Poll on position for legalizing drugs

[444]

This is going way off topic, but I agree that fewer people are likely to be killed. I have fired dozens of different machine guns. I personally own a submachine gun right now. And, I consider them far less effective than aimed, semi-auto. I have actually proven this to myself in our local machine gun matches. I fire several 30 round magazines to knock down steel targets that I could have easily hit and knocked down with my handgun. I shot a match one month where we started out with a rifle for some distant targets then transitioned to our SMG for closer targets. I didn't want to put my AR15 down to go to the much less effective SMG. I can shoot faster and more effectively with my AR15 or even my everyday carry handgun than I can with my SMG.
If TSHTF, one of the last guns I would grab out of my safe would be that SMG. I would take it before I grabbed a muzzleloader. I would take it before I grabbed a .22 handgun or one of my mouseguns. But that is about it.

 

[Fletchette]

I voted to legalize it all.

I have similar viewpoints to many of those who want to legalize - that the War on (some ) Drugs costs too much, you are ultimately responsible for your actions, you have the right to put whatever you want into your body even if it hurts you, etc.

I even agree with some of the specifics of what the anti-legalization people say. Like drugs abuse has collateral damage to society.

But there is one question I'd like to ask:

What is it that you want "society" to accomplish? What is the "goal"? Many people are weighing costs (enforcement vs. legalization consequenses), or pursuing a vision of morality (this or that is "wrong"). Are these your "goals"?

If your opinion of society's goal is to be a perfect utopia; you are in the company of the worlds worst dictators (Stalin, Hitler etc. promised a perfect society). Perfection is unattainable.

If you want the most efficient society, a dictatorship also awaits you. Nazi Germany was probably the most economically efficient society considering they went from the worst of the Great Depression to being fully employed and industrialized, almost taking over the world in a decade. A free society means people will to have the choice waste resources and fool around.

I believe in the vision that our Founders had; that we cannot ever have a perfect society, but we can have a "more perfect" one -ie better than we have now. We cannot promise happiness, but we can allow you to pursue happiness. We cannot guarantee you salvation, but you will certainly never have it if you are not free.

This country is about Freedom. Not efficiency. Not perfection. I am willing to put up with higher crime, less efficient economy, even addicted fellow citizens with all the problems that entails...if I can be free.

 

[DRZinn]

Well said.

 

[45-auto]

I voted to legalize 'em all.

This country has taxed whiskey since just after the Revolution (remember the Whiskey Rebellion?), but as far as I know NO drugs were illegal prior to the early 1900's. And in that time we grew from 13 newly independent colonies along the eastern seaboard to a transcontinental nation with a developed rail system and a booming industrial economy.

I guess I have a problem with laws that simply try to impose the standards of one group on the behavior of another group - such laws are usually phrased in terms of doing something to protect fools from themselves. I never noticed that working too well.

 

[4v50 Gary]

I'd legalize everything. Just designate areas for "safe" buys and let everyone OD themselves. So much for drugs and so much for my compassion. I'd rather not lose my rights because of any "war on drugs."

 

[why_me]

In order to legalise

the goverment needs to regulate the sale. New laws would need to be implemented.
This is easy.
New law providing drugs to minors = 20 years in prison.
Regulate easy use the alchohol distribution conduits already in place.
Legal drugs mean no profits for gangs
Legal drugs mean cheap (extremely) for those who wish to purchase
Legal drugs mean we can start treating the addict as opposed to incarcerating him

The only problem i see is the pan handler asking for change "hey man i need a dollar to get my fix"
You would not believe how incredibly cheap drugs are to produce. There prohibitive cost is due to there illegality. Most crime from drugs is addicts trying to support there habit. Im guessing but a 200 dollar a day habit would be better if the same amount of now legal drugs cost 5 bucks

Our goverment states the cost of producing cocaine is 2000 a kilo
a kilo = 1000 grams 1000 x 100 = 100000 dollars = 98000 profit

If you made it legal you could sell it for 25 dollars a gram still make a huge profit and kill the deficit
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/cocaine_report/appendixe.html

A program of controlled drug legalization could solve many of these problems. It is the illegal nature of the drug trade that makes drug profits so high and empowers violent criminal mafias. If drugs were a legal, banal product, the infrastructure of violence would be an unnecessary encumbrance that inflates costs and therefore prices: The mafias could quickly be underbid by more efficient, less violent enterprises. This would remove much of the funding for terrorist groups like Colombia's paramilitaries. Funds used for the drug war could then be used to address drug addiction as a public health problem, and to create economic and social opportunities for low-level dealers in the United States and farmers in Colombia for whom the drug industry is currently the only economic option. The prison population and the repressive apparatus of the state would also be reduced and the ecological destruction caused by aerial fumigation would end.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia150.htm

 

[why_me]

More estimates Rand corporation

According to the RAND Corporation, the production process for cocaine works as follows: One ton of coca leaf annually can be harvested from each two and a half acres of coca grown. This ton of coca leaf makes about 10 kg of coca paste. This 10 kg of coca paste produces about 2.5 kg of cocaine base, which finally yields about 2.2 kg of pure cocaine.

In Colombia, 4.5 kg of coca paste, which will yield about one kilo of cocaine, fetches about $4,500. On the streets of the United States, selling this kilogram of cocaine will earn between $200,000 and $600,000. It is estimated that there are markup ratios of 2.1:1 from cultivation to overseas packaging (a markup from $4,500 to about $9,500), of 3.7:1 for smuggling (from $9,500 to $35,000) and in distribution a 13-fold markup, which takes the price from $35,000 to $450,000.

These figures can in turn be used to estimate the size of the cocaine industry. If 300,000 acres are under cultivation in Colombia, the yield in cocaine is 264 tons, for which Colombian peasant growers receive $1.2 billion and (assuming the low price of $200,000 per pure kilogram) for which U.S. users pay $52.8 billion. Using these markup factors for everything but U.S. distribution, we find that the Colombian cartels pay the peasants $1.2 billion for coca they then process and smuggle to the United States, selling it for $9.2 billion. Most of the money is made in the United States, where the markup is from $9.2 billion to $52.8 billion.

At each stage, there are significant costs to be paid. These include the transportation infrastructure required by the cartels; the suborning of customs agents, police, and judges; legal fees, weapons, and other "risk management" that the cartels must purchase; and the costs of laundering the profits. The RAND Corporation estimated these costs in 1994 to be about $7 billion in the United States due to domestic enforcement, $400 million en route due to interdiction, and $100 million due to source-country controls.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia150.htm

 

[Ryder]

Just designate areas for "safe" buys and let everyone OD themselves.

That won't happen. Consider how many currently do drugs compared to how many OD. Statistically it's already a very rare occurance and if the legalization means more reliable quality you can pretty much forget about it excepting suicides. Part of danger of illegal drug use is due to the fact that dosage levels need to be determined through experimentation due to variable purity levels. Remove that variability and you remove the danger. Another aspect of the danger is inexperience. This also necessitates experimentation. You can't exactly go down and apply for classes in that now, can you?

 

[CWatson]

Legalize them,as long as you make it legal for me to blow away anyone who offers them to my kids!

CW

 

[Ryder]

Wouldn't that be the same person who is currently giving your kids their drugs CW? Your local pharmacist? Such freedom is not given, it's taken.

 

[Firethorn]

Ryder, it'd be more like the bum in the street making a straw purchase. The Pharmacist would want nothing to do with selling that stuff to a minor, due to the penalties (which would quite likely put him out of business).

Actually, whether we allowed the Pharmacist, the Alchohol shop, or even the kid behind the counter with the cigarettes to sell the now legal stuff, I don't think anybody here has suggested not having age restrictions. I don't know if people want 18 or 21, it would be a very arguable point.

If kids do get ahold of the stuff, at least it would be of a safer type than what they'd get ahold of now. Also, you wouldn't have the dealers trying to addict kids because they can't guarentee their profits. It'd be too easy to bypass them. You don't have adults out there handing out "free samples" of alchohol & tobacco. They get them mostly from family. Also, the cops would just love to bust that scum of humanity type.

Structure the law right, teach the kids that if they turn themselves in that we'll treat them, not prosecute them.

*edit:I'd be much more willing to consider extreme punishment for any remaining illegal drug dealers(selling to minors, selling non-FDA product) in our new freer society.

 

[Art Eatman]

Just looking at the human nature aspect of users I've known, IMO most folks would turn from the more harmful drugs to the milder. E.g., from crack to marijuana. Convenience, availability, comparative costs, that sort of thing. Probably have a neighborhood horticulturalist, not to mention the occasional windowbox of green growies.

As far as reducing the demand, the movie people could contribute greatly, if they gave a hoot. Easy: Any movie with teenagers, just have some scene(s) where a kid smoking dope is referred to as some sort of jerk by cute girls and leader-type guys. Peer pressure...

Art

 

[444]

"Legalize them,as long as you make it legal for me to blow away anyone who offers them to my kids!"

I understand where you are coming from, but this is a knee jerk response. Your children are going to be offered drugs or at least have the opportunity to do drugs whether they are legal or not. With our present state of affairs, you can't "blow away" anyone that provides drugs to your children and if drugs were legal you wouldn't be able to legally "blow away" anyone that provided your children with drugs. In other words (just as I said before) this is yet another problem that already exists and will not change if drugs were legalized.
And, it is an example of blaming other people for your problems. If someone decides to do drugs, THEY made the decision, not the person that provided them. THEY are responsible for their own actions, not someone else. Now if someone held them down and injected them with heroin, that is a different story.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

finally, my own opinion is simply that narcotics, unlike nicotine and caffeine, and to a much greater extent than alcohol, control people so effectively that they simply cannot help themselves.

I could pick apart your post, but I feel that your concerns have already pretty much been covered. However, I can't stand by while you try to paint alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine as being perfectly fine while other drugs are "bad". First off, alcohol is a narcotic. While it can be debated whether or not nicotine and caffeine are narcotics, it's a fact that they are both mentally and physically addictive drugs.

Legalize them,as long as you make it legal for me to blow away anyone who offers them to my kids!

They wouldn't be offered to them anymore than they already are. Besides, do you plan on murdering their entire school. Face it, your kids will do drugs if they want to and there's no way that you can stop them short of locking them in the basement. Why not take the logical route and provide them with accurate information about the substances? Don't take the propaganda route because your entire line of defense will become useless once they realize that you've been lying to them.

 

[boltaction]

Substance prohibition breeds crime.

Boltaction

http://www.individ.us

 

[jfh]

the Great Experiment has already been done.

In my reading / scanning of the responses to date, nobody seems to have brought up the experiences of the UK/GB. IIRC, they had the whole legalized drugs routine down pretty well by the late Sixties.

So, can one of our UK posters enlighten the rest of us?

(Yes, yes, I know the two cultures are different--but I think we can at least see what historically the cost is for legalization.)

 

[Yowza]

taliv, allow me

If you want to spin analogies, spin this one: "passing laws against speeding won't stop people from speeding, so why not legalize any speed?"

Speeders are not overcrowding our prisons and clogging up the legal system, shooting each other over turf, and making insane amounts of money while avoiding paying taxes. Speeders generally don't have their cars, houses, or other assets (unless you count DLs) seized. Speeding hasn't created a huge black market complete with incredibly dangerous criminals and an equally huge government response complete with highly ineffecient bureaucracy, ridiculous restrictions on freedoms, idiotic propaganda, etc.

Also, you can speed all you want on private property. Try smoking a joint in your front yard in front of a cop.

In other words, there is no analogy.

Rick

 

[CWatson]

444,Legalizing takes away one of the barriers,it legitimizes it culturaly so there will be more around to offer it."It's ok daddy my math teacher does it".If adults offer kids "legalized" drugs the taboo is gone.One adult in the position of trust and authority could is so inclined could do damage to many families.Druggies like to me surounded whith other druggies,makes it feel legit.

As far as making drugs cheap,accesable ect..crime will go up.Do you guys know any drug addicts who work?Did not think so.Druggies will not go from crack to pot,pure fantasy.

Cannibal,what propaganda route is wrong,that drugs are bad for you and society?That is not propaganda it is true.the barrel of a 45 has conviced more the one to try to move their wares somewhere else.

I have know several people who have been "drug" down by substance abuse and the ones who have managed to end their addictions their lives are still worse of than it could have, should have been.Most of them were introduced at a young age and the ones who have kicked at have stronger views on punishment than me.

For those who think if legilized it could be regulate properly,when has the government regulated anything properly?

Do we need more drug laws?Probally not,however there should be more treatment for those addicted.Real treatment not just a loophole to us as a keep out of jail card.


CWatson

 

[Iain]

In my reading / scanning of the responses to date, nobody seems to have brought up the experiences of the UK/GB. IIRC, they had the whole legalized drugs routine down pretty well by the late Sixties.

So, can one of our UK posters enlighten the rest of us?

(Yes, yes, I know the two cultures are different--but I think we can at least see what historically the cost is for legalization.)

We haven't ever as far as I know had a legalised drugs routine.

We're probably very much in the same boat, there is a certain amount of tolerance (and by that I mean cautioning not prosecuting) for small amounts deemed to be for personal use. The laws in regard to cannabis have changed lately but the government was at great pains to point out that cannabis is still illegal.

I'd like to introduce another dimension to this, another category of presently banned substances - steroids, and other deemed performance enhancers. We are actually slightly slacker on this than you, the American government recently banned a great list of 'prohormones and steroid precursors', some of which are still legal here. With regards to the medical and veterinary drugs employed by athletes and bodybuilders (note the distinction) we are pretty much in step.

I find it an odd one. Largely because several 'sports' rely heavily on anabolics, particularly bodybuilding and WWE type wrestling. Occasionally these guys take huge doses and die, and we all get the 'drugs are bad mmmkay' routine. But the public laps up the abnormal feats of these people, and I'm not even touching on professional sports like athletics, baseball, rugby where a case can be made for use of steroids as cheating.

Use of steroids by a gym goer, or a competitive powerlifter in a 'tolerant' federation doesn't come under cheating - and so in my estimation it falls under the same 'do whatever you want to yourself' category as all other drugs.

Just a sometimes forgotten aspect.

 

[taliv]

cannibal and yowza, like i said, i don't have the time or inclination for a debate on this topic. i'd much prefer to spend my surfing time reading about guns.

I was asked politely for an explanation and I gave it.

so pick the arguments apart if it makes you feel better (nothing wrong with that), but I hope you keep an open mind about it and realize that despite the poll on THR, you're very much in the minority and there might just be a good reason for that.

take for example, this survey from legalize.com

11. Do you believe that marijuana should be legalized?
Yes, I strongly support this: 78%
12. Do you believe that all drugs should be legalized?
Yes, I strongly support this: 9%
13. Have you personally ever used marijuana?
Yes, more than 30 times and have in the past year: 69%

essentially, a non-scientific poll in which 70% of 17,000 respondants are monthly dope smokers, shows only NINE PERCENT support legalizing all drugs.

 

[why_me]

Yes I do and you probably do too

From Cwatson
Do you guys know any drug addicts who work?
Most drug addicts work. Almost all pot smokers work.It will never ever be culturally acceptable to be a drug addict or alchohlic. Not unless you as a parent say so, and even then i have known children of alchohlics that hate there parents because they drank too much.
Heres an argument that hasnt come up yet.
Do you want your doctor or airplane pilot using?
Its illegal now for them to do it i dont see why it cant be illegal fo them to do it if drugs became legalised.
I think of coutries that make drug possession a capitol offense. Guess what people still use drugs. Stop perpetuating lies, get your head out of the sand, and stop being so freaking paranoid. There are drug users in your community you dont know about. there are drug users were you work,you dont know about. There are a lot of things you dont know about.

The poll on legalize is tipped towards people that want to leagalise marijauna.
the pro pot activists know they cant get there weed legalised if it is tied in with other drugs. And yes dorothy the legal medical marijauna debate is directly tied in with legalising marijauna for all. I applaude them good tactics.

 

[why_me]

Here is a link for British drug prohibition and history

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/five2.html

Just an excerpt

In Colombia, and in several other Latin American and Caribbean countries, the cocaine traders are a least as powerful as the Government. The resulting instability is a real threat to feedom, not to mention world trade and investment. The threat is growing fast. It is, I repeat illegality - and the failure of prohibition -that gives the traders their untaxed wealth, power and guns.

1838 FIRST OPIUMWAR BETWEEN CHINA AND BRITAIN UK foists Indian opium on unwilling Imperial administration.
1868 PHARMACY AND POISONS ACT. Opium and later morphine sale restricted to pharmacists.
1909 SHANGHAI OPIUM COMMISSION Non-binding international agreement aimed at curbing UK opium trafficking and restricting opiates to medical use.
1912 FIRST OPIUM CONVENTION (HAGUE CONVENTION) International treaty committing signatories to pharmacy laws to restrict opiates and cocaine to medical use.
1916 DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT REGULATION 408. Emergency regulations banning opium or cocaine possession or supply without prescription in response to cocaine epidemic among soldiers.
1917 ENQUIRY INTO COCAINE USE IN DENTISTRY Concluded there was no noticable cocaine problem.
1918 TREATY ENDING FIRST WORLD WAR Ratification of Hague Convention mandatory.
1920 FIRST DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT AND LATER REGULATION Implemented Hague Convention in UK making it a criminal offence to posses opiates or cocaine without prescription.
1925 GENEVA CONVENTION International treaty extending control to cannabis.
1925 DANGEROUS DRUG ACT. Implemented Geneva Convention in UK, extending 1920 Act to cannabis and coca leaves.
1926 ROLLESTON REPORT. Established that indefinite (maintenance) prescribing was a legitimate medical response to opiate addiction in Britain.
1961 UN SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS Cornerstone international treaty consolidating and extending earlier conventions.
1960S YOUTH REVOLUTION Doctors lose control of spread of addiction; cannabis, stimulants and hallucinogens join youth pharmacopeia.
1964 DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) ACT. Controlled amphetamines in UK in advance of international agreements; later used to control LSD.
1965 SECOND BRAIN REPORT. Concluded growth of addiction in UK required heroin and cocaine prescribing to addicts to be limited to licensed doctors in clinics.
1967 DANGEROUS DRUG ACT. Implemented Second Brain Report.
1969 WOOTTON REPORT. Official UK government advisory body said no one should be imprisoned for possessing cannabis and recommends penalty reductions. Advice rejected.
1971 UN CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES Extends international controls to synthetic drugs including amphetamines and LSD.
1971 MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT. Cornerstone of UK legislation consolidating and extending earlier acts.
1973 MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT COMES INTO FORCE.
1986 DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT. UK law requiring confiscation of assets of convicted drug traffickers widely seen as reversing burden of proof. Also banned the supply of drug paraphernalia except
1988 UN CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES. Increased sanctions and powers in respect of seizure and confiscation of assets, extradition and other enforcement

 

[Sindawe]

Like practically everybody else, the British government is a signatory to UN conventions that commit it to keeping the main drugs banned.

Now theres a thought. Legalize recreational drugs to annoy the UN.

 

[Orthonym]

I voted for making all legal.

A rational, responsible free citizen should get to decide for himself what he puts into his body, and be responsible for any consequences, as long as he's a grown-up.

I will admit that if one does very much of some drugs for very long, he may see some changes in his behavior, or even physical changes in his brain, which cause him not to be quite so rational, or responsible, or grown-up as he was before he started his bad habit.

(At this very moment, both my liver and Neal Boortz are exhorting me to act like a grown-up.)

Well, if you have deliberately, voluntarily, dulled your faculties to the extent that you can't be trusted to act like an adult anymore, maybe you need to be treated as a lesser kind of person than a grown-up citizen, and have yer rights restricted, that you may not hurt others.

 

[ProactiveReactionary]

i'm in favor of legalizing it for many many reasons, i will name as many of them as possible. i do want to say i am a person who does not drink smoke or does drugs, i dont even drink coffee.

first lets think about how much the federal government (lets not even include whats done at the state and local levels, but suffice it say its probably to scale) spends on the DEA, an entire agency devoted to drugs and "enforcing" drug laws. billions of dollars goes into funding this heavily bureacratic piece of government and what do we have to show for it? billions of dollars of illegal drugs STILL flow into this country easily. we are spending billions of dollars to fund training for DEA agents, pay for their paper work (including buying the paper for that paper work and all the office equipment and the administration needed to run all the computers and networks). you spend tons of money on tactial equipment so they can act like ninjas, they use helicopters, boats, cars, you name it, they use it. legalizing drugs would eliminate the need for this agency and get rid of a multibillion dollar bureacratic nightmare that isnt working. we could spend that money on better border defenses.

lets also factor in how much they spend on PSAs (thats public service announcement) and the DARE program along all the time they spend on the courts to prosecute drug offenders. the time cops spend locking up drug dealers and drug users.

think of the sheer volume of money that must be spent at the local state and federal levels to fight this "war on drugs". not only are we losing the war on drugs we are also throwing away money to something that isnt stopping the influx of drugs into this country. it is estimated that only 10% of the drugs is stopped from entering the country. if thats true then think about how much we have to spend in order to make sure that 100% of the drugs is prevented from entering the country. trillions of dollars in the tens or even hundreds of trillions of dollars is not a far fetched estimate. by the way that would have to be ANUALLY.

so its not cost effective in its present form. however if some of it was spent to educate people properly instead of trying to scare people with the current wave of PSAs about drugs people might actually learn something. think of all the tax dollars that could go to other things, like better roads, or education, they never have money for these things but they have it to fight the war on drugs! prison populations would shrink, instead of locking them up just for having drugs we could get them help or simply let them live their lives any way they want.

now lets look at this from another perspective, the criminal element and all that is contained therein. from the dealer on the block to the maker and supplier,if you legalize drugs and then let companies make these drugs, under certain guidelines and regulations, while reducing the cost (which is inflated thanks to the losses suppliers incur, among other things) would eliminate the need for most of these dealers and suppliers. we can grow our own weed and coca plants, we can grow our own mushrooms and peyote, no need to go outside the country for that. so no more dangerous drug dealers killing each other for "turf" and no more customers getting killed. you'd be able to go into a store (say a drug store for example) and be able to buy (if you meet certain requirements such as AGE and show ID) any drug you wanted, heroin, weed, whatever. this would make buying drugs safe, both in terms of buying it AND the manufacture of the drugs themselves. part of the money you spend on those drugs would pay for taxes set by the federal and state government, and maybe local government. call it a user tax, much like the tax on cigarettes or alcohol. this would also keep kids from being around drugs and make it MUCH harder for them to get them. with johnny drug dealer unable to sell his unsafe product, he's out of business, guess he'll have to find another way to rip people off. and all those tax dollars collected from drug SALES would help go to already underfunded agencies, much like a lottery does.

but there are key things that are important, allowing companies to make the drugs and sell them cheaper than current street values, which wouldnt be too hard, making it readily available to people over a certain age, much like alcohol or cigarettes and set certain standards on how the drugs are made, making them safer (not safe, but safer). but this only addresses certain drugs like cocaine or crack as well as heroin. pot and other natural "drugs" shouldnt be regulated, ever heard of someone ODing on pot? its stupid to try and outlaw a plant anyway, i'd prefer they outlaw poison ivy first.

legalizing them would help to remove the stigma that a drug user is a bad person, for some whether its drugs or booze or gambling, some have an addiction, why demonize one and not others? while i am firm believer in self responsibility i ALSO believe in helping others out however, they should want that help first, you cannot help a person who does not want it. rather than locking them up they should be treated but as i said, they must want that help first.

now i do believe in having laws against driving while high, much like the DUI laws. wanna get high, do it at home or take a cab, sorry the "i know what i'm doing, i'll be fine" excuse doesnt work for me.

i think revenue from taxes put on drugs would be able to fund REAL drug education and treatment while lifting a burdern from tax payers shoulders by getting rid of the "war on drugs". that treatment would be paid for from those taxes, for those in this thread who complain about tax dollars going to treat people with drug problems. and think of the money you'll save from not having to pay for the DEA and all the law enforcement agencies not having to chase down drugs and drug dealers, its a win win!

then you legalize regulate and tax prositution, another of society's ills that is being handled poorly. and a great way to help reduce the spread of STDs and lower crime even more! and more time for cops to go after REAL criminals.