Do you favor legalizing drugs

No doubt I missed 617.2 choices, but those were the ones that made sense to me.

For the record, I favor legalizing all drugs.

And for purposes of this discussion, it is assumed drugs would be legal only for adults.

I favor recognizing that prohibition does not work and only creates artificially inflated prices and limiting competition for the criminals.

" And for purposes of this discussion, it is assumed drugs would be legal only for adults. "

How exactly would that keeps kids away from drugs ??????????????????????????

Flea's post is a HUGE reason I'm in favor, but it's a tough situation. The fact that weed is not legal blows my mind when you think of dangers vs cost of persecution and prosecution, black market and the violence within it, and loss of funds from taxation. But the thought of free-for-all meth operations kind of squashes the "legalize em all" mindframe.

One thing for sure, the current "War on Drugs" is one of the biggest follies in American history. And it rarely get's talked about.

Quote: buzzpaff

How exactly would that keeps kids away from drugs ??????????????????????????

About as well as currently kids are kept away from alcohol and tobacco. Or for that matter, as well as kids are kept away from drugs today.

Never gonna happen in a Christian country. Dream on.

Quote: Face

But the thought of free-for-all meth operations kind of squashes the "legalize em all" mind frame.

We seem to have meth operations everywhere and also have to support an army of narcotics squads who are usually the ones who benefit from it, so I don't see what is so different. Enforcement of narcotics laws is Price Support on behalf of the drug dealers. So why are you advocating that we use our taxes to keep prices artificially high so as to benefit drug dealers?

Quote: FleaStiff

We seem to have meth operations everywhere and also have to support an army of narcotics squads who are usually the ones who benefit from it, so I don't see what is so different. Enforcement of narcotics laws is Price Support on behalf of the drug dealers. So why are you advocating that we use our taxes to keep prices artificially high so as to benefit drug dealers?

Hmm. Interesting arguement. I think most of my view is kind of a risk/reward debate. I see meth as an incredibly dangerous, damaging substance, one which cannot be used casually or without almost certain severe consequences. This is only my opinion, based mostly on personal experience as an addict and not wholly backed by any sort of research. I think the cost of the Narc squad, court proceedings and incarceration would be less than the societal and medical costs of unconstricted meth use.

Weed I see as harmful, sure, but not near in scope as the means to eradicate it's use. I don't even see it as bad as cigs or alcohol, and the sheer amount of time and resources spent on it boggles the mind.

Hallucinogens, while also harmful, are (as George Carlin so aptly put) self regulating. The vast majority of users reach a point where they just stop. They almost have to, and that mirrors my own experience. I was quite a large user, then one day, I wasn't. Just like that. I'm not so sure about opening the flood gates on them, but...I dunno. See next...

Coke is also harmful, no doubt. But is the "cost" of prevention worse than the "cost" of legalization? It's surely dangerous, there have surely been lives lost or destroyed, it's surely considered one of most addictive, but where's the line? (lol pun not intended) There are some like me that used it, got into, and one day, just stopped. There are others that do it to death. How do we measure "cost"?

Crack I group with meth, just a dirty, terrible drug that has no redeeming qualities.

Opiates are tough too, because they actually have a medical use. The problem is they're the #1 hardest drug to kick, and one of the most addictive. Again, how do we measure cost of prevention vs cost to society?

These are all questions that need to be asked, IMO. Not just by us, but by the powers that be. Seriously. I'm not some fruitball stoner that just wants to smoke in peace, in fact if legalized, I probably would stay clean as I kind of like it better. But the absolutely astonishing amount of money we spend, the incredible amount of money we lose, and the total failure of any sort of progress on "prevention" NEEDS to be addressed.

How much money would YOU spend on a policy that makes your problem WORSE? Probably none. Yet we do it every time we collect a paycheck.

I might favor a small amount of decriminalization and I ABSOLLUTELY favor not allowing the cops to sieze the whole car when someone has a joint with them in it, etc.

But I have a few problems with the legalization thing. First, there is a large amount of poverty due to addictions. For proof of this look no further than all the screaming about welfare recipients being required to take drug tests to maintain benefits.

Then watch "Cops" or a similar show and see how use affects the life of the person in a negative way. You have to imagine a disproportionate share of domestic violence calls are because one or both partners are either addicts or heavy users.

After that, look around and see how many things the meth-heads have ruined for the rest of us. Want to buy Red-Devil Lye? Can't, it is long pulled from the shelves. You must sign for the good cold medicine. That is just two, surely there are more.

To think that drug use will not go up under legalizatgion is fantasy. To think if I could buy a vial of cocaine next to the cigarettes will keep illegal sellers from popping up is also not likely, though I will admit that would keep the white-collar cokeheads, there are many, from buying on the street. But that would only increased the number of crack users as dealers could buy the raw product more easily.

The saddest part is that as a group the same people who would like to ban cigarette smoking are often the same who favor legalization of drugs.

I'd say YES on most drugs.

Clearly, the current policy is ludicrous. Huge costs,
little effect.

Prohibition is viewed in hindsight as a very stupid
idea. What's any different about the War on Drugs ?

What is the purpose of restricting drugs but not
alcohol ? Both are drugs. DUI drivers kill many
many innocent bystanders. Yet I have seen
several articles in my state on repeat offenders
with more than 10 DUI convictions still out
there driving. Why haven't they been locked
up and the key tossed out ? It's Russian
Roulette !

A state Supreme Court justice got a DUI here
a few years ago.