If drugs were legalized would you start using them?

[Spang]

It was mentioned in another thread that if drugs were legalized more people would start using them. Would you?

[Spang]

Shit, typo.

[vagabond]

Having a legal choice, doesn't mean that you have to make a choice that you deem wrong for yourself.

And, from what I know, illegalizing something does not prevent people from doing it, not even Conservatives. I know many who use drugs, then espouse the 'right' of keeping them illegal.

Legalizing is an issue of cartells and criminals from going tax free...tax money that could be used well.

My opinion.

[LadyLazarus]

Look at Alcohol. It's a substance that kills, but because it's legal, it's part of every known important social rite in this country. Having a glass of wine with dinner or toasting at a wedding, people drink themselves stupid in this country, but have no idea how much more dangerous it is than pot.

And this isn't an advertisement for weed. I'm not a fan of pot at all; I'm just saying people act retarded when it comes to legal and illegal substances. Just because a substance is deemed illegal, doesn't make it any worse for you than substances that are legal.

[Horizon]

I would not use them any more if they were legal than I do now.;)

[foxyladi]

gotta keep me in my right sane sober mind..what little i,ve got left:rotfl::rotfl:

[sojourner]

There is no doubt in my mind that legalization would increase the use of drugs.

There needs to be a third option in the poll: Would you increase your use of drugs?

[Spang]

There is no doubt in my mind that legalization would increase the use of drugs.

Which drugs would you start using?

[Laura Cereta]

No. Furthermore, all the people worried about increased use among teens need to understand the stark reality that's it's easier for your child to buy cocaine at school from their "friends" than it is for them to buy a pack of cigarettes from the store.

[Spang]

No. Furthermore, all the people worried about increased use among teens need to understand the stark reality that's it's easier for your child to buy cocaine at school from their "friends" than it is for them to buy a pack of cigarettes from the store.

Yes, because dealers don't ask for ID.

[Suzan]

I voted, but forgot to comment. I don't use drugs and doubt I would if they were legal, but every once and again a little speed or whatever it's called might help get the housework done.

[Spang]

I don't use drugs and doubt I would if they were legal, but every once and again a little speed or whatever it's called might help get the housework done.

Hiring a Mexican would be cheaper and healthier.

[VotingHillary]

Hiring a Mexican would be cheaper and healthier.

Wow, that was pretty racist of you.

[Spang]

Wow, that was pretty racist of you.

Racism is okay on this forum.

[VotingHillary]

Racism is okay on this forum.

Apparently.

[Spang]

Apparently.

They have rules, but they can't enforce them. Plus, it's all subjective. What's deemed racist to one person is kosher to someone else.

[Suzan]

Hiring a Mexican would be cheaper and healthier.
Actually, when I was juggling multiple book deadlines, commuting to another state to take care of my mom and going to grad school all the same time, I had an angel name Cira who helped me. Saved my life, really.

[Spang]

"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." - Peter Ustinov

[Suzan]

They have rules, but they can't enforce them. Plus, it's all subjective. What's deemed racist to one person is kosher to someone else.

See, that's the thing. We can enforce them at our discretion, but when there's an opportunity to discuss an issue and raise some understandiing and awareness, it just makes sense to do that.

[Spang]

See, that's the thing. We can enforce them at our discretion, but when there's an opportunity to discuss an issue and raise some understandiing and awareness, it just makes sense to do that.

There's nothing racist about hiring Mexicans in this country. Major corporations do it every day. It's the reason many of them risk their lives to enter this great nation. If it weren't for those major corporations, most wouldn't be here right now.

[samurai007]

There's nothing racist about hiring Mexicans in this country. Major corporations do it every day. It's the reason many of them risk their lives to enter this great nation. If it weren't for those major corporations, most wouldn't be here right now.

And, once again, most don't work for "major corporations", no matter what your little propagandist says. Most work on farms, small businesses like landscaping and motels, housecleaning and day care, etc. We already told you this.

[Spang]

And, once again, most don't work for "major corporations", no matter what your little propagandist says. Most work on farms, small businesses like landscaping and motels, housecleaning and day care, etc. We already told you this.

I proved your theory wrong, so there.

[samurai007]

I proved your theory wrong, so there.

"Just go watch the propaganda video, I can't explain it even 1 bit in my own words" is hardly "proving" anything wrong...

[Spang]

"Just go watch the propaganda video, I can't explain it even 1 bit in my own words" is hardly "proving" anything wrong...

Jesus-*******-Christ on the last episode of Lost, you said in another thread that if drugs were legalized more people would start using them. According to this very scientific poll, you're wrong.

[samurai007]

Jesus-*******-Christ on the last episode of Lost, you said in another thread that if drugs were legalized more people would start using them. According to this very scientific poll, you're wrong.

Out of 17 people, most of whom are older and out of school now and away from the culture that would apply peer pressure to do drugs because they are cool, 2 people still admit they would, an 11% increase. Among high school and university-aged kids, you can multiply that several times over, and then add in the people that won't admit it or think they wouldn't now, but then decide to try it.

So I'm right, thanks for playing.

[Spang]

Out of 17 people, most of whom are older and out of school now and away from the culture that would apply peer pressure to do drugs because they are cool, 2 people still admit they would, an 11% increase. Among high school and university-aged kids, you can multiply that several times over, and then add in the people that won't admit it or think they wouldn't now, but then decide to try it.

So I'm right, thanks for playing.

So, you think grocery stores are going to suddenly start selling to minors when cocaine, meth and heroin is involved? Because they sure as hell aren't selling to minors when alcohol or tobacco is involved. They won't even sell them ******* spray paint. It must suck to be you, always wrong and shit, among other things.

[samurai007]

So, you think grocery stores are going to suddenly start selling to minors when cocaine, meth and heroin is involved? Because they sure as hell aren't selling to minors when alcohol or tobacco is involved. They won't even sell them ******* spray paint. It must suck to be you, always wrong and shit, among other things.

Riiiiight, high school kids never, ever get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes. All those kids who say they've used them are liars. :rolleyes:

[Spang]

Riiiiight, high school kids never, ever get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes. All those kids who say they've used them are liars. :rolleyes:

Kids are doing drugs right now. It's a lot easier for a kid to get drugs from a dealer who isn't going to card them, than from a grocery store clerk who will. Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop people from using them, but it will stop criminals from selling them. Illegal immigrants will no longer have a reason to smuggle drugs over our borders since people will be able to walk into any Wal-Mart and purchase an eight ball, along with a shotgun, two-dollar steaks and a carton of cigarettes. But never a Tupac album.

[spikeytx86]

Out of 17 people, most of whom are older and out of school now and away from the culture that would apply peer pressure to do drugs because they are cool, 2 people still admit they would, an 11% increase. Among high school and university-aged kids, you can multiply that several times over, and then add in the people that won't admit it or think they wouldn't now, but then decide to try it.

So I'm right, thanks for playing.
I voted yes because I don't do drugs now, and only smoked pot a few times in my life, the last time being seven years ago when I was 16. If it was legal and I was on Vacation or something and the occasion came up to smoke pot with absolutely zero legal or social consequence, then yeah I might.

If I wanted to very little is keeping me from doing it now. Getting high or wasted really isn't my thing though. I still have a six pack of Sam Adams going from February in my Fridge.

I just answered honestly. If it became fully legal like in the Netherlands I can't rule out that sometime in the future I would possibly smoke Pot Recreationally or Medicinally.

As for peer pressure, that's something I never experienced. I have been offered but everybody takes no for an answer. Given the price of pot no one is real pushy to share the stuff LOL.

[Spang]

I still have a six pack of Sam Adams going from February in my Fridge.

I'll buy it off you.

[samurai007]

Kids are doing drugs right now. It's a lot easier for a kid to get drugs from a dealer who isn't going to card them, than from a grocery store clerk who will. Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop people from using them, but it will stop criminals from selling them. Illegal immigrants will no longer have a reason to smuggle drugs over our borders since people will be able to walk into any Wal-Mart and purchase an eight ball, along with a shotgun, two-dollar steaks and a carton of cigarettes. But never a Tupac album.

Once again, you're dreaming. Legalization won't mean it'll show up in Walmart, because no legal company is going to touch it, for all the reasons I cited before. The main source is going to be the exact same drug dealers selling it now, from the exact same cross-border sources, but doing it openly and no longer fearing arrest, confiscation, or jail time.

[WASTRIC]

would TV ads for hard drugs be ok? or only ads for weed?

[greenleaf]

I didn't do drugs in the "turn on, tune in, drop out generation", I'm not about to start now.

I don't think legalizing drugs is the answer to the illegal immigration problem, but the issue does seem to divert the topic from immigration law enforcement.

Maybe we should start throwing out any law that we find difficult to enforce, how would that be?

I find it interesting that the same people who want to ban salt from restaurants in NY City are advocating the legalization of hard drugs.

[Laura Cereta]

If it was legal and I was on Vacation or something and the occasion came up to smoke pot with absolutely zero legal or social consequence, then yeah I might.

There will never be zero social consequences for drugs or many other behaviors that are perfectly legal. The legalization position is not advocating drug use; it's advocating sensible drug policy. I wish I had more time to get into various social consequences, which is a completely separate issue, but I'll have to address it later.

Once again, you're dreaming. Legalization won't mean it'll show up in Walmart, because no legal company is going to touch it, for all the reasons I cited before. The main source is going to be the exact same drug dealers selling it now, from the exact same cross-border sources, but doing it openly and no longer fearing arrest, confiscation, or jail time.

Again, care to source your expert opinions? How about this: can you find a dry county in the US that has a lower rate of alcoholism and alcohol related crime then a wet one? Start with that and see what conclusions you (should) come to.

[Foggy]

I can't vote in the poll, 'cause I'd have to say "I'd continue" to smoke weed now and then, laws be damned. Been smoking it for 39 years. Not as much as I used to, maybe once a month or so. Had a chest X-ray last week, no cancer TYVM. Weed is a lot better for you than alcohol.

And as a retailer, sure I'd be willing to sell it, if it were legalized.

[greenleaf]

I can't vote in the poll, 'cause I'd have to say "I'd continue" to smoke weed now and then, laws be damned. Been smoking it for 39 years. Not as much as I used to, maybe once a month or so. Had a chest X-ray last week, no cancer TYVM. Weed is a lot better for you than alcohol.

And as a retailer, sure I'd be willing to sell it, if it were legalized.

1-800-WEEDMAN perhaps? :D

Seriously, I didn't think the question was limited to pot.

[cinnamongirl]

I didn't do drugs in the "turn on, tune in, drop out generation", I'm not about to start now.

I don't think legalizing drugs is the answer to the illegal immigration problem, but the issue does seem to divert the topic from immigration law enforcement.

Maybe we should start throwing out any law that we find difficult to enforce, how would that be?

I find it interesting that the same people who want to ban salt from restaurants in NY City are advocating the legalization of hard drugs.

I don't think the primary argument is that drugs should be legalized because the laws are "difficult to enforce." The most common argument I've seen is that the so-called "war on drugs" has been entirely ineffective. Turning addicts into criminals hasn't reduced the number of addicts, nor has it reduced the quantity of drugs available to the public.

Changing the drug laws won't fix illegal immigration per se, but it gives us another way to take control of the issue. Unless the only solution is to pass draconian laws for the people already here, and banning immigrants from discussing their culture in public schools? I'm sure those will automatically dry up the flow of illegal immigrants, without us having to look at those pesky larger issues of commerce that contribute to the illegal immigration problem.

It seems to be a common straw man here that anyone who supports decriminalizing some drugs is automatically pushing for all free drugs, all the time. I've been surprised by the Chicken Little-style assertions that legalizing pot will somehow be the ruin of our society, or will lead to meth vending machines in the schools, or whatever.

I also don't remember anyone here saying that salt should be banned in NY--can you point me to that thread?

[greenleaf]

I don't think the primary argument is that drugs should be legalized because the laws are "difficult to enforce." The most common argument I've seen is that the so-called "war on drugs" has been entirely ineffective. Turning addicts into criminals hasn't reduced the number of addicts, nor has it reduced the quantity of drugs available to the public.

Changing the drug laws won't fix illegal immigration per se, but it gives us another way to take control of the issue. Unless the only solution is to pass draconian laws for the people already here, and banning immigrants from discussing their culture in public schools? I'm sure those will automatically dry up the flow of illegal immigrants, without us having to look at those pesky larger issues of commerce that contribute to the illegal immigration problem.

It seems to be a common straw man here that anyone who supports decriminalizing some drugs is automatically pushing for all free drugs, all the time. I've been surprised by the Chicken Little-style assertions that legalizing pot will somehow be the ruin of our society, or will lead to meth vending machines in the schools, or whatever.

I also don't remember anyone here saying that salt should be banned in NY--can you point me to that thread?

I wasn't referring to a poster, I was referring to New York City Assemblyman Felix Ortiz who proposed the measure. source (http://blog.timesunion.com/tablehopping/13889/assemblyman-seeking-to-ban-all-salt-in-restaurant-cooking/)

Talking about penalties for drug use would be a good topic, because in many cases they are too severe and even class based.

But the current question was asked in reference to the illegal immigration problem in Arizona. And it was not limited to pot because there are other drugs being trafficked.

Specifically the issue is whether the federal government is doing its job in regards to our borders?

[Foggy]

We've been fighting the War on Some Drugs for my entire adult lifetime.

After 40 years, there are more drugs, the drugs (especially weed) are more powerful, drugs are cheaper than when I was a kid, and their use is far more widespread. The only drug I couldn't find if I put my mind to it is Lebanese hashish, which disappeared during the civil war there.

In any way of measuring a war that I know of, the drugs are winning.


And legalizing them would create enough tax revenue to solve a lot of our governments' deficits.

[greenleaf]

I'll even fess up to some generalization here, because I don't know for a fact that Mr. Ortiz is supporting legalizing drugs.

I was lumping him in with the general Democratic talking points of the moment that seem to divert attention from the responsibility of the federal government.

But then I wasn't guilty of Chicken Little-style assertions either.

[foxyladi]

the only pot i grew up with was on the stove ..on a good day there was a chicken in that pot:D

[samurai007]

We've been fighting the War on Some Drugs for my entire adult lifetime.

After 40 years, there are more drugs, the drugs (especially weed) are more powerful, drugs are cheaper than when I was a kid, and their use is far more widespread. The only drug I couldn't find if I put my mind to it is Lebanese hashish, which disappeared during the civil war there.

In any way of measuring a war that I know of, the drugs are winning.


And legalizing them would create enough tax revenue to solve a lot of our governments' deficits.

We've been fighting the War on Murder for my entire adult lifetime.

After 40 years, there are more killings, the murders are more gruesome, and murder is far more widespread.

In any way of measuring a war that I know of, the murderers are winning.


And legalizing murder would create enough tax revenue to solve a lot of our governments' deficits.

/sarcasm

[Foggy]

:rotfl: Good one.

Lucky for me, I have to go run an errand for an hour.

Gives me a chance to think up some kinda lame response. @};-

[samurai007]

I don't think the primary argument is that drugs should be legalized because the laws are "difficult to enforce." The most common argument I've seen is that the so-called "war on drugs" has been entirely ineffective. Turning addicts into criminals hasn't reduced the number of addicts, nor has it reduced the quantity of drugs available to the public.

Changing the drug laws won't fix illegal immigration per se, but it gives us another way to take control of the issue. Unless the only solution is to pass draconian laws for the people already here, and banning immigrants from discussing their culture in public schools? I'm sure those will automatically dry up the flow of illegal immigrants, without us having to look at those pesky larger issues of commerce that contribute to the illegal immigration problem.

It seems to be a common straw man here that anyone who supports decriminalizing some drugs is automatically pushing for all free drugs, all the time. I've been surprised by the Chicken Little-style assertions that legalizing pot will somehow be the ruin of our society, or will lead to meth vending machines in the schools, or whatever.

I also don't remember anyone here saying that salt should be banned in NY--can you point me to that thread?

The part I bolded is the crux of this thread. Has it really been ENTIRELY ineffective, or only partially effective? In other words, is every single person who wants to use drugs doing so now, or are some people deterred by the fact that it's illegal and carries large penalties, and because at least some of the supply is captured and destroyed by police?

If you believe the former, then you believe legalization won't increase the number of drug users. If you believe the latter, you believe drug use would increase with legalization.

Well, IMO, while cops have a very hard time stopping crime (they are mostly designed to respond to it and catch the crooks, not prevent the crime), there is a deterrence effect of having it illegal. I definitely believe legalization would increase use because not everyone who wants to do it is willing to risk it.

[Brooke]

No, I have never and will never use drugs no matter if they were legal or not. Cigarettes are legal and I have never smoked either.

Horizon, you really need to be careful. My mom case manages nurses here in NJ and she's dealt with lots of nurses who have lost their licenses just for getting caught with pot. Every state has a program like this.

[vagabond]

"After 40 years, there are more killings, the murders are more gruesome, and murder is far more widespread.
In any way of measuring a war that I know of, the murderers are winning."

Percentage wise, I doubt there is more murder now, than before.

The thing is, there would still be laws to abide by, as in alcohol selling and using. Also, there would be tax money charged the 'recreational' drug selling/buying that could be put to good use for treating addiction and policing crime.

Right now, our police forces are under-funded while the drug cartels are gaining a gluton of wealth. That's a no-win scenario anyway we look at it.

Business corporations or Drug Cartels, which sould we prefer get our citizens money?

[samurai007]

"After 40 years, there are more killings, the murders are more gruesome, and murder is far more widespread.

In any way of measuring a war that I know of, the murderers are winning."

Percentage wise, I doubt there is more murder now, than before.

The thing is, there would still be laws to abide by, as in alchohol selling and using. Also, there would be tax money charged the 'recreational' drug selling/buying that could be put to good use for treating addiction and policing crime.

Right now, our police forces are under-funded while the drug cartels are gaining a gluton of wealth. That's a no-win scenario anyway we look at it.

Business corporations or Drug Cartels, which sould we prefer get our citizens money?
And, yet again I point out, no ID will be checked and no tax money will be collected on most drug sales, because street corner dealers don't pay taxes or check ID, and no business corporation is going to enter the business in any large scale.

All legalization will do is make drug dealing more profitable and less hassle for the exact same dealers that are selling it now.

Where did this utopian view come from?

[Foggy]

And, yet again I point out, no ID will be checked and no tax money will be collected on most drug sales, because street corner dealers don't pay taxes or check ID, and no business corporation is going to enter the business in any large scale.Yes, business corporation folks are widely known for their refusal to sell us anything that might be harmful ... :laughing:

[Jim744]

No, I never would. I don't like the idea of being out of control. I had to have morphine once in the hospital due to a very painful injury and when I started feeling wonky, I told them to stop giving it to me. I didn't like the way it made me feel.

But, legalizing drugs will only help create an underground market for cheap and possibly unsafe drugs by newcomers and those who are already in the business of selling drugs I believe. If the price differential is good, then many will probably go underground and smugglers will still be bringing drugs in.

Also, there are some drugs that are so harmful, they wouldn't be legalized I'm almost certain and those drugs will still be smuggled and sold illegally.

[vagabond]

Explain to me why alcohol is legal and recreational drugs should not be?

There will always be people who will prefer the easier way (break the law).
So, legal or not, the law will be broken by someone.

Should that be the measurement that is used?

It is about taxing the business of it, and it IS a business.

Added: When alcohol was illegal, we had mobs that controlled the sale and distribution of it. Mob kingpins benefitted. That wasn't as good a situation as making it legal. There is still boot legged alcohol being made and ways that underaged people get beer, etc. but all in all, the country gets a lot of taxes from the business and regulation of alcohol.

It is a missed opportunity to have the illlegal drug business contribute, as a business, to our tax base.

[samurai007]

Yes, business corporation folks are widely known for their refusal to sell us anything that might be harmful ... :laughing:

Let's say you are a wealthy, upstanding, pay-all-your-taxes businessman. You have several million dollars to invest in a new start-up business. Suddenly, drugs are legalized in a very highly controversial and contentious party-line vote. If you invest those millions starting a "recreational drug company", you need to consider that a) the law may well be overturned in 2-4 years as soon as the other party takes power and your investment will be lost, b) you'll be competing with entrenched interests who are literally willing to kill people who compete with them and who already have an extensive supply network and customer base, c) you'll be hated, reviled, and protested by a fairly large segment of the population, d) you'll be responsible for knowingly destroying peoples' lives and won't be able to hide behind the "no one knew" claims of the cigarette companies, so you're looking at massive lawsuits.

So, taking that all into consideration, what intelligent businessman is going to invest in that?

[Jim744]

Explain to me why alcohol is legal and recreational drugs should not be?

There will always be people who will prefer the easier way (break the law).
So, legal or not, the law will be broken by someone.

Should that be the measurement that is used?

It is about taxing the business of it, and it IS a business.

I don't know much about illegal drugs except what I hear and see in anti-drug ads on TV and it appears that some are horrific, disfiguring the body, that sort of thing.

I don't have a clue which drugs are safe and would not impair a person's ability to drive (like alcohol) or do a job safely and effectively.

[LadyLazarus]

I find this whole discussion hilarious. It's like people just have no idea how many drugs are actually sold legally in Walmart that are made by Big Pharma and "approved" by the FDA. Drugs that kill people every year. Drugs that include long lists of side effects. And every year people die from prescription drugs. Every year people become addicted to substances prescribed legally by their doctors. Because these drugs are obtained "legally" does that make them any less harmful? No. I can go to the dentist and come back with a bottle of Vicodin. They now know that Vicodin--the combination of Hydrocodone and Acetaminophen-- is extremely dangerous and causes serious liver damage, but they've been handing it out like candy to anyone who would take it for years. The FDA just decided to pull both Vicoden and Percocet, two of the most widely used drugs in the world, off the market because of how damaging and addicting they are. So all you have to do is look at the list of side-effects on any drug prescribed legally and then tell me how they are any different from weed, meth, or oxy.

Whether something is legal or not has no bearing on its safety. And like a bunch of hypocrites, we are all consuming tons of legal drugs every year and then have the nerve to act shocked or appalled that some other drugs could become legal as well. The "war on drugs" isn't about protecting people or saving lives: it's about protecting revenue streams and keeping people rich. Jesus . . . this is just a stupid-ass discussion.

[LadyLazarus]

We've been fighting the War on Murder for my entire adult lifetime.

After 40 years, there are more killings, the murders are more gruesome, and murder is far more widespread.

In any way of measuring a war that I know of, the murderers are winning.


And legalizing murder would create enough tax revenue to solve a lot of our governments' deficits.

/sarcasm

It would be really awesome if you could ever engage in an argument without resorting to a logical fallacy. Here you've employed a faulty analogy.

1) We haven't declared war on murder. That would be pointless and stupid since "murder" isn't a substance you can actually declare war on. You declare war on persons or things (you know, nouns, noun phrases, and quasi-substantives, not verbs). The nominal form of the verb "to murder" still means committing an act. Drugs cannot ever commit acts because, um, well, they're not agents, but objects.

2) Murder is always a crime that one citizen/individual commits against another unwilling victim. Murder is always harmful to people, which is why it is an illegal act. Drugs are not crimes. Rather, drugs are substances that citizens/individuals take voluntarily and can be both beneficial and harmful. One act results in taking away or denying a citizen's basic right to life; use of the other object ensures an individual's basic liberty and/or right to privacy, i.e., the freedom to do what you want with your own body without government intrusion or intervention. Thus, murder and drugs are not analogous.

[Jim744]

Each legal drug in and of itself is relatively safe. Combining them without knowing what might result is dangerous. When I get prescriptions and the dr. needs to add a new one for example, he always consults his little book and I always ask about interactions or side effects.

That legal drugs kill many people is not the issue when it comes to illegal drugs.

For instance (I believe it's heroin, crack) that messes up people's heads and bodies, manifests itself in ruined teeth or no teeth at all, facial deformities, etc.

Are there any legal prescription drugs which do this? None that I know of.

One person's opinion of a stupid discussion might be another's opinion of some enlightenment, information and opinion. *shrugs*

Abuse of illegal drugs (and in some cases legal) results in millions if not billions of dollars being spent on rehabilitation and more. It isn't a human rights issue like most are when the misuse of these drugs destroys families, neighborhoods, causes nurses and doctors to have to deal with a druggie patient, etc.

The reason we regulate seat belt use is to protect the individual and to reduce the likelihood of serious injury requiring more medical attention, expense, etc.

With illegal drugs if legalized, people will still abuse them (those who would now). I don't see any benefit to legalization.

[greenleaf]

I find this whole discussion hilarious. It's like people just have no idea how many drugs are actually sold legally in Walmart that are made by Big Pharma and "approved" by the FDA. Drugs that kill people every year. Drugs that include long lists of side effects. And every year people die from prescription drugs. Every year people become addicted to substances prescribed legally by their doctors. Because these drugs are obtained "legally" does that make them any less harmful? No. I can go to the dentist and come back with a bottle of Vicodin. They now know that Vicodin--the combination of Hydrocodone and Acetaminophen-- is extremely dangerous and causes serious liver damage, but they've been handing it out like candy to anyone who would take it for years. The FDA just decided to pull both Vicoden and Percocet, two of the most widely used drugs in the world, off the market because of how damaging and addicting they are. So all you have to do is look at the list of side-effects on any drug prescribed legally and then tell me how they are any different from weed, meth, or oxy.

Whether something is legal or not has no bearing on its safety. And like a bunch of hypocrites, we are all consuming tons of legal drugs every year and then have the nerve to act shocked or appalled that some other drugs could become legal as well. The "war on drugs" isn't about protecting people or saving lives: it's about protecting revenue streams and keeping people rich. Jesus . . . this is just a stupid-ass discussion.

So what is your answer? Should we pull more unsafe drugs off the legal prescription market?
Would you allow those that remain to be sold legally by anyone without the doctor's supervision that prescriptions provide?

[LadyLazarus]

Each legal drug in and of itself is relatively safe. Combining them without knowing what might result is dangerous. When I get prescriptions and the dr. needs to add a new one for example, he always consults his little book and I always ask about interactions or side effects.

That legal drugs kill many people is not the issue when it comes to illegal drugs.

For instance (I believe it's heroin, crack) that messes up people's heads and bodies, manifests itself in ruined teeth or no teeth at all, facial deformities, etc.

Are there any legal prescription drugs which do this? None that I know of.


This is an example of the ignorance we are dealing with when it comes to prescription drugs. Again, I dare you to look at the list of side-effects from any prescription drug. The fact that it is not sold over the counter tells you that even Big Pharma knows how damaging the drug is.

In ancient Greece, the same word, Pharmakon, was used to describe both medicine and poison. Every medicine has the potential to become a poison, i.e., anything that is potentially safe in small quantities can become noxious in larger quantities, which is why you can die from over-dosing on Tylenol or Advil. Even vitamins are potentially "dangerous," so there is no point in trying to pretend there is a logical difference or rigid cut-off between drugs that are legal and those that aren't. Beyond this, every drug interacts with individuals' biochemistry differently.

The point is that you are kidding yourself if you believe the AMA and Big Pharma aren't drug dealers or that they are selling and making a fortune off drugs that are any safer for you than the ones off the street. In fact, I actually trust the ones on the street more than the ones my doctor tries to give me. AMA in conjunction with Big Pharma are nothing but pimps pushing more product. It's the doctors, AMA, and Big Pharma that have turned this country into a nation of addicts.

[spikeytx86]

There will never be zero social consequences for drugs or many other behaviors that are perfectly legal. The legalization position is not advocating drug use; it's advocating sensible drug policy. I wish I had more time to get into various social consequences, which is a completely separate issue, but I'll have to address it later.


Oh I totally agree, I was just giving a reason behind my yes vote that yeah sure if it was legal sometime in the future I might perhaps smoke pot again, but I might not too. But I couldn't rule it out that until the day I die I might not ever use Marijuana again. I could have to do it for a legitimate medical reason, who knows.

In net if Drugs were legalized I think in the long term use would plummet. You might have a short term bump in the beginning, but in the long run the taboo and mystery will be gone.

I drank a ton before I turned 21, after that, I hardly ever touch the stuff. The taboo is gone. The same thing will happen with Drugs. You always want what you can't have.

[sojourner]

Oh I totally agree, I was just giving a reason behind my yes vote that yeah sure if it was legal sometime in the future I might perhaps smoke pot again, but I might not too. But I couldn't rule it out that until the day I die I might not ever use Marijuana again. I could have to do it for a legitimate medical reason, who knows.

In net if Drugs were legalized I think in the long term use would plummet. You might have a short term bump in the beginning, but in the long run the taboo and mystery will be gone.

I drank a ton before I turned 21, after that, I hardly ever touch the stuff. The taboo is gone. The same thing will happen with Drugs. You always want what you can't have.

You must be kidding. You think that alcohol consumption went down when prohibition of alcohol was repealed?

[mack20]

I voted yes because I don't do drugs now, and only smoked pot a few times in my life, the last time being seven years ago when I was 16. If it was legal and I was on Vacation or something and the occasion came up to smoke pot with absolutely zero legal or social consequence, then yeah I might.

If I wanted to very little is keeping me from doing it now. Getting high or wasted really isn't my thing though. I still have a six pack of Sam Adams going from February in my Fridge.

I just answered honestly. If it became fully legal like in the Netherlands I can't rule out that sometime in the future I would possibly smoke Pot Recreationally or Medicinally.

As for peer pressure, that's something I never experienced. I have been offered but everybody takes no for an answer. Given the price of pot no one is real pushy to share the stuff LOL.

This is pretty much the answer I would have given.

[Laura Cereta]

I've been surprised by the Chicken Little-style assertions that legalizing pot will somehow be the ruin of our society, or will lead to meth vending machines in the schools, or whatever.

I literally laughed out loud at this sentence! :D Of course, on a not so humorous note, who needs meth vending machines when the family pediatrician will hand out the stuff like candy? Think: Ritalin, Adderall, Dexedrine, etc. Little Johnny isn't paying attention in class? Just give him some high-powered synthetic methamphetamine and it's all good... oh and make sure you vote "NO" on that marijuana legalization amendment; we don't want our children on drugs!

[sojourner]

I literally laughed out loud at this sentence! :D Of course, on a not so humorous note, who needs meth vending machines when the family pediatrician will hand out the stuff like candy? Think: Ritalin, Adderall, Dexedrine, etc. Little Johnny isn't paying attention in class? Just give him some high-powered synthetic methamphetamine and it's all good... oh and make sure you vote "NO" on that marijuana legalization amendment; we don't want our children on drugs!

So your argument is that since legal drugs are misused we should approve illegal drugs?

[Laura Cereta]

So your argument is that since legal drugs are misused we should approve illegal drugs?

Is that a serious question? I presented the short form of my argument in a previous post.

EDIT: read here (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/discussion/showpost.php?p=729668&postcount=13) and here (http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/discussion/showpost.php?p=729670&postcount=15).

[Spang]

Is that a serious question?

No, it never is. sojourner gave up on being serious a long time ago.

[sojourner]

Is that a serious question? I presented the short form of my argument in a previous post. I just couldn't come up for another reason for you to inject them into the conversation.

Maybe it was an off topic aside.

[Laura Cereta]

I just couldn't come up for another reason for you to inject them into the conversation.

Maybe it was an off topic aside.

I "injected" them into the conversation because before getting all up in arms about the idea of implementing sensible drug policy, we need to take an honest look at the damage already being done by legal drugs. It's not about two wrongs make a right, but it's also not so black and white that if the government decides it shouldn't be legal, it's "bad," but if a doctor prescribes it, it's "fine." There are many aspects to this discussion that bear examining.

[Valin]

Been there...Done That...Got the T-Shirt.

[Valin]

Hiring a Mexican would be cheaper and healthier.

Wow, that was pretty racist of you.

Something about his reply surprises you VotingHillary?

[Spang]

Something about his reply surprises you VotingHillary?

So, hiring a Mexican wouldn't be cheaper and healthier than abusing drugs?

[sojourner]

Been there...Done That...Got the T-Shirt.

I wore my T-shirt out. I am thinking maybe I need a new one.

[sojourner]

Which drugs would you start using?

The most likely would be Marijuana. No other hallucinogens/psychedelics, I have seen too many bad experiences with them, plus even some over the counter medications affect me in strange ways. Maybe opiates. I don't handle alcohol well. Who knows why, maybe because I have some American Indian blood in me, maybe because I have an addictive personality. I doubt that legalizing drugs would be good news for me.

[Suzan]

I "injected" them into the conversation because before getting all up in arms about the idea of implementing sensible drug policy, we need to take an honest look at the damage already being done by legal drugs. It's not about two wrongs make a right, but it's also not so black and white that if the government decides it shouldn't be legal, it's "bad," but if a doctor prescribes it, it's "fine." There are many aspects to this discussion that bear examining.
Well said!

[cinnamongirl]

I literally laughed out loud at this sentence! :D Of course, on a not so humorous note, who needs meth vending machines when the family pediatrician will hand out the stuff like candy? Think: Ritalin, Adderall, Dexedrine, etc. Little Johnny isn't paying attention in class? Just give him some high-powered synthetic methamphetamine and it's all good... oh and make sure you vote "NO" on that marijuana legalization amendment; we don't want our children on drugs!

Don't forget mommy's sleeping pills, or daddy's Viagra. (BTW, does a drug get more "recreational" than that?) We're already knee-deep in drugs, as you've already stated so clearly. Creating artificial distinctions does nothing but make us feel better about our little bottles.

[sojourner]

I "injected" them into the conversation because before getting all up in arms about the idea of implementing sensible drug policy, we need to take an honest look at the damage already being done by legal drugs. It's not about two wrongs make a right, but it's also not so black and white that if the government decides it shouldn't be legal, it's "bad," but if a doctor prescribes it, it's "fine." There are many aspects to this discussion that bear examining.
True but I am not sure how much they overlap and how relevant the discussions are to each other.

I agree that there are problems with legal drugs including over prescription and the ease with which they find their way onto the street. I would seem that problems with legal drugs would caution against legalizing any additional drugs for over the counter sales.

If we limit the discussion to marijuana, I don't know how relevant the problems with legal drugs are. It seems to me to parallel the prohibition of alcohol and legalizing it is the lesser of two evils.

[Suzan]

Let's say you are a wealthy, upstanding, pay-all-your-taxes businessman. You have several million dollars to invest in a new start-up business. Suddenly, drugs are legalized in a very highly controversial and contentious party-line vote. If you invest those millions starting a "recreational drug company", you need to consider that a) the law may well be overturned in 2-4 years as soon as the other party takes power and your investment will be lost, b) you'll be competing with entrenched interests who are literally willing to kill people who compete with them and who already have an extensive supply network and customer base, c) you'll be hated, reviled, and protested by a fairly large segment of the population, d) you'll be responsible for knowingly destroying peoples' lives and won't be able to hide behind the "no one knew" claims of the cigarette companies, so you're looking at massive lawsuits.

So, taking that all into consideration, what intelligent businessman is going to invest in that?
Why would the front men need to be intelligent businessmen? I'm thinking something on the order of porn czars, financed by shrewd business types through LLCs. Porn is a $10 billion dollar industry. Legal drugs would be at least that.

Some of the wealthiest dynasties in this country were started by men who were once robber barons and bootleggers with connections to the underworld.

[sojourner]

Some of the wealthiest dynasties in this country were started by men who were once robber barons and bootleggers with connections to the underworld. Like the Kennedy family?

[samurai007]

I "injected" them into the conversation because before getting all up in arms about the idea of implementing sensible drug policy, we need to take an honest look at the damage already being done by legal drugs. It's not about two wrongs make a right, but it's also not so black and white that if the government decides it shouldn't be legal, it's "bad," but if a doctor prescribes it, it's "fine." There are many aspects to this discussion that bear examining.

If you're worried about being inconsistent, I'd rather ban the destructive legal drugs than legalize the destructive illegal ones.

And by saying "but if a doctor prescribes it, it's fine", aren't you in effect pointing out what I've said before, that legalization will give the false impression that these drugs are fine and safe to use? That's entirely the wrong message to give to kids.

[Laura Cereta]

If you're worried about being inconsistent, I'd rather ban the destructive legal drugs than legalize the destructive illegal ones.

And by saying "but if a doctor prescribes it, it's fine", aren't you in effect pointing out what I've said before, that legalization will give the false impression that these drugs are fine and safe to use? That's entirely the wrong message to give to kids.

Read the post again. That's the opposite of what I said.

[samurai007]

Read the post again. That's the opposite of what I said.

I didn't say that the drug is fine, I said that you rightly pointed out that the PERCEPTION, the false impression, is that the drug is fine, which was my point.

[samurai007]

By the way, if all these drug companies are just itching to make billions of dollars on feel-good recreational drugs, why haven't any of them done so yet? There are artificial duplicates of many drugs, some used to treat addicts and get them off the real stuff. Surely a company that really wanted to could come up with a way to market some "happy juice" that gives a euphoric high but contains no illegal substances. Why hasn't any of them done so, if there is so much profit in it? Coca Cola used to have real cocaine in the drink, but took it out... why haven't they created an artificial substitute and marketed Coke Coke? What are they waiting for, the ability to use real meth, heroin, and coke? There's no need for that, there are plenty of substitutes out there. Maybe it's because they know what would happen if they did?

[Laura Cereta]

By the way, if all these drug companies are just itching to make billions of dollars on feel-good recreational drugs, why haven't any of them done so yet?

What do you mean they haven't done it yet??? Who do you think produces Oxycontin? (morphine, roxy's, percocet, ativan, valium, adderall, xanax, klonopin, percodan, dexedrine, etc., etc, etc...)

[samurai007]

What do you mean they haven't done it yet??? Who do you think produces Oxycontin? (morphine, roxy's, percocet, ativan, valium, adderall, xanax, klonopin, percodan, dexedrine, etc., etc, etc...)

You can just walk into Walmart and buy those for a recreational high? No, you can't.

By the way, if all these drug companies are just itching to make billions of dollars on feel-good recreational drugs, why haven't any of them done so yet?

[sojourner]

What do you mean they haven't done it yet??? Who do you think produces Oxycontin? (morphine, roxy's, percocet, ativan, valium, adderall, xanax, klonopin, percodan, dexedrine, etc., etc, etc...)
morphine?

[Laura Cereta]

You can just walk into Walmart and buy those for a recreational high? No, you can't.

Do you know how easy it is to get a prescription? Yes, people are absolutely walking into Wal-Mart and buying them for recreational highs, or more accurately because they are addicted and willl go through withdraws if they do not continue using. Tampa, FL alone has over 30 pain clinics that take cash only. They will hand out prescriptions to anyone.

[Laura Cereta]

morphine?

Yes, morphine is an opiate, as are all narcotic painkillers, hence the name "narcotic."

[greenleaf]

Do you know how easy it is to get a prescription? Yes, people are absolutely walking into Wal-Mart and buying them for recreational highs, or more accurately because they are addicted and willl go through withdraws if they do not continue using. Tampa, FL alone has over 30 pain clinics that take cash only. They will hand out prescriptions to anyone.

I think this is another discussion where the differences among the states are coloring opinions.

For those in New York with conditions that require pain medications, the state regulation is very, very tight. Most doctors will not prescribe long term pain meds. Long term use requires a pain specialist doctor and a change in prescription requires returning any unused meds before the new one can be honored. The state oversees the number of pills dispensed to such an extent that if a patient accidentally damages or losses meds it is nearly impossible to rectify. The controlled substance laws in NY are very tight.



And, as a correction, the previously mentioned attempt to ban salt from restaurants was for all NY State restaurants.


NY Dept. of Health/Narcotic Enforcement (http://www.health.state.ny.us/professionals/narcotic/)

[sojourner]

Yes, morphine is an opiate, as are all narcotic painkillers, hence the name "narcotic."

Yes it is an opiate, but it is not a designer drug and it wasn't invented by a pharmaceutical company. I doubt that they are the source of much of the opiates on the street.

[vagabond]

hope this is okay to do.

Comparing Important Drug and Violence Indicators

Social Indicator Comparison Year USA vs. Netherlands

Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9% (USA) 17.0% (Nehterland)

Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4% (USA) 3.0% (Netheralnd)

Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.4% (USA) 0.4% (Netherland)

Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 701 (USA) 100 (Netheralnd)

Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 €379 (USA) €223 (Netherland)

Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001 5.56 (USA) 1.51 (Netheralnd)


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67

[sojourner]

hope this is okay to do.

Comparing Important Drug and Violence Indicators

Social Indicator Comparison Year USA vs. Netherlands

Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9% (USA) 17.0% (Nehterland)

Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4% (USA) 3.0% (Netheralnd)

Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.4% (USA) 0.4% (Netherland)

Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 701 (USA) 100 (Netheralnd)

Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 €379 (USA) €223 (Netherland)

Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001 5.56 (USA) 1.51 (Netheralnd)


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67

Interesting data. I am just not sure what conclusions we can draw.

[Laura Cereta]

Interesting data. I am just not sure what conclusions we can draw.

I'm not either. Although, I would think that marijuana use causing violence would be a faulty conclusion, as it is not medically known to do so. Plus, I have never seen it as a factor in a violent crime unless the issue is sales. Although, technically marijuana is a stimulant. I mean, I've never seen an arrest report that went, "Mr. X, who later admitted to being under the influence of marijuana, went after his wife, Mrs. X, with a shovel that she later stated he initially found in their shed."

[Laura Cereta]

Yes it is an opiate, but it is not a designer drug and it wasn't invented by a pharmaceutical company. I doubt that they are the source of much of the opiates on the street.

Lol, you don't think? You would not believe the stories I hear. In fact the latest rage is fentanyl gel patches. People are supposed to wear them for pain relief and instead they cut them open and let the gel dissolve in their gums to get high.

[Laura Cereta]

All of Us Use Drugs, But Only Some of Us Go to Jail (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/146971/all_of_us_use_drugs%2C_but_only_some_of_us_go_to_j ail/)
22 May 2010, AlterNet

Despite a $40 billion a year "war on drugs" that is premised on the goal of creating a "drug-free society," our country is swimming in drugs.

Most people start using drugs before they even leave the house in the morning. Yes, that first cup of coffee is what many of us need to start the day. The next drug that millions of Americans use, sometimes up to 20 times a day, is our nicotine! And then, after a long day of work, many of us head to a local bar or to our refrigerator and pour ourselves a cocktail, ice cold beer or a nice glass of wine.

And I'm just getting started. There are over 100 million Americans who have used marijuana. Thirty years after Nancy Reagan told us to "Just Say No," half of high-school seniors will try marijuana and 75% will try alcohol before they graduate. And what about the college students who use Ritalin to help them focus and put in long hours at the library? And how about all of the superstar athletes who use performance enhancing substances? What about all of the men (and women) who are deeply grateful forthe "little blue pill"? And how about the businessmen who stay up until three in the morning with the help of a "little bump"?

Drugs are so popular because people use them for both pleasure and for pain. Drugs can be fun. How many of us enjoy having some drinks and going out dancing? How many of us enjoy a little smoke after a nice dinner with friends? Many people bond with others or find inspiration alone while under the influence of drugs. On the flip side, many people self-medicate to try to ease the pain in their lives. How many have us have had too much to drink to drown our sorrows over a breakup or some other painful event? How many of us smoke cigarettes or take prescription drugs to deal with anxiety or stress? Throughout recorded history, people have inevitably altered their consciousness to fall asleep, wake up, deal with stress, and for creative and spiritual purposes.

While it is clear that drug use doesn't discriminate and the majority of us are using one drug or another, the reality is that the war on drug users does discriminate. More than 1.8 million people are arrested every year on nonviolent drug charges. In New York City, "moderate" Mayor Bloomberg's police arrested close to 50,000 people for marijuana possession in 2009 - and 87% of those arrested were black and Latino, despite similar rates of marijuana use as whites. The reason for the discrepancy is that the NYPD stops and frisks blacks and Latinos - but not white people. Last week the New York Times ran a front page story that showed blacks and Latinos were nine times more likely to be frisked than whites.

The racist enforcement of drug laws is not limited to just New York or just marijuana. Thanks to the mass incarceration of people for nonviolent drug law violations, the U.S. is the world's leading jailer. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population but has 25% of the world's prison population. Nationally, blacks are 13 times more likely to be incarcerated on drug charges as whites, despite similar rates of drug use.Continues @ link...

[Laura Cereta]

3 Yes, 21 No

[Laura Cereta]

I think this is another discussion where the differences among the states are coloring opinions.


That's true. I wouldn't call NY drug laws "tight," though; I would call them draconian.

[greenleaf]

The Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations released a report 5/21/2010 that gives statistical snapshots of substance abuse treatment in 27 metropolitan areas.

It may or may not back up a particular opinion, but if you're interested in stats and charts it's online here (http://oas.samhsa.gov/metro/metro.cfm).

[sojourner]

The Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations released a report 5/21/2010 that gives statistical snapshots of substance abuse treatment in 27 metropolitan areas.

It may or may not back up a particular opinion, but if you're interested in stats and charts it's online here (http://oas.samhsa.gov/metro/metro.cfm).

Nice find. There is a lot of information there and will take a while to digest.

[Laura Cereta]

The Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations released a report 5/21/2010 that gives statistical snapshots of substance abuse treatment in 27 metropolitan areas.

It may or may not back up a particular opinion, but if you're interested in stats and charts it's online here (http://oas.samhsa.gov/metro/metro.cfm).

Interesting analysis. I noticed the regional differences right away. Painkillers (legal opiates) are at a high rate in the south, as is "smoked cocaine" (aka crack, which has very little cocaine in it, BTW), while the northeast has a high rate of heroin use, and the west has a monopoly on the meth use.

[Laura Cereta]

It would be really awesome if you could ever engage in an argument without resorting to a logical fallacy. Here you've employed a faulty analogy.

1) We haven't declared war on murder. That would be pointless and stupid since "murder" isn't a substance you can actually declare war on. You declare war on persons or things (you know, nouns, noun phrases, and quasi-substantives, not verbs). The nominal form of the verb "to murder" still means committing an act. Drugs cannot ever commit acts because, um, well, they're not agents, but objects.

2) Murder is always a crime that one citizen/individual commits against another unwilling victim. Murder is always harmful to people, which is why it is an illegal act. Drugs are not crimes. Rather, drugs are substances that citizens/individuals take voluntarily and can be both beneficial and harmful. One act results in taking away or denying a citizen's basic right to life; use of the other object ensures an individual's basic liberty and/or right to privacy, i.e., the freedom to do what you want with your own body without government intrusion or intervention. Thus, murder and drugs are not analogous.

Very good point that I'd like to come back to, but with a slightly different spin. Is the War on Drugs a war on a substance? Really? Let's substitue the word "rugs" for "drugs" and see how much sense it makes:

The United States of America is launching the War on Rugs! We will combat rug use in every corner of our society. We will fund the treatment and prevention of rug abuse. We will find the rug suppliers and run them out of business. We envision a world without rugs, where all the children are safe (to fall on the hardwood floors and break their kneecaps).

The War on Drugs is not a war on a substance but a war waged against people. Every year the U.S. spends billions of dollars engaged in a war perpetrated against its own citizens.

“If there is a war on drugs then many of our own family members are the enemy, and I don’t know how you wage war on your own family.” – Michael Douglas as Drug Czar Robert Wakefield in Traffic

[samurai007]

Drugs are a substance, drug use and trafficking are behaviors, drug dealers are people, etc. You can't narrow it all down to just 1 thing. Similarly, terrorists, terrorism, Al Queda specifically, attacks against America, etc run the gamut from people to ideologies to specific actions or behavior. We are at war with all of it. And in case you think it's just modern conflicts that are fuzzy, was the War of Independence about fighting foreign tyranny and taxation without representation, or the guys in red coats? Was WW2 about fighting fascism/Nazism/Japanese imperialism or fighting back against those who attacked out country and those of our allies?

[Laura Cereta]

Drugs are a substance, drug use and trafficking are behaviors, drug dealers are people, etc. You can't narrow it all down to just 1 thing. Similarly, terrorists, terrorism, Al Queda specifically, attacks against America, etc run the gamut from people to ideologies to specific actions or behavior. We are at war with all of it. And in case you think it's just modern conflicts that are fuzzy, was the War of Independence about fighting foreign tyranny and taxation without representation, or the guys in red coats? Was WW2 about fighting fascism/Nazism/Japanese imperialism or fighting back against those who attacked out country and those of our allies?

You can't separate ideas or objects from people. If there were not people to perpetrate tyranny, fascism, and imperialism, there would have been no wars fought over these concepts. The concepts became action only by people implementing them and it was the action that was deemed unacceptable. Even the Cold War, which is often described as a war of ideas, was fought based on fear of the actions of human beings who subscribed to such ideas. Wars are always fought against living creatures.

[samurai007]

You can't separate ideas or objects from people. If there were not people to perpetrate tyranny, fascism, and imperialism, there would have been no wars fought over these concepts. The concepts became action only by people implementing them and it was the action that was deemed unacceptable. Even the Cold War, which is often described as a war of ideas, was fought based on fear of the actions of human beings who subscribed to such ideas. Wars are always fought against living creatures.

The physical war is against people, but it's usually to stop an ideology or behavior. We weren't out to genocidally kill each and every German and Japanese person in WW2, were were opposed to their leaders' expansionist ideologies, and once those leaders surrendered, we stopped fighting and even helped them rebuild. Similarly, when drug dealers stop dealing, drug users stop using, traffickers stop smuggling it in, etc, we are willing to give them help, but until then, they are the human targets in the war on drugs.

[Laura Cereta]

Similarly, when drug dealers stop dealing, drug users stop using, traffickers stop smuggling it in, etc, we are willing to give them help, but until then, they are the human targets in the war on drugs.

If they're not dealing or using, why would they need "help?"

This post seriously cracks me up! :D

[sojourner]

If they're not dealing or using, why would they need "help?"

For the same reason they started in the first place.

[Laura Cereta]

For the same reason they started in the first place.

What would that be? What do you think of the American Medical Association's and the DSM IV's defintion of alcoholism/drug addiction: a fatal, progressive brain disease? If I get cancer, can I just stop having cancer without treatment?

[sojourner]

What would that be? What do you think of the American Medical Association's and the DSM IV's defintion of alcoholism/drug addiction: a fatal, progressive brain disease? If I get cancer, can I just stop having cancer without treatment?

Do you really think that has anything to do with why they started dealing in the first place? Could social conditions play a part and will they not still exist if drugs are legalized?

[Laura Cereta]

Do you really think that has anything to do with why they started dealing in the first place? Could social conditions play a part and will they not still exist if drugs are legalized?

As a conservative capitalist, don't you believe in free market competition? If drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed reasonably, then it would take out a large portion of the black market. You can argue that dealers could win the price competition war, which is true, but they would have much less of a consumer base to deal with based on various repercussions of buying a product off the street. I do believe social conditions play a part in dealing, but those conditions would manifest themselves in other ways eventually.

[Suzan]

As a conservative capitalist, don't you believe in free market competition? If drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed reasonably, then it would take out a large portion of the black market. You can argue that dealers could win the price competition war, which is true, but they would have much less of a consumer base to deal with based on various repercussions of buying a product off the street. I do believe social conditions play a part in dealing, but those conditions would manifest themselves in other ways eventually.

Based on my conversation with Sam, even free-market capitalists wouldn't touch the drug trade because of the risk/reward ratio. Drugs are too risky.

Me, I'm not buying it. I think it's their way of opting out of any "free" markets they find unsavory. :p

[sojourner]

As a conservative capitalist, don't you believe in free market competition? If drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed reasonably, then it would take out a large portion of the black market. You can argue that dealers could win the price competition war, which is true, but they would have much less of a consumer base to deal with based on various repercussions of buying a product off the street. I do believe social conditions play a part in dealing, but those conditions would manifest themselves in other ways eventually.

I agree with all that. You ask, "If they're not dealing or using, why would they need "help?" I just answered it and I think your post supports my answer.

[Laura Cereta]

I agree with all that. You ask, "If they're not dealing or using, why would they need "help?" I just answered it and I think your post supports my answer.

Are you saying your answer is to change social conditions to "prevent" or to "help" people who "choose" to stop dealing? I was answering a post from sam who suggested that we "help" people when they "stop" dealing. What would you suggest doing for someone when they give up selling a product at 300% market value that could either support their habit or make them more money in less time than any legal option available and that is a socialized gem culturally for them? What kind of help would you be offering as an incentive?

[samurai007]

Based on my conversation with Sam, even free-market capitalists wouldn't touch the drug trade because of the risk/reward ratio. Drugs are too risky.

Me, I'm not buying it. I think it's their way of opting out of any "free" markets they find unsavory. :p

I think if public opinion were much more in favor of drug use, including a majority of both main political parties such that a change in power would not mean re-criminalization and the end of the business, and if the legal system were changed to eliminate or significantly limit lawsuits against companies that knowingly make deadly products, and if legalization brought with it a massive crackdown on illegal suppliers (ie, the entrenched competition) and relatively few taxes and regulations on their legal start-up recreational drug companies, you'd see some companies going for it, despite the effects on consumers of their product or society at large, and they wouldn't care if it were unsavory.

[Laura Cereta]

Based on my conversation with Sam, even free-market capitalists wouldn't touch the drug trade because of the risk/reward ratio. Drugs are too risky.

Me, I'm not buying it. I think it's their way of opting out of any "free" markets they find unsavory. :p

I don't buy it either. If there is a legal market for porn, sex toys, gambling, rape video games, alcohol, tobacco, and, um, tobacco smoking products (haha), then there is one for drugs.

[sojourner]

Based on my conversation with Sam, even free-market capitalists wouldn't touch the drug trade because of the risk/reward ratio. Drugs are too risky.

Me, I'm not buying it. I think it's their way of opting out of any "free" markets they find unsavory. :p

The drug trade is an Underground/black market and those markets fit the free-market model probably better then most of the "capitalistic free-market" companies we have in this country today. If the drug trade is legalized, taxed, and regulated it will probably be less free-market capitalism than it is now.

[samurai007]

Are you saying your answer is to change social conditions to "prevent" or to "help" people who "choose" to stop dealing? I was answering a post from sam who suggested that we "help" people when they "stop" dealing. What would you suggest doing for someone when they give up selling a product at 300% market value that could either support their habit or make them more money in less time than any legal option available and that is a socialized gem culturally for them? What kind of help would you be offering as an incentive?

That help was aimed more at the drug users than the dealers, as in help them recover from their addiction. For dealers, any "help" should not be such that it's an incentive to start dealing only to stop when you are caught.

[Laura Cereta]

That help was aimed more at the drug users than the dealers, as in help them recover from their addiction. For dealers, any "help" should not be such that it's an incentive to start dealing only to stop when you are caught.

You want to help them once they stop? That makes no sense. One of the hallmark traits of addiction is an inability to stop on one's own.

[sojourner]

Are you saying your answer is to change social conditions to "prevent" or to "help" people who "choose" to stop dealing? I was answering a post from sam who suggested that we "help" people when they "stop" dealing. What would you suggest doing for someone when they give up selling a product at 300% market value that could either support their habit or make them more money in less time than any legal option available and that is a socialized gem culturally for them? What kind of help would you be offering as an incentive?

I don't know what the answers are, I am just identifying the problem. I just think that if you put a bunch of drug dealers out on the street without helping him find a legitimate way of making a living you will just be shifting them to another illegal way of making a living and shifting the problem elsewhere.

I think the underlying social reasons that they got into the business in the first place - poverty, lack of education, etc.

From what I have read, not many in drug trafficking make much money and certainly not the guys out on the street corner, especially considering the risks.