whether they were illegal or not.

Well, that kind of skirts around the topic now doesn't it!

Presenting
MODERN LIFE
Made possibly by Prozac