Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
Drugs are a scourge on society and the addicts will do anything to get them and that hurts the rest of us.
Drug dealers are the worse scum and should be in prison. Users should be treated or in a over dose situation not revived.
I don't want my stuff stolen by an addict looking to get his next fix. I don't want to be in an accident when a idiot high on drugs crashes into me.
I want to see the cops crack down on the source of these drugs.
So you're worried about the impact of desperate people doing desperate things when seeking drugs they want, right? And you're goal of dealing with this is to make it desperately HARDER to get those drugs? Because making desperate people even more desperate will solve those concerns of yours, how, exactly? Short of a totalitarian state as buttoned-up as North Korea, drugs are available everywhere in the world for those who really want them. Some places they're easier to get than others, but you can get them just about anywhere if you're so inclined. Simply knowing that they exist is temptation enough for people most prone to becoming hard-core addicts.
If the biggest problem with drugs is the length of extremes people will go to get them, wouldn't it make more sense to make it easier and safer to get them so that people don't have to go to the kind of extremes that negatively impact other peoples' lives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinbro2002
If you are advocating legalizing all illicit drug including hard drug with the stance that the would would be all rainbows and and sunshine if they were legal is a naive one. The woes of illegal drugs are not only caused by the enforcement of the laws but by the crimes people commit to get those drugs. Let's just legalize all crimes like "The Purge" what's the worse that could happen.
Define what a "hard drug" is. Please, define it. Don't give me a list of drugs you consider to be "hard," but create a definition of what makes a drug fall into a category of "hard" versus "soft."
One of the biggest misconceptions about drugs is that there are hard drugs and soft drugs when, really, categorizing them in that way is a lot more difficult than most people think. Is methamphetamine a hard drug? But it can be legally prescribed as a diet aid. And for ADD. When not being abused, when used at merely therapeutic doses, it's actually safer than Adderall. Is alcohol a hard drug? It severely impairs uses judgement and locomotion skills. It can cause overdose death and other health issues when used to get high. It's addictive can create physical dependence so strong that withdrawals from it can be fatal. When it was illegal, its production and distribution created huge crime syndicates. Is caffine hard or soft? People die of caffeine overdose every year. Not a lot, but that's partly because it's sold in appropriately small doses, not because it's particularly safe in general. Caffeine is also physically addictive. Nicotine is also dangerous in more than minute amounts. And exceptionally addictive. It can even be used as a poison in both humans and animals.
"Soft" versus "hard" isn't nearly as easy to define as people think, unless you define it merely as "socially acceptable" = "soft," "socially unacceptable" = "hard."
And that's why people like myself advocate for complete decriminalization of all drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgustedman
More people would be begging and not working. Crime would still be there if not higher...Prices mmight drop a lot, but if you're not permitted to work with drugs in your system, then why work?
Most people aren't going to become highly dependent on drugs and abandon their career or means of support. Some would - some already do, even with drugs being highly illegal - but most would not. How would crime go up if prices were lower and the legal risk of sales were greatly reduced. Decriminalization would increase supply because less would get destroyed. It would reduce or eliminate the "risk-enhanced pricing" of drugs. So prices on a per-mg of pure drugs would plummet for most drugs. Taxes would be assessed, but prices would be lower and quality and safety would be far higher. Risk of overdose would be reduced because of consistent purity and sizing and less fear of calling for help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branDcalf
...
If not, then go for it. I'm up for trying to protect me and mine from lazy ba****ds that would want to steal rather than work. Though, even then society in general would have to support the unfortunate children of the drug-addled.
Society already supports children of the drug-addled. Drug-addled people are already socially looked down on. Most people wouldn't become lazy bastards or turn into drug-addled parents if you legalized drugs for the same reason most people don't do that now even though, while illegal, drugs are still readily available in most communities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin
...
Now consider this is a man who was lucky enough to have a career path that would lead him to fame and fortune as a motivation to quit, yet nearly lost it to addiction. How are you going to convince someone who has been dealt a hand of poverty coupled with prostitution or gang activity from an early age that their life will improve if they get off the pipe or stop shooting junk?
Most drug users aren't hardcore addicts. If someone who's been dealt a crushing hand in life finds solace in a substance and society can give them that substance for much less than prosecuting them for having that substance, why would society force sad, hopeless people to suffer rather than have access to a mood-enhancer administered in a safe, consistent manner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin
...
As for having fewer problems with addiction... The Netherlands attempted an experiment where they allowed a "junkie park" to operate within the city. Basically, they allowed heroin addicts to buy, sell and use heroin in the park unmolested by the police. Within a week, the park was shut down when junkies and dealers from neighboring countries flooded the city in droves causing a major spike in overdoses and crime.
...
As others have pointed out, it's not the sort of thing you can do unilaterally within an area of open borders. The result would be far different if the entire EU adopted the same policies at the same time. There wouldn't be one are where people were concentrated.
To some extent, it's a waste of time. As long as the demand is here, the supply will be as well.
It's funny how that statement and many others in this thread would apply just as easily in debates on gun control. However, if we were discussing the unrestricted sale of firearms instead of the unrestricted sale of narcotics, I bet you'd find a great many of the people making them to be hypocrites.
It's funny how that statement and many others in this thread would apply just as easily in debates on gun control. However, if we were discussing the unrestricted sale of firearms instead of the unrestricted sale of narcotics, I bet you'd find a great many of the people making them to be hypocrites.
Not sure either is advisable and as far as my limited intellectual capabilities can determine Guns are not either physically addicting nor harmful (under normal circumstances) to your productive output in society.
Besides, other countries have had severe drug problems before (China, Singapore) and today are largely drug free. So it can be done.
Say tomorrow we stopped putting people with drugs in jail/prison and stopped actively trying to stop dealing with people that do/deal drugs wholesale, what do you think would happen?
Great idea, so long as we do not spend any money on those who OD. In other words, dumb enough to go on hard drugs, then you are too stupid to save. Then I would have no problem since eventually, the problem would solve itself!
It's funny how that statement and many others in this thread would apply just as easily in debates on gun control. However, if we were discussing the unrestricted sale of firearms instead of the unrestricted sale of narcotics, I bet you'd find a great many of the people making them to be hypocrites.
Who said anything about unrestricted? It would be regulated just like booze and cigarettes. Legal doesn't mean unrestricted by any definition.
why dont we just double the war on drugs, execute everyone that get caught selling drug or transportion drugs. why do the people that dont use any drugs have to put up with those that are high in society, why should we worry if that over the road trucker is stone out of his mind. I beleive if you get caught smoking weed you should get twenty years
51 billion a year on a 'war' that has had no impact on supply or demand and you want to double down on it? wow...
Great idea, so long as we do not spend any money on those who OD. In other words, dumb enough to go on hard drugs, then you are too stupid to save. Then I would have no problem since eventually, the problem would solve itself!
sure, just let them die, after all we don't do heart surgery on people who smoke or eat fatty foods. Oh wait, never mind, we actually do take care of all sorts of people who make bad choices.
The most often used example is "What happened when Prohibition was ended?"
The "war on alcohol" was an abject failure; I have never understood how anybody expected the "war on drugs" to be a success.
By the way, employers and the government would still be able to say "You WILL be drug tested. If you pop positive, you are OUT of here!" So, no, there would not be drivers or pilots or aircraft mechanics or doctors or nurses at work high on drugs.
At least, no more than there are now!
IMO, the "war on drugs" should have ended long ago. The dope should all be legal. If somebody overdoses and dies, too bad. Yes, if that somebody was one of my children, I would feel the same way. In fact, if it were one of my kids I would likely say "Good riddance, my kid went away when the drugs took over and he/she became a junkie!"
"Redraven" you have mirrored my thoughts on this issue to the tee!
sure, just let them die, after all we don't do heart surgery on people who smoke or eat fatty foods. Oh wait, never mind, we actually do take care of all sorts of people who make bad choices.
Well hell! Just don't provide medical services for anything because human beings are going to die eventually....why prolong the inevitable!
...
Besides, other countries have had severe drug problems before (China, Singapore) and today are largely drug free. So it can be done.
China was "largely drug free" when it was a totalitarian state with closed borders. That's not really the case these days. By some estimates over 12 million Chinese are addicts, most commonly for synthetic drugs, especially methamphetamine. That their incidence rate is lower than the US right now is as much an artifact of their relatively recent police state and their income levels as anything else. With increased personal and border freedoms and higher incomes, drugs use is growing in China.
As for Singapore, a city-state that is virtually a police state is hardly a reasonable point of comparison for "what is possible" for a large country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
