Drug Legalization discussion (2 Viewers)

[General Malaise]

However, the hard drugs like heroine and meth cannot be legal, IMO. Their results from recreational use are too damaging.

Anyone who wants hard drugs can get them.

If you legalize all drugs then people who want to use them can make rational decisions (cost/benefit of each one) and will be using the least physically damaging versions (pharmaceutical grade vs. street grade).

Use the tax money generated from legal drug purchases to fund educational programs and rehab for drug users.

Take the money out of the hands of criminals and reduce the prison population.

Logically, legalizing all drugs is the best decision.

Are you sure? I can't imagine these idiots out there that are using meth are going to downgrade to pot. I would think its more likely they are going to search for something else that does more damage to their bodies for a better high....and I am for legal marijuana.

Not every person taking meth is an idiot.

 

[matttyl]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

 

[General Malaise]

It might sound like semantics, but I think it's very important that society still sends the message that the hard stuff is "illegal".

Good point. I fall into the habit of calling for 'legalization' when I really mean 'decriminalization'.

I don't think it's important at all what we call it. People know that tobacco is dangerous and bad for your health even though it is legal. Legalizing drugs does not mean "these are perfectly safe."

What? There are important distinctions with real effects between decriminalization and legalization. You can't just gloss over the difference like it doesn't matter. One I can get behind and one I can't.

You were talking about society "sending a message" that drugs are bad. Society can still send that message if drugs are legal.

They sure do with booze and cigarettes....I grew up in the 80's and we got that message all the time in school.

 

[cstu]

I wish LSD was legal. Nothing like a good acid trip to cleanse your mind.

Having been brainwashed by the media as a kid, I was always scared of LSD. Still haven't taken it but would if given the opportunity.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

 

[Quez]

I say legalize & regulate most drugs, but outlaw others.

Legal,

Weed, coke, heroine, mushrooms, MDMA, steroids

Illegal,

Meth, PCP, crank, spice, bath salts

I think they could have different distribution systems for the legal drugs I listed. Weed would be regulated similar to alcohol. The Heroine/ Opiates need to be prescribed by a doctor like they currently are. (Heroin is pretty much the same thing as methodone & oxycottin anyways). I have heard of MDMA and some psylosybins being tested on people with PTSD, so they could also be prescribed if they are indeed proven effective.

I'm not sure how to regulate and distribute coke, mushrooms, and MDMA for recreational use. However, people use them currently, and aren't going to stop. A safer way to legalize has got to be a better option IMO.

 

[whoknew]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Unless they both agree, of course.

Which reminds me - prostitution should be legal too.

 

[General Malaise]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

So regulate it, tax it, make it available and use the proceeds to treat those who need help. Perhaps if we bring the users out of the black market to secure their drugs, they won't be forgotten by society.

Not everybody who uses drugs is a depraved soul willing to commit atrocities to secure their fix.

 

[General Malaise]

I wish LSD was legal. Nothing like a good acid trip to cleanse your mind.

Having been brainwashed by the media as a kid, I was always scared of LSD. Still haven't taken it but would if given the opportunity.

So long as the dose is safe and you're in the right environment with the right people, its one of the greatest mind experiences you will ever have.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

But it wouldn't be prohibited, right?

 

[General Malaise]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Unless they both agree, of course.

Which reminds me - prostitution should be legal too.

Yup. Gambling, prostitution and drugs should all be legal and taxed. Would help solve a lot of this country's monetary shortfalls. Everytime I watch an episode of Deadwood where they have prostitutes in gambling parlors, I'm reminded that this country had it sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo right in the 1800s. Let's go back.

 

[mquinnjr]

However, the hard drugs like heroine and meth cannot be legal, IMO. Their results from recreational use are too damaging.

Anyone who wants hard drugs can get them.

If you legalize all drugs then people who want to use them can make rational decisions (cost/benefit of each one) and will be using the least physically damaging versions (pharmaceutical grade vs. street grade).

Use the tax money generated from legal drug purchases to fund educational programs and rehab for drug users.

Take the money out of the hands of criminals and reduce the prison population.

Logically, legalizing all drugs is the best decision.

Are you sure? I can't imagine these idiots out there that are using meth are going to downgrade to pot. I would think its more likely they are going to search for something else that does more damage to their bodies for a better high....and I am for legal marijuana.

Not every person taking meth is an idiot.

No you're right. It's a sound, informed life decision to take the turn down the path of Meth usage.

 

[matttyl]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

 

[beavers]

I used to be very pro-marijuana legalization. Now, I'm not really that for it anymore. I'm probably one of the few ....

 

[General Malaise]

However, the hard drugs like heroine and meth cannot be legal, IMO. Their results from recreational use are too damaging.

Anyone who wants hard drugs can get them.

If you legalize all drugs then people who want to use them can make rational decisions (cost/benefit of each one) and will be using the least physically damaging versions (pharmaceutical grade vs. street grade).

Use the tax money generated from legal drug purchases to fund educational programs and rehab for drug users.

Take the money out of the hands of criminals and reduce the prison population.

Logically, legalizing all drugs is the best decision.

Are you sure? I can't imagine these idiots out there that are using meth are going to downgrade to pot. I would think its more likely they are going to search for something else that does more damage to their bodies for a better high....and I am for legal marijuana.

Not every person taking meth is an idiot.

No you're right. It's a sound, informed life decision to take the turn down the path of Meth usage.

You do realize, of course, that many people take 'meth' legally every day and function just fine, right? Are you familiar with medications for ADHD?

 

[General Malaise]

I used to be very pro-marijuana legalization. Now, I'm not really that for it anymore. I'm probably one of the few ....

Yup.

 

[E Street Brat]

You want Legal drugs? Fine use the libertarian method. Personal choice personal responsibility.

No free rehab no free health care.

 

[roadkill1292]

I used to be very pro-marijuana legalization. Now, I'm not really that for it anymore. I'm probably one of the few ....

Yup.

About four people change their minds in the other direction for every one who decides one day that they were wrong and it should actually be illegal (recent Pew Research, I believe).

 

[roadkill1292]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

This theory seems so reasonable that it's understandable why so many believe it. But the real world evidence indicates otherwise. Usage rates don't increase in areas where decriminalization or legalization has occurred.

 

[matttyl]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

This theory seems so reasonable that it's understandable why so many believe it. But the real world evidence indicates otherwise. Usage rates don't increase in areas where decriminalization or legalization has occurred.

Did alcohol intake in the US increase or decrease during and then after prohibition?

 

[roadkill1292]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

This theory seems so reasonable that it's understandable why so many believe it. But the real world evidence indicates otherwise. Usage rates don't increase in areas where decriminalization or legalization has occurred.

Did alcohol intake in the US increase or decrease during and then after prohibition?

Why don't you tell us and then make your point?

 

[FUBAR]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

This theory seems so reasonable that it's understandable why so many believe it. But the real world evidence indicates otherwise. Usage rates don't increase in areas where decriminalization or legalization has occurred.

Did alcohol intake in the US increase or decrease during and then after prohibition?

http://addictiondoctor.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/alcohol-over-time.JPG

amazingly, it completely stopped!

 

[FUBAR]

or, more reasonably: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Social/Module1Epidemiology/slide17.jpg

 

[dgreen]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

Do you apply this logic to everything else? Since grocery stores are there to make money, you think food prices are more expensive now than if they were criminalized tomorrow? If SUVs were criminalized tomorrow, do you really think the prices would go down? If you didn't have to go to school for a really long time and pay lots of money to be a lawyer, do you think legal advice would be more or less expensive?

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

You correctly point out that it's supply AND demand, yet you then only focus on demand. What about the supply side? What do you think would happen to the supply curve of crack if it was legalized?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Too many people making too much money off of drugs being illegal. Maybe weed one day nation wide. But coke n herion n meth should not be legal.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't think usage rates should be the important factor. If somebody is capable of using and enjoying drugs in a non-destructive manner, I view that as a good thing. The important questions are about things like addiction rates. My guess is those rates are likely to go down, not up.

 

[General Malaise]

You want Legal drugs? Fine use the libertarian method. Personal choice personal responsibility.

No free rehab no free health care.

While I understand that sentiment, I do think we should use some of the tax proceeds to provide rehab care for those who want help. This is a health problem, not an ethical or moral problem.

 

[matttyl]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

This theory seems so reasonable that it's understandable why so many believe it. But the real world evidence indicates otherwise. Usage rates don't increase in areas where decriminalization or legalization has occurred.

Did alcohol intake in the US increase or decrease during and then after prohibition?

Why don't you tell us and then make your point?

Scholars estimate that consumption dropped to a low of about 60% of pre-prohibition levels around 1925.

Also, the chart posted above clearly shows alcohol consumption skyrocketed in the years after repeal.

 

[General Malaise]

Too many people making too much money off of drugs being illegal. Maybe weed one day nation wide. But coke n herion n meth should not be legal.

But you ARE okay with Oxycodone, Ritalin and Adderall being legal, correct?

 

[General Malaise]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

This theory seems so reasonable that it's understandable why so many believe it. But the real world evidence indicates otherwise. Usage rates don't increase in areas where decriminalization or legalization has occurred.

Did alcohol intake in the US increase or decrease during and then after prohibition?

Why don't you tell us and then make your point?

Scholars estimate that consumption dropped to a low of about 60% of pre-prohibition levels around 1925.

Also, the chart posted above clearly shows alcohol consumption skyrocketed in the years after repeal.

Doesn't it stand to reason that it was easier to track sales of alcohol post prohibition? I mean, how do you gauge the consumption rates if most of the booze was peddled on the black market or in speakeasies?

 

[Jayrod]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

This theory seems so reasonable that it's understandable why so many believe it. But the real world evidence indicates otherwise. Usage rates don't increase in areas where decriminalization or legalization has occurred.

It took about a decade to decrease in Portugal. For the first six years at least, it actually increased.

 

[roadkill1292]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

This theory seems so reasonable that it's understandable why so many believe it. But the real world evidence indicates otherwise. Usage rates don't increase in areas where decriminalization or legalization has occurred.

Did alcohol intake in the US increase or decrease during and then after prohibition?

Why don't you tell us and then make your point?

Scholars estimate that consumption dropped to a low of about 60% of pre-prohibition levels around 1925.

Also, the chart posted above clearly shows alcohol consumption skyrocketed in the years after repeal.

Why do you think the same thing hasn't happened in Portugal, Colorado, Washington, etc.?

The nation had a serious drinking problem prior to Prohibition, otherwise there wouldn't have been public support for Prohibition. I don't think the 12% (or whatever the number) of the population smoking weed (a more benign social drug than alcohol) conflates to the same kind of expected results as we got in the Prohibition Era.

 

[beavers]

I used to be very pro-marijuana legalization. Now, I'm not really that for it anymore. I'm probably one of the few ....

Yup.

About four people change their minds in the other direction for every one who decides one day that they were wrong and it should actually be illegal (recent Pew Research, I believe).

Interesting statistic. Perhaps I should clarify....

What scares me is the susceptiablity for a psychotic induced mental illness (such as bipolar etc) after cannibus use. There are studies that show a connection, and I fear that legalization of MJ would normalize it and for those who are high risk, make it okay to do it.

 

[General Malaise]

I used to be very pro-marijuana legalization. Now, I'm not really that for it anymore. I'm probably one of the few ....

Yup.

About four people change their minds in the other direction for every one who decides one day that they were wrong and it should actually be illegal (recent Pew Research, I believe).

Interesting statistic. Perhaps I should clarify....

What scares me is the susceptiablity for a psychotic induced mental illness (such as bipolar etc) after cannibus use. There are studies that show a connection, and I fear that legalization of MJ would normalize it and for those who are high risk, make it okay to do it.

Would like to see some evidence of this.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't think more people using cannabis after legalization is necessarily a good reason to keep it prohibited. If in fact that's what actually happens.

 

[timschochet]

I used to be very pro-marijuana legalization. Now, I'm not really that for it anymore. I'm probably one of the few ....

Yup.

About four people change their minds in the other direction for every one who decides one day that they were wrong and it should actually be illegal (recent Pew Research, I believe).

Interesting statistic. Perhaps I should clarify....What scares me is the susceptiablity for a psychotic induced mental illness (such as bipolar etc) after cannibus use. There are studies that show a connection, and I fear that legalization of MJ would normalize it and for those who are high risk, make it okay to do it.

Would like to see some evidence of this.

I linked some earlier.

 

[matttyl]

People can and will do some of the most depraved #### imagineable to get their fix. I'm all for out-of-the-box thinking, but we can't legalize that stuff.

If it were legal people would not have as much of a need to do depraved #### to get it.

Why not? It's not like it's going to be free. They will still be doing the depraved #### to get the money to buy the stuff.

It would be less expensive and presumably you would not need to suck the #### of the storeowner to get it.

Well, it could be less expensive - but I'm not sure it would be. Businesses are there to make money, too. If it were legal (or decriminalized) and you had the patent on some particular makeup of a drug - like maybe "blue ice" or whatever the slang term for what Walter White made in Breaking Bad - you could set the price you wanted. Look at the Hep C drug Harvoni (or Sovaldi) - 95% cure rate, and a $80-95k price tag. "The fix" there is the cure.

Do you apply this logic to everything else? Since grocery stores are there to make money, you think food prices are more expensive now than if they were criminalized tomorrow? If SUVs were criminalized tomorrow, do you really think the prices would go down? If you didn't have to go to school for a really long time and pay lots of money to be a lawyer, do you think legal advice would be more or less expensive?

It's economics - supply and demand. You're removing the barrier of the demand side (potentially higher demand, means higher prices). After all, legalizing or decriminalizing it wouldn't in and of itself make an addict no longer an addict. But removing the barrier may lead someone who had previously been "on the fence" to now try it, and become hooked.

You correctly point out that it's supply AND demand, yet you then only focus on demand. What about the supply side? What do you think would happen to the supply curve of crack if it was legalized?

Everyone eats food (groceries), and there is no substitute or alternative, so not the best example. If SUVs were criminalized, yes I do believe that their prices would go down as fewer people would demand them (some people do pay attention to laws). I myself just purchased an SUV earlier this month, but if that were criminal to do so, I would have purchased a wagon or another type of vehicle (where a substitute could be used). As for the lawyer idea - how about a doctor? If some guy could cure you of your cancer, but he weren't a "doctor", would you care what he charged? Probably not, you'd want your cure (your fix).

As for supply, I guess the market would determine that. If someone could come in and was large enough to scale to the demand and do so while making money, it could drive out competition. If you let "big pharma" get a hold of this cash cow, they will squeeze the little guy out. Roughly 20% of the US adult population uses a widely known "drug" already - tobacco, in the form of cigarettes. In that industry, 4 companies control 95% of domestic market share. Sure they could drown the market in a huge supply, but competition is way down, which could lead to increased prices.

I'm just saying that I'm not sure legalizing or decriminalizing would automatically lead to lower prices. It could, but there would be a lot of factors at play in an extremely unique "market".

 

[Harry Manback]

So, in Tim's thread where he's discussing Presidents, the war on drugs became a small side topic.

One poster equated the continued progression of the War on Drugs as "criminal" by the various Presidential candidates. I commented that essentially I thought this was a BS concept because of the complexity of the drug problem and that legalization/decriminalization wasn't some magic fix all.

And I'm not talking about pot either. Honestly, I've come around that we'd be better off with marijuana being legal throughout the US. However, the hard drugs like heroine and meth cannot be legal, IMO. Their results from recreational use are too damaging.

After my post, fatguyinalittlecoat simply replied that I was wrong, but that he didn't want to hijack Tim's thread. So out of respect for that, I'm starting this thread.

My main question is, why would the legalization/decriminalization of hard drugs be better? What is the thinking there?

I'll hang up and listen. TIA, will answer yours, gllll peas.

I guess, my biggest question to you is this:

Do you think you'd start doing meth/heroin if it were legal?

 

[NCCommish]

Ask Portugal. 14 years later decriminalization of all drugs and they seem to be doing better than when they pursued a very draconian war on drugs. They also instituted a BIG which apparently is part of the reason for the drop in drug use.

After reading a couple of articles on Portugal, it seems that drug use and the dangers of drug use have declined.However, the BIG and other such socialistic type measures have put their economy in a bad place. The continued government investment in drug treatments AND basic income guarantees looks like it could be untenable. One or both or some other governmental service is probably going to have to be dealt with.

However, I am not opposed to shifting the war on drugs to a war on the results of drugs. In other words, the shift of focus from eliminating the drug supply to eliminating the drug demand could be more effective. Personally I believe a combination approach would be the best idea as neither supply or demand can ever be fully eradicated.

Actually austerity and low wages along with a crappy export market seem to be the main problems.

 

[(HULK)]

However, the hard drugs like heroine and meth cannot be legal, IMO. Their results from recreational use are too damaging.

Anyone who wants hard drugs can get them.

If you legalize all drugs then people who want to use them can make rational decisions (cost/benefit of each one) and will be using the least physically damaging versions (pharmaceutical grade vs. street grade).

Use the tax money generated from legal drug purchases to fund educational programs and rehab for drug users.

Take the money out of the hands of criminals and reduce the prison population.

Logically, legalizing all drugs is the best decision.

Are you sure? I can't imagine these idiots out there that are using meth are going to downgrade to pot. I would think its more likely they are going to search for something else that does more damage to their bodies for a better high....and I am for legal marijuana.

Not every person taking meth is an idiot.

No you're right. It's a sound, informed life decision to take the turn down the path of Meth usage.

You do realize, of course, that many people take 'meth' legally every day and function just fine, right? Are you familiar with medications for ADHD?

I take Straterra, not meth. I didn't realize meth was an option.

 

[Jayrod]

Too many people making too much money off of drugs being illegal. Maybe weed one day nation wide. But coke n herion n meth should not be legal.

But you ARE okay with Oxycodone, Ritalin and Adderall being legal, correct?

Legal how? For present use, you have to have a prescription and a medical reason to take it. If you don't, then it is actually illegal.

 

[johnnycakes]

Prohibition came around because people came to believe that alcohol was the root of too many social problems and that by prohibiting alcohol production and sale etc.., that these social problems would be cured. They weren't. Instead, illegal activities flourished... smuggling, bootlegging, organized crime really took off, public officials were easily corrupted, and convictions were often hard to get because the jury was made up of people who wanted to drink. And when people went to a speakeasy to drink, they didn't just go to have a few... they went to get drunk. As a result, the 18th amendment was eventually repealed.

We are seeing the same thing happening with marijuana to a point. I don't know if public officials have been as easily corrupted with marijuana specifically, but I'd be really surprised if no one on the enforcement side of the equation was taking a payoff related to drugs at any given point in time. Some things are becoming more apparent, though.... there very well may be social evils associated with marijuana, but very strong efforts over a long period of time have failed to stop marijuana use, and the social costs of marijuana specifically aren't nearly as clear as they are, say, with heroin, cocaine, meth, or even alcohol. So public support in favor of decriminalizing and even legalizing marijuana has been growing and if things don't go to hell in those states where it is legalized, that trend will probably continue.

With respect to other, harder drugs like those I mentioned... heroin, coke, meth, molly, et. al.... those are a long, long way from getting legalized or decriminalized anywhere. I don't think there are nearly as many users of those harder drugs, for starters, while the social costs seem to be much more easily defined. There is no growing support for decriminalization of the harder drugs.

Should there be? Since we don't have those laws, they should not be. Per se. In that regard, what are laws, but a set of rules by which a society agrees - voluntarily or involuntarily - to abide. If a group of citizens don't like it and they are numerous enough... they can go start their own country. That's how the U.S. got started. That very well may be how ISIS gets a country of its own. A group of people who want to live together by the same set of rules. And if that means they don't want others using heroin around them - and everyone feels that way - that then becomes law, and the heroin user will abide, either voluntarily or involuntarily... or he can start his own country.

That's how we live.

So the first step in getting any change in laws is public support. That is what MADD did to beef up the drunken driving laws. used to be a nuisance bust for the cops, not worthy of their time. MADD changed public opinion and that wound up changing the laws.

Marijuana started changing public opinion with NORML. There are other groups that are politically active with respect to decriminalization or legalization of marijuana, too... none that I know of for harder drugs.

Though I understand that NAMBLA would like to change public perceptions of... well... you know.

Anyhow... I guess I'm just as glad the harder drugs aren't legal or decriminalized. If cocaine were easily available and not criminal, I'd probably be dead by now. And I doubt I'd be alone in that. As for the Portugal model... it has its merits. As I interpret what they have done, they are now aggressively pushing addicts into treatment programs. Over the long-term, there may be a lot to say for that approach. I'd need to know more about how it's working over there. Even at that, I would see it as a states rights kind of thing... again, a society can determine the standards by which they live. In the U.S., those societies can be broken down into smaller and smaller groups, states being one of those groups that may impose its standards across its members.

 

[General Malaise]

Too many people making too much money off of drugs being illegal. Maybe weed one day nation wide. But coke n herion n meth should not be legal.

But you ARE okay with Oxycodone, Ritalin and Adderall being legal, correct?

Legal how? For present use, you have to have a prescription and a medical reason to take it. If you don't, then it is actually illegal.

So then, not unlike medical marijuana?

 

[matttyl]

Also, the chart posted above clearly shows alcohol consumption skyrocketed in the years after repeal.

Scholars estimate that consumption dropped to a low of about 60% of pre-prohibition levels around 1925.

Why do you think the same thing hasn't happened in Portugal, Colorado, Washington, etc.?

The nation had a serious drinking problem prior to Prohibition, otherwise there wouldn't have been public support for Prohibition. I don't think the 12% (or whatever the number) of the population smoking weed (a more benign social drug than alcohol) conflates to the same kind of expected results as we got in the Prohibition Era.

Portugal is an interesting case, and one that I hadn't heard about before this morning. Still doing reading on it. I did, however, find this...

There are, however, statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007:

Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%

In that reading was also this nugget:

However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalized many years earlier than in Portugal.

As for Colorado, what do you mean? MJ usage has gone up since decriminalization. Both it and Washington had usage go up by about 20% in the first year.

 

[(HULK)]

If there were no laws, there would be no criminals.

 

[Jayrod]

So, in Tim's thread where he's discussing Presidents, the war on drugs became a small side topic.

One poster equated the continued progression of the War on Drugs as "criminal" by the various Presidential candidates. I commented that essentially I thought this was a BS concept because of the complexity of the drug problem and that legalization/decriminalization wasn't some magic fix all.

And I'm not talking about pot either. Honestly, I've come around that we'd be better off with marijuana being legal throughout the US. However, the hard drugs like heroine and meth cannot be legal, IMO. Their results from recreational use are too damaging.

After my post, fatguyinalittlecoat simply replied that I was wrong, but that he didn't want to hijack Tim's thread. So out of respect for that, I'm starting this thread.

My main question is, why would the legalization/decriminalization of hard drugs be better? What is the thinking there?

I'll hang up and listen. TIA, will answer yours, gllll peas.

I guess, my biggest question to you is this:

Do you think you'd start doing meth/heroin if it were legal?

No.

But I'd probably try LSD, pot and mushrooms. I've never touched an illegal drug in my life....like literally, not even touched. But I don't think I'd try anything with the side effects and addictiveness of those two.

 

[(HULK)]

FWIW, I do not currently smoke weed (job prohibited), but if it became legal, I would partake on occasion.

I don't see increased usage as a big problem with legalization though. If that is a person's choice, and its not hurting anyone else, why deny them?

 

[General Malaise]

However, the hard drugs like heroine and meth cannot be legal, IMO. Their results from recreational use are too damaging.

Anyone who wants hard drugs can get them.

If you legalize all drugs then people who want to use them can make rational decisions (cost/benefit of each one) and will be using the least physically damaging versions (pharmaceutical grade vs. street grade).

Use the tax money generated from legal drug purchases to fund educational programs and rehab for drug users.

Take the money out of the hands of criminals and reduce the prison population.

Logically, legalizing all drugs is the best decision.

Are you sure? I can't imagine these idiots out there that are using meth are going to downgrade to pot. I would think its more likely they are going to search for something else that does more damage to their bodies for a better high....and I am for legal marijuana.

Not every person taking meth is an idiot.

No you're right. It's a sound, informed life decision to take the turn down the path of Meth usage.

You do realize, of course, that many people take 'meth' legally every day and function just fine, right? Are you familiar with medications for ADHD?

I take Straterra, not meth. I didn't realize meth was an option.

Ritalin and Adderall are used for people with ADHD. Not unlike meth at all.

 

[Jayrod]

Too many people making too much money off of drugs being illegal. Maybe weed one day nation wide. But coke n herion n meth should not be legal.

But you ARE okay with Oxycodone, Ritalin and Adderall being legal, correct?

Legal how? For present use, you have to have a prescription and a medical reason to take it. If you don't, then it is actually illegal.

So then, not unlike medical marijuana?

Nobody in here is talking about prescription drugs. That's a whole other animal but I think you are trying to make a point, so just stop prolonging it with provocative questions and make it already.

 

[dgreen]

If SUVs were criminalized, yes I do believe that their prices would go down as fewer people would demand them (some people do pay attention to laws). I myself just purchased an SUV earlier this month, but if that were criminal to do so, I would have purchased a wagon or another type of vehicle (where a substitute could be used). As for the lawyer idea - how about a doctor? If some guy could cure you of your cancer, but he weren't a "doctor", would you care what he charged? Probably not, you'd want your cure (your fix).

As for supply, I guess the market would determine that. If someone could come in and was large enough to scale to the demand and do so while making money, it could drive out competition. If you let "big pharma" get a hold of this cash cow, they will squeeze the little guy out. Roughly 20% of the US adult population uses a widely known "drug" already - tobacco, in the form of cigarettes. In that industry, 4 companies control 95% of domestic market share. Sure they could drown the market in a huge supply, but competition is way down, which could lead to increased prices.

I'm just saying that I'm not sure legalizing or decriminalizing would automatically lead to lower prices. It could, but there would be a lot of factors at play in an extremely unique "market".

You're throwing the word "supply" in there at times, but you are analysis is only focused on demand. The law of demand and the law of supply work together to create prices.

Your conclusion only holds true if supply is unchanged by the changes in the legalization or if supply changes less than demand in reaction to new laws. I'd find it crazy to argue the former and I think the latter is only close to true in this case if you assume the government establishes an excessive number of entry barriers for suppliers.

Typically, legalization floods markets with legal suppliers.