Posted on 03/05/2006 2:49:43 PM PST by freedom44
Cocaine, marijuana, heroin and LSD - all of these drugs are illegal to possess, produce or traffic in the United States of America. Yet, tobacco, alcohol and various other over the counter drugs are legal in the United States. Why, I ask?
I do not understand why certain drugs are illegal in America, and why other drugs that are just as dangerous and addictive are legally and socially accepted. This country currently spends tens of billions of dollars each year trying to prevent drugs from entering the country. At the same time, billions of dollars are spent on advertisements promoting the use of other controlled substances.
Does anybody else see a flaw in the current system? Who are the people who decide what is a "good" drug and what is a "bad" drug? I believe the war on drugs has failed and that we should decriminalize all drugs. I do not understand why adults, in the privacy of their own homes, cannot put whatever substance they want into their bodies.
There are many positive effects that would come about if we legalized the possession and use of narcotics and various other illegal drugs.
First off, the prison populations would decrease greatly. Prisons are currently overcrowded because of the high percentage of inmates that are incarcerated on drug-related offenses. Many of these drug law offenders are in prison because of nonviolent possession offenses. Are these offenders that dangerous to society?
Besides having less people currently in prison, there are many other economic rewards for the legalization of drugs. The federal government would be able to tax and regulate the sale of legalized drugs, increasing tax revenues.
In addition, this would allow police departments around the country to be able to focus on malicious crimes instead of drug-related offenses. This would produce more efficient policing departments, and could perhaps prevent more non-drug related crime. Although the economic advantages of legalizing drugs are important, the social advantages are even greater.
The legalization of drugs would make drug use a health problem instead of a criminal problem. Drug users would be able to freely seek help and rehabilitation, without fearing legal implications.Rehabilitation, instead of imprisonment, would not only help current drug users with their actual drug habit, but also wash some of the stigmate away from drug use. No longer would a drug user be forced to hide his habit from his friends and family. Drug users could use their social networks to help them quit their habits, instead of hiding the problem for fear of rejection.
The poor neighborhoods of the city would also be radically changed if all drugs were legalized. A serious problem with most poor inner-city neighborhoods is drug-related crime and street gangs. Most street gangs are based on the trafficking of illegal drugs. With the legalization of drugs, many street gangs would cease to exist. Without the street gangs and drug dealers littering the neighborhood, the inner-city areas would be a radically different place.
Not only has the illegal-drug trade destroyed inner city areas around the United States, entire countries have been ruined because of it. The United States is by far the biggest market in the illegal-drug trade, and for our market to be supplied, there are various producer countries around the globe.
For example, Columbia's entire economy is based on the drug trade with the United States. Because of this, Columbia has one of the lowest Gross Domestic Products in the world. Columbia is also controlled by drug cartels that we have indirectly created because of the drug laws in the United States.
All of the reasons above are examples of the damage that the criminalization of drugs creates. The problems of our drug laws far outweigh the advantages the criminalization of drugs creates.
Over crowding in Prisons
Drug crimes
Criminal Gangs dealing in drugs
Get rid of all these problems, institute the DEATH penalty or Life in prison for any illegal drugs, don't think it works look at this article from The Herald Sun
Australian Government supported Indonesia's tough laws.
"I said that in relation to the two Australians who have been sentenced to death, that once the appeals process is completed, if those sentences stand at the end of the appeals process when applications then are made for clemency, the Australian Government would support this application," Mr Downer said.
"But I did emphasise that in making that point that the Australian Government is not of the view that the Indonesians should go soft on drug trafficking.
"Indonesia from our point of view is stopping heroin coming into Australia and drugs coming into Australia."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18288248%255E662,00.html
So you believe that if we were to legalize all drugs we would actually close prisons rather than using that extra space by going after the "real" criminals or to take care of overcrowding?
Do you know the percentage of prison inmates who are there on drug charges?
Alcohol can be deadly for some people, and tobacco is as addictive as heroine. Though I agree that heroine is geniunely dangerous to all users, and cocaine somewhat less so, maybe pot should not be grouped with those two.
I personally know many very highly functional, professional people who do pot occasionally, and I know some alcoholics whose lives have been severely damaged by booze. Libertarians feel that people should be responsible for making their own choices about what goes into their bodies, but should be forced to deal with the consequences (drunk driving).
That said, I think it is a collossal waste to be criminalizing drug use (particularly pot). Much better spent in drug counseling and rehab. Of course criminal behavior like DUIs, breaking and entering, violence should be dealt with throught the penal system. Enforce the laws on criminal BEHAVIOR, and otherwise let adults do as they wish in private.
One outta four isn't good. Heroin is more addicitive then alcohol.
Personally, I would like to see them filled with car theives and vandals. If the police weren't so busy busting down doors to swoop on a bunch of houseplants, maybe the autotheft business wouldn't thrive with almost-legal status.
The author appears to be making an "all or nothing" argument. Which, if you think about it, is much more consistent than yours.
People make choices and society makes laws all the time. If you want to make marijuana legal, take it to the people.
Following along with your logic, when a majority of the people say that Regan Man must live the rest of his life in excruciating pain by whatever means achieves that you'd agree with that because majority rules. And when the majority rules the same for your wife, son and daughter you'd again agree with majority rule.
So you're the fool that thought you were actually buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
Legalization of substances like heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, etc etc etc, is a crazy idea and will never see the light of day. In many parts of America, marijuana possession in small quantities has basically been decriminalized.
You have got to be kidding me. Zon, where are you getting your information? Cocaine blocks dopamine reuptake receptors in the brain and thus constantly stimulates the body as long as the cocaine is bound to the receptor. Dopamine is what your body experiences when you're having sex or some other immense high. Cocaine produces the same effect, only your body keeps dumping dopamine into the synampse and never reuptakes it. That kind of action is incredibly addictive.
Cocaine is way, way, way, way more addictive than any drug listed above. Without question.
Wouldn't it still be illegal for a kid to try any drug, just as it's illegal for them to try alcohol now?
I know that kids that want to drink today, manage to get their hands on beer and such - the same is true for drugs - legal or not.
It could also be said that kids try drugs because they are illegal (but I don't buy that one, either).
Personally, I think the legality of a drug is way down on the checklist that might deter a kid from trying it - if it even is a consideration at all.
Fear of the effects, parental ramifications, peer pressure, are among the top of the list, IMHO.
You act as if absolute consistency were somehow a greater virtue than common sense and applied science, which is, of course, nonsense.
Actually, I need to apologize to you. Your statement does not imply that you value or the other. Simply that one is more consistent than the other.
I simply question the validity of pure consistency here given the scientific data.
One outta four isn't good. Heroin is more addicitive then alcohol.
What I said in post 30: On a scale, from most to least addictive is tobacco, heroin, alcohol, cocaine and finally, marijuana, which isn't addictive anyways.
The two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco (though tobacco isn't a drug) are 1 and 3 on the scale -- most addictive and third most addictive. The three illegal drugs are 2, 4 and 5 on the scale. Your math is on par with your negotiating skills when you thought you were actually buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
Agreed on peer pressure, etc...
But by legalizing a drug, are you not in fact saying that a society does see a particular drug as being acceptable at a certain age?
And by making that assertion, in the mind of a teenager, you've effectively said, "You're just not adult enough. But soon you will be, and then you can use this." So in the teenager's mind, it's not fair that adults get to use a drug and they don't. Or it's intriguing to play and see what being an adult is like. There's just not the level of intimidation that's there for illegal drugs. Further, you're pitting a teen's natural rebellion to become an adult by creating an adult/non-adult substance v. simply leaving something out-of-bounds for an entire society, children and adults alike.
At this point all I can say is, put down the bong and step away from the from the PC.
Scary just how addictive these two are. Addictive, seductive and expensive...Social and financial ruin ahead of you, if you think you can play with these drugs.
Cocaine is way, way, way, way more addictive than any drug listed above. Without question.
You are flatly wrong. You're "without question" remark is a typical status-quo protection tactic. Don't ask questions, just take my word for it.
THE POINT is not which substances may be more harmful than others, rather, which actions inflict harm on another person. And that the person harmed should gain restitution for their pain and suffering.
How have you been harmed by a person's act of ingesting drugs? You haven't. Otherwise you would take the person to court, before an impartial jury and try to convince the jury that Joe Defendant harmed you by putting drugs into his body. Doing that so that you may gain restitution for your pain and suffering. Ninety-nine out of one-hundred impartial juries would decide in favor of the defendant. Probably even frown at your attempt to shakedown Joe Defendant for minding his own business.
True facts are needed if you're going to reach young people. Education - not police interdiction - will reduce the use of drugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.