Drugs: Legalise or Prohibit?

[Archangel M]

Though it's legal, you still got bootleggers and cigarette smugglers...

Dont see a lot of smokers robbing the 7-11 to buy a pack or a 40 oz.

 

[Tez3]

While discussing drugs would people include alcohol? I know that America had prohibition which didn't work as well as was hoped but should alcohol be included in the list of dangerous drugs? In my job the vast majority of offences we come across are caused by drinking too much, drugs aren't so common. The Armed Forces here have random compulsory drugs tests and if found to be taking drugs it's instant dismissal. Alcohol on the other hand is not only legal but encouraged.
The crimes that the misuse of alcohol lead to are varied- assaults, domestic abuse, criminal damage, drink driving, murder, theft, drunk and disorderly etc. The focus however is always on the drugs while the medical costs of alcohol abuse are far larger than that of drug users. The time spent by police here dealing with alcohol related crimes is far bigger than that of drug related problems.
It seems relatively easy to sort out the drug problem as it's a legalise or not question but alcohol which is still a drug seems a much harder problem therefore people seem to push it under the carpet.
Drug addiction certainly is one cause of crimes but alcohol causes more damage and costs the country far more.

 

[Archangel M]

"Legalization" and allowing recreational use are two different things. Should we let prescription drugs be available over the counter for recreational use too?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Interesting math, however I don't think there is a lot of medical use for crack, non for meth and cocain is limited as well...

So we realistically are talking pot.

No, we're not. The drug dealers who sell pot also sell other illicit substances. The cartels that buy, process, and import illicit drugs do not specialize in 'only marijuana' and certainly won't voluntarily cease operations if/when medical marijuana use becomes legal nationwide. They will continue to buy, process, and import all the other drugs, which will continue to be illegal.

One cannot easily sever the link between marijuana-related crimes and those of other currently-illicit drugs.

And by most accounts that has about the effect of booze, is less addicting than nicotine (which is legal and highly taxed, regardless of health concerns) plus most smoke less in joints than a smoker lights up.

The amount of damage to the individual marijuana does is not central to the discussion of whether or not it should be legal; that is a side-issue. The point is that abusers of all stripes (pot, booze, prescription drugs, etc) do serious damage to society. Increasing our acceptance of that damage is not helping society, it is inflicting further damage upon it.

Put simply, it's not about what pot smokers do to themselves, it is what they do to the rest of us.

That stuff can be easily grown, so you decriminalize that you got one leg up, plus even with taxes it should be cheaper legal than illegal. So the only people really having an interest keeping it on the books are the growrs and the temperance movement...

Cigarettes would be twenty-five cents a pack without taxes at the local, state, and federal level. Currently, a pack of cigarettes in North Carolina cost about $3.50. In NYC, the same pack is over $8. This leads directly to black market and smuggling operations. Cigarettes also cost much more in Canada, leading smugglers to take them to Canada from the USA, just as booze flowed from Canada to the USA during Prohibition.

And one must also recognized that once governments get a taste of tax revenue from a new stream, they cannot restrain themselves from adding more and more and more taxes to it; very quickly the cost of 'legal' marijuana will outstrip what was the former illicit cost; and illicit importation will begin again, as it will be able to compete with legal prices.

Not to mention that there is a little hing called hemp that is an excellent natural fiber, some believe superior to cotton, but under current laws it is also not legal to grow, heck some states make it illegal to have your life stock poop on it...

Hemp is lovely and should be legal to grow as a crop. The type of hemp grown as a crop is so low in THC that no one could reasonably smoke it and get high. However, again, that is a separate issue from the legalization of marijuana for recreational or medical (wink, wink) uses.

One might also note that the marijuana grown today for smoking purposes is not the same as it was in the days of the 1960's hippies. It has gone from 1% - 3% THC to over 14% THC. Great for getting high, but a very different drug from that smoked by peaceniks.

 

[Big Don]

"Legalization" and allowing recreational use are two different things. Should we let prescription drugs be available over the counter for recreational use too?

Someone mentioned the "medical marijuana" in CA is so much a wink and nod recreational legalization. (in so many words) shouldn't abusers of marijuana prescriptions be treated the same as abusers of other prescriptions?

Oh, I'm not only talking about the users, I'm talking about the doctors who for, the rate I've heard over and over, $150 will give you a medical marijuana card, be punished as well?

Somehow, with this guy in the top law enforcement job in the country, I doubt it will be:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Drug addiction certainly is one cause of crimes but alcohol causes more damage and costs the country far more.

I don't see the logic in saying "We have an alcohol problem. Let's make it worse by adding a drug problem, to be fair to the drug users."

 

[Tez3]

I don't see the logic in saying "We have an alcohol problem. Let's make it worse by adding a drug problem, to be fair to the drug users."

I'm sorry I don't see what you are getting at. The figures in this country show that alcohol abuse costs more in medical care and is the cause of more crime than drug abuse is. I don't understand what you mean, I'm not adding anything to anything.

 

[Big Don]

I'm sorry I don't see what you are getting at. The figures in this country show that alcohol abuse costs more in medical care and is the cause of more crime than drug abuse is. I don't understand what you mean, I'm not adding anything to anything.

I think, what Bill was getting at, was that if drugs were legal, you'd see drugs much more rampant.

 

[Tez3]

I think, what Bill was getting at, was that if drugs were legal, you'd see drugs much more rampant.

Ah, thank you. I'm not sure about that as I haven't anything to go on as obviosuly drugs aren't legal.
I know in Portugal they haven't made drugs legal but they are concentrating on getting drug addicts to rehab instead of to court, it seems to work. It leaves the police free to target the drug dealers rather than the addicts who are treated medically rather than as criminals. I doubt it does any good locking up drug addicts they would be better off in rehab, at least some would get clean. It would seem to benefit the country economically to treat them rather than just lock them up, more room for the drug dealers in prison!

However like the UK Portugal is a small country and it may work better than in such a large place as the States, I don't know. However the main point is that drugs aren't legal in Portugal but they have made some headway in dealing with the problem.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm sorry I don't see what you are getting at. The figures in this country show that alcohol abuse costs more in medical care and is the cause of more crime than drug abuse is. I don't understand what you mean, I'm not adding anything to anything.

You are also not taking away from anything. It's a false argument.

It is like saying "The damage to the environment caused by legal fertilizer is much larger than the damage to the environment caused by DDT. Therefore let us legalize DDT." It changes nothing - the cost caused by legal fertilizer or the cost caused by illegally-used DDT. It is an argument which has no point, a logical fallacy. The costs of each remain the same in both the legal and illegal scenarios.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think, what Bill was getting at, was that if drugs were legal, you'd see drugs much more rampant.

Not exactly, but thank you anyway. It may be that drug use would increase if drugs were legalized, but that is an arguable point. My point is that using an example of something that causes more damage to society (alcohol) as a justification for legalizing something that causes less damage to society (pot smoking) isn't a valid argument at all; nothing will change whether pot is legal or illegal - the costs to society for both booze and pot remain the same. So how is that an argument in favor of legalization? It's just throwing a bunch of words in the air in a false comparison.

 

[Tez3]

You are also not taking away from anything. It's a false argument.

It is like saying "The damage to the environment caused by legal fertilizer is much larger than the damage to the environment caused by DDT. Therefore let us legalize DDT." It changes nothing - the cost caused by humans or the cost caused by illegally-used DDT. It is an argument which has no point, a logical fallacy. The costs of each remain the same in both the legal and illegal scenarios.

I've still no idea what you are talking about. I was asking what people thought about alcohol abuse, whether it should be considered as a problem in line with drug abuse, I had no argument, it was a question. Are you sure it's my post you are talking about? I haven't called for anything to be legalised or made illegal, I was curious to know whether people considered alcohol on a par with drug use.

 

[Tez3]

Not exactly, but thank you anyway. It may be that drug use would increase if drugs were legalized, but that is an arguable point. My point is that using an example of something that causes more damage to society (alcohol) as a justification for legalizing something that causes less damage to society (pot smoking) isn't a valid argument at all; nothing will change whether pot is legal or illegal - the costs to society for both booze and pot remain the same. So how is that an argument in favor of legalization? It's just throwing a bunch of words in the air in a false comparison.

I think you have got my post quite mixed up. I was saying that in my experience it was alcohol that caused the damage as drug use wasn't very common where I am. I wasn't suggesting legalising drugs at all and nowhere did I say that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think you have got my post quite mixed up. I was saying that in my experience it was alcohol that caused the damage as drug use wasn't very common where I am. I wasn't suggesting legalising drugs at all and nowhere did I say that.

Beg your pardon, but I made an assumption - erroneous as it turns out. The 'booze causes more problems than pot' argument is very commonly heard here, so I presumed that's what you were saying. Booze DOES cause more problems than pot; but this is not a logical argument in favor of adding pot to the list of problems we have. Sorry to have assumed you were making an argument.

 

[Tez3]

Beg your pardon, but I made an assumption - erroneous as it turns out. The 'booze causes more problems than pot' argument is very commonly heard here, so I presumed that's what you were saying. Booze DOES cause more problems than pot; but this is not a logical argument in favor of adding pot to the list of problems we have. Sorry to have assumed you were making an argument.

No worries.

I have little experience with drug problems or drug dealing. All drug offences in the Armed Forces are dealt with by the relevant service police. I see the problems caused by the misuse of alcohol, the fighting, domestic abuse etc. I was curious to know if people see alcohol as a problem along with drugs because to many alcohol is an 'acceptable' drug.

I think I would favour the Portugese way of coping with the drug problem, keep drugs illegal but target the drug dealers and make the drug addicts go through rehab. I think if you legalise drugs you would lose the ability to 'force' the addicts to get clean, I don't really care about addicts if I'm honest but I do resent how much they are likely to cost us in police man hours and in the prison system so if they are going to cost us something anyway get them into rehab and get as many clean as possible. Of course it isn't going to work all the time but chasing the dealers rather than the addicts is a better use of police resources.

 

[Steve]

Have you ever looked at the effects of long term Marijuana use on the brain? Have you done any research on the symptoms of Marijuana addiction? I mean real research not what the pro-pot lobby tell you.

You can believe the pro-marijuana talking points all you want. "hey man weed makes you happy, You dont get mad you dont get into fights man you just chill dude" "its so not addicting I’ve smoked dope for 25 years I can quit anytime wait what were we talking about" Its your right.

Sadly this country will someday make marijuana legal and we as a society will continue to fall behind.

I'm not suggesting that marijuana is innocuous or healthy. I'm saying that we do things every day that are unhealthy but legal. We eat double double animal style cheeseburgers at the In and Out. We smoke cigarettes. We drink scotch or Zima. We fail to exercise even when we know we should. We allow our kids to play football, but have you seen what THAT does to a brain?

Point isn't that MJ is good for you. Point IS that it's much less bad for you than many things that are legal. Again, all of the negative points for MJ are directly attributable to its being illegal. Were it legalized, all of these negative points would magically disappear.

 

[Steve]

Yep. My views haven't changed, I'm just trying to be a bit kinder and gentler.

I didn't consider you unkind or ungentle. Wrong maybe... but you came around to my side in the end.

 

[ballen0351]

I'm not suggesting that marijuana is innocuous or healthy. I'm saying that we do things every day that are unhealthy but legal. We eat double double animal style cheeseburgers at the In and Out. We smoke cigarettes. We drink scotch or Zima. We fail to exercise even when we know we should. We allow our kids to play football, but have you seen what THAT does to a brain?

Point isn't that MJ is good for you. Point IS that it's much less bad for you than many things that are legal. Again, all of the negative points for MJ are directly attributable to its being illegal. Were it legalized, all of these negative points would magically disappear.

So then why keep adding more things that are bad for us? We have already shown we cant handle alcohol look at the # of fatal accidents due to drinking. So why add one more thing to the mix?

 

[ballen0351]

It makes me laugh that in Cali they can outlaw Happy meals for kids because they are bad for them and thats ok but allow Marijuana use because we dont want the Govt telling us what to do.

 

[granfire]

So then why keep adding more things that are bad for us? We have already shown we cant handle alcohol look at the # of fatal accidents due to drinking. So why add one more thing to the mix?

Like cell phones with texting?