Marijuana

[hotrodalex]

How is it the same people who would complain about money spent on public programs happily restrict personal freedoms for the greater good?  Don't you see how incongruous these positions are? 

And don't you see that neglecting your children (child abuse) and robbery/theft/burglary are all already legal?  Why is the reason a person commits a crime important?  If you break into a house and steal a DVD player so you can watch DVDs, does that make it better than breaking into a house and stealing a DVD player to fund a meth habit? 

Legalizing meth won't solve the crime problem.  Legalizing meth won't cause a crime problem either.  I don't see why this is an issue. 

People don't take the risk of breaking & entering just so they can watch DVDs. They aren't that desperate. Meth, on the hand, makes them that desperate.

[dazzleman]

To inject another perspective into the argument:

By legalizing drugs that can ruin your life, some might say that the government is allowing the behaviors associated with it. Since meth can cause crime, the government must be saying crime is okay if meth is okay.

Plus, it can be hard work to produce illegal drugs which can keep people away from it. If it's legal, the number of users is bound to go up. If a small number of users cause problems, imagine if 3-4 times as many users cause the same number of problems-per-user. Seems like a police officer's worst nightmare.

I'm not saying all of that is true, it's just a way to look at it.

The desire to limit the use of destructive drugs because of the effect on society (not the individual) is the main drive behind keeping these drugs illegal.  I don't agree that legalization of drugs means the government is condoning crimes committed related to the drug (that's certainly not the case with alcohol), but other than that, you make sense.

The issue here is not one of absolute philosophy, but degree and prevalence.  Alcohol can be destructive, but it's too prevalent to be made illegal.  The same thing is true with cancer sticks.  Plus it's much more appealing to the politicians to just tax them to death for revenue.  But these fringe drugs are a bit different.  It's as much about political practicality as anything else.

[Raza]

If it's legal, the number of users is bound to go up.

Why? 

[Rupert]

Unfortunately, people that are responsible when they are sober tend to make really bad decision when they aren't.

That's just not true for most people.

[hotrodalex]

I don't agree that legalization of drugs means the government is condoning crimes committed related to the drug (that's certainly not the case with alcohol), but other than that, you make sense.

I don't necessarily agree with that part either. I was just adding an idea.

Why?  

Read the previous sentence. If something is illegal, you have to make more of an effort to obtain it. That keeps the number of users down. But if it's legal to produce and buy, there is much less of a hassle in doing so. If it's easy, more people are willing to do it.

That's just not true for most people.

So you make good decisions while on acid?

K.

[Rupert]

Can you rank the unpleasantness based on the drug?

I assume you mean unpleasantness of dealing with people on drugs...

PCP (naked in the streets with a knife and numb to pain) -> meth -> crack -> LSD ('cause tripping people are annoying when you're sober) -> heroin ('cause if you're on heroin, you are probably laid out pretty well)

[Rupert]

Should be legal.  So should coke, heroin, and all prescription drug restrictions should be lifted as well.  Of course, DUI should be modified to account for driving while under the influence of these drugs.  I should be allowed to do whatever I want to myself as long as it endangers no one else or violates their rights.  Simple as that. 

DUI already accounts for other drugs. Actually, it might be another charge, but there is a way to arrest someone and severely punish them if it is clear that they are not sober enough to drive (i.e. they've failed the field sobriety tests, etc).

[Rupert]

So you make good decisions while on acid?

K.

No one makes life decisions while on acid, because no one is addicted to acid. My answer directly is, no. But, then, the decisions I have made while on acid (many years ago) were WRT what I was doing next, and, while you can easily do enough acid to do really dumb stuff, most (by most, I mean almost all) people retain enough sober-mindedness to avoid destruction of themselves and others. This is a better record than alcohol.

And even with the harder drugs (which acid really isn't, due to its non-addictiveness), bad decisions are the result of the person being an idiot already, coupled with addiction (there is a trend there ), not actually being high on whatever (aside from maybe PCP and meth). This of course is a generalization, and you are sure to find plenty of examples of the opposite being true.

[dazzleman]

That's just not true for most people.

I guess it depends on the drug, but people tend to make very bad decisions while under the influence of certain drugs.  Maybe they'd make better decisions sober; maybe they wouldn't.

[RomanChariot]

One drug that can ruin your life is legal.
One drug that can ruin your life is illegal.

I think it's absolutely germane. 

I was trying to show that by pointing out that people do stupid things when they are drinking is more of an argument against alcohol than it is an argument for legalizing other drugs.

[hotrodalex]

No one makes life decisions while on acid, because no one is addicted to acid. My answer directly is, no. But, then, the decisions I have made while on acid (many years ago) were WRT what I was doing next, and, while you can easily do enough acid to do really dumb stuff, most (by most, I mean almost all) people retain enough sober-mindedness to avoid destruction of themselves and others. This is a better record than alcohol.

And even with the harder drugs (which acid really isn't, due to its non-addictiveness), bad decisions are the result of the person being an idiot already, coupled with addiction (there is a trend there ), not actually being high on whatever (aside from maybe PCP and meth). This of course is a generalization, and you are sure to find plenty of examples of the opposite being true.

I think you trust people on drugs too much.

[dazzleman]

I think you trust people on drugs too much.

People always trust their own. 

[RomanChariot]

How is it the same people who would complain about money spent on public programs happily restrict personal freedoms for the greater good?  Don't you see how incongruous these positions are? 

And don't you see that neglecting your children (child abuse) and robbery/theft/burglary are all already legal?  Why is the reason a person commits a crime important?  If you break into a house and steal a DVD player so you can watch DVDs, does that make it better than breaking into a house and stealing a DVD player to fund a meth habit? 

Legalizing meth won't solve the crime problem.  Legalizing meth won't cause a crime problem either.  I don't see why this is an issue. 

Legalizing meth definitely won't solve the crime problem, I'll give you that.  However, I do believe it will likely increase the crime problem and will cause a greater burden upon society.  Since meth is so highly addictive, most who use it are not able to hold down a job and be productive citizens.  They commit crime to feed their need.  If we legalize meth, we as a society tell people it is okay to use meth and we will end up picking up the societal tab that comes with it.

Billions of dollars every year are spent cleaning up the problems with alcohol and tobacco.  Large numbers of people abuse these drugs because they are legal and therefore, okay.  Do we really want to go further down that road?

[RomanChariot]

That's just not true for most people.

That's why drunk driving is almost non-existent, right?

[Raza]

I was trying to show that by pointing out that people do stupid things when they are drinking is more of an argument against alcohol than it is an argument for legalizing other drugs.

So why haven't we outlawed alcohol?  Didn't prohibition prove that creating a black market for a good creates more crime?

[Raza]

Legalizing meth definitely won't solve the crime problem, I'll give you that.  However, I do believe it will likely increase the crime problem and will cause a greater burden upon society.  Since meth is so highly addictive, most who use it are not able to hold down a job and be productive citizens.  They commit crime to feed their need.  If we legalize meth, we as a society tell people it is okay to use meth and we will end up picking up the societal tab that comes with it.

Billions of dollars every year are spent cleaning up the problems with alcohol and tobacco.  Large numbers of people abuse these drugs because they are legal and therefore, okay.  Do we really want to go further down that road?

Legalizing something doesn't imply approval.  Rather, it's an acceptance that what you do to yourself should not be under the purview of the federal government. 

[RomanChariot]

So why haven't we outlawed alcohol?  Didn't prohibition prove that creating a black market for a good creates more crime?

Prohibition caused greater problems because they took something that had been legal and made it illegal.  People already had a taste for the product and did not want to give it up.  Abolishing prohibition took away the black market aspect of alcohol but it did not reduce the societal impact of alcohol.

[SVT_Power]

By legalizing drugs that can ruin your life, some might say that the government is allowing the behaviors associated with it. Since meth can cause crime, the government must be saying crime is okay if meth is okay.

Drinking in public is illegal (other than in licensed establishments). Being under the influence and doing stupid shit in public is illegal. Driving under the influence is illegal. Yet it's perfectly legal for for you to consume it at home and be incapacitated if you want.

[RomanChariot]

Legalizing something doesn't imply approval.  Rather, it's an acceptance that what you do to yourself should not be under the purview of the federal government.  

I understand your point of what you do to yourself not being subject to government overview.  Unfortunately, this is based on the thought that what you do to yourself does not have an impact on other people.  People who smoke and drink and use drugs drive insurance premiums.  A large portion of people with addiction problems are on the welfare roles and the public gets to pay for all of the problems that their addictions create.  People don't live in a vacuum.  Almost everything that they do has an impact on other people.  Society decides when that impact is great enough that something must be done about it.

[Rupert]

That's why drunk driving is almost non-existent, right?

Most people who drink don't drive drunk.

[Rupert]

I think you trust people on drugs too much.

I don't think you know a thing about drugs.

[Rupert]

I guess it depends on the drug, but people tend to make very bad decisions while under the influence of certain drugs.  Maybe they'd make better decisions sober; maybe they wouldn't.

Some people make bad decisions while drunk, and some people make bad decisions while sober. Most people don't make decisions that have lasting effects and that they wouldn't make while sober while they are not sober.

[BENZ BOY15]

People always trust their own.  

I was thinking that we should have gone and smoked a joint yesterday. Marijuana, for me anyway, makes me OCD and I always try to plan out my life....years in advance. If I haven't done my HW or studying, I'll do it. If I'm waiting around doing nothing, I'll go exercise until I can't move. That's just me though.

[hotrodalex]

Prohibition caused greater problems because they took something that had been legal and made it illegal.  People already had a taste for the product and did not want to give it up.  Abolishing prohibition took away the black market aspect of alcohol but it did not reduce the societal impact of alcohol.

I don't think you know a thing about drugs.

So you trust a meth addict to make good decisions? I'm sorry, but drugs affect your decision-making ability.

I don't really care about weed being legal, since I don't think there would be any real change to tell the truth. But it would open a gateway for arguments about making other drugs legal, which is a horrible idea.

[CALL_911]

Reading this thread, I kinda want to smoke some weed.

[Submariner]

Why not?  If you do it in a way that harms no one else, I see no reason in it at all.  Laws shouldn't be in place to protect you from yourself.  

Talking from very little experience, the effects and addiction rate of Herion, PCP, etc are far worse.  

It's easy to discuss on a philosophical level, and even easier to defend - sure, I feel that in a perfect world anything goes.  Even in our imperfect society, I feel the government should have very little say in what one does with themselves and or consenting adults.  However, as with nearly any freedom, there are some extremes which should be kept off limits.  I think ownership of firearms should be legal.  I think fully automatic M4's should be available for purchase, but AT4's and shape charges are a bit extreme.  I think free speech is sacred, and not even derogatory, hate filled bigoted banter should be banned from the air, but a guide on how to build home made explosives for the purpose of killing people should be.  Similarly so, many drugs should be legal - Marijuana, coke, acid, etc, after all, one night's worth of drinking can have similarly awful consequences (even more so in the case of alcohol vs. weed).

That being said, my limited experience with Heroin users, for example (I admit, none of which has been first hand) has painted a portrait of a truly evil drug - one which almost always turns into an all consuming, destructive, wasteful mess.  Marijuana, LSD, Coke, etc all have varying effects, rates of addiction, etc, but Heroin seems to nearly always drag it's user into what can only be described as hell. 

Like I said, I have never experienced the effects of the drug, nor have I met anyone personally effected by it - I have no hard, empirical evidence, so criticism on my opinion is more than fair.  Like I said, I feel the government's role in our lives (social, economic, etc) should be minimum at best, but extremes are extremes.  I would feel comfortable if the absolute fringe is disallowed - we are nowhere near that, though.  Our nation has a long road back to where it's ideology was spawned. 

[GoCougs]

Illicit drugs are for all intents and purposes legal in northern Mexico - think we want the escalating drug cartel wars on American soil? Yeah, no thanks. I will go so far to say that the federal government has over reacted vis-a-vis the "War on Drugs" but outright legalization would be a disaster.

[Submariner]

Illicit drugs are for all intents and purposes legal in northern Mexico - think we want the escalating drug cartel wars on American soil? Yeah, no thanks. I will go so far to say that the federal government has over reacted vis-a-vis the "War on Drugs" but outright legalization would be a disaster.

Take the power out of the hands of cartels and give it to private business.

[GoCougs]

Take the power out of the hands of cartels and give it to private business.

Drug cartels = proxy private business.

[Rupert]

So you trust a meth addict to make good decisions? I'm sorry, but drugs affect your decision-making ability.

No, of course not. But that's not because they do meth; it's because they're an addict. Addiction affects your decision-making ability.