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.
The trafficking and abuse of drugs in the United States affect nearly all aspects of our lives. The economic cost alone is immense, estimated at nearly $215 billion. The damage caused by drug abuse and addiction is reflected in an overburdened justice system, a strained healthcare system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction.
Alot has been spoken on this forum about the "ridiculous" War On Drugs. How can any of you be a proponent of legalizing narcotics given the social and economic impact of illegal drugs on our communities?
It makes no sense whatsoever. So now it's time to defend your position.
Alot has been spoken on this forum about the "ridiculous" War On Drugs. How can any of you be a proponent of legalizing narcotics given the social and economic impact of illegal drugs on our communities?
It makes no sense whatsoever. So now it's time to defend your position.
The costs born by the justice system would be immensely reduced to the point that we'd actually be able to lock up murderers, rapists, pedos, violent gang members, etc. again for more of their sentences, and still have plenty of money left over, easing the financial burdens on states and to a lesser extent the feds.
And environmental destruction and violence would be lessened if disputes and other problems relating to the drugs trade could be handled in the courts and thus curbed by lawsuits.
OTOH there is not at the current time a significantly powerful movement to legalize narcotics ; it's confined to marijuana and harm reduction right now. However, if narcotics were legalized, even in restricted form like methadone programs in the US and other nations, and heroin maintenance programs in some European nations, then they would be about as much of a social problem as benzodiapines and SSRIs are right now ; i.e. nowhere near as much, and more of a minor irritant than a major crime generator.
The costs born by the justice system would be immensely reduced to the point that we'd actually be able to lock up murderers, rapists, pedos, violent gang members, etc. again for more of their sentences, and still have plenty of money left over, easing the financial burdens on states and to a lesser extent the feds.
And environmental destruction and violence would be lessened if disputes and other problems relating to the drugs trade could be handled in the courts and thus curbed by lawsuits.
OTOH there is not at the current time a significantly powerful movement to legalize narcotics ; it's confined to marijuana and harm reduction right now. However, if narcotics were legalized, even in restricted form like methadone programs in the US and other nations, and heroin maintenance programs in some European nations, then they would be about as much of a social problem as benzodiapines and SSRIs are right now ; i.e. nowhere near as much, and more of a minor irritant than a major crime generator.
You seem to be passionate, or at least well-read, in the world of narcotics. I'll concede that perhaps there are some marijuana laws that are too strict and/or too tightly enforced. But I have a real issue with publicly-acceptable access to hardcore narcotics. Is your support for reduced criminal emphasis on narcotics rooted in the desire to generate tax revenue?
Crack, meth, and other drugs of that nature are just to dangerous to allow into the regular population.
The truth is that most people wouldn't do those drugs if they were legal, and the extremely small population that would do them, isn't enough to worry about.
Now, marijuana is a different animal. It has a 30% regular usage rate amongst Americans. Its somewhere on the order of who drinks a beer on a weekly basis. Its the largest funding drug for the cartels, legalize it, you take away their money. Drugs like pot, like mushrooms, LSD, and others should probably also be legal.
The cartels would likely move on to cocaine. That should probably be legal to. Everything else would be used by such a small part of the population, it wouldn't matter its legality anyway.
Meth is to harmful for addiction, as is crack, heroine, and other drugs of that nature. Lets be realistic, some drugs should be illegal.
I don't think many people want heroin or crystal meth to be legal. I want drugs that are not physically addicting to be legalized, and I want our justice system to treat drug offenders differently than violent offenders. Wanting the War on Drugs to end is not the same as wanting to legalize all drugs.
I don't think many people want heroin or crystal meth to be legal. I want drugs that are not physically addicting to be legalized, and I want our justice system to treat drug offenders differently than violent offenders. Wanting the War on Drugs to end is not the same as wanting to legalize all drugs.
Meth isn't physically addictive. Physically damaging, but not physically addictive.
You seem to be passionate, or at least well-read, in the world of narcotics. I'll concede that perhaps there are some marijuana laws that are too strict and/or too tightly enforced. But I have a real issue with publicly-acceptable access to hardcore narcotics. Is your support for reduced criminal emphasis on narcotics rooted in the desire to generate tax revenue?
That is a major part of it, as well as wanting to reduce not only the harmful fiscal effects but also the harmful social effects resulting from criminalization.
My Economics 1 professor in college, a disciple of Milton Friedman (that may surprise you), stated that demand for narcotics was inelastic and thus criminalization would always fail. Illegality inevitably made the markets full of inefficiency and waste as black markets always do. Criminalization hasn't even accomplished its primary goal of preventing use and availability, even in prisons and jails, not to mention the other harmful social effects. If criminalization were to end, all those profits and all those revenues would flow into the legal economy, increasing tax revenue and reducing violence. There hasn't been a single murder over alcohol distribution since the mid 1930s in the US, as any disputes can be resolved in the courts rather than violence. Legalization not only brings in more revenue but also more control.
OTOH I do have problems with legalizing crack and meth due to their bad effects being inherent in the substances. The users of the narcotic drugs tend to be docile as long as they've got a reliable supply.
Alot has been spoken on this forum about the "ridiculous" War On Drugs. How can any of you be a proponent of legalizing narcotics given the social and economic impact of illegal drugs on our communities?
It makes no sense whatsoever. So now it's time to defend your position.
It may be, because Prohibition is worse. Did you know that the power to Prohibit that form of Commerce was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment?
The evil Drug Empire won that war, and our capitulation is in black and white in our Constitution and supreme Law of the Land. Reneging on that fact is both unethical and immoral.
Drugs, as a legal form of Commerce can improve the standard of living of all market participants involved. Why would anyone object to having an FDA label on your favorite recreational drug? A recreational drug category would also contain alcohol, which is already available in most convenience stores.
We could be lowering our tax burden and our deficit, while decreasing our use of Socialism, to only those terms which were wisely enumerated by our Founding Fathers over two hundred years ago: the common defense and general welfare.
Quote:
A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
Crack, meth, and other drugs of that nature are just to dangerous to allow into the regular population.
The truth is that most people wouldn't do those drugs if they were legal, and the extremely small population that would do them, isn't enough to worry about.
Now, marijuana is a different animal. It has a 30% regular usage rate amongst Americans. Its somewhere on the order of who drinks a beer on a weekly basis. Its the largest funding drug for the cartels, legalize it, you take away their money.
A recent phenomenon, and it is quite expensive to transport and the profits to be made from it are lower.
If we're talking about Mexican operations, heroin's always been their staple -easier to transport and higher profits. When marijuana becomes legal they'll concentrate more and more of their efforts on heroin, their core business.
They control land, plant, and distribution channels and have a good amount of labor at their disposal in that field.
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.
