Essay talk:Why Drugs Should be Legal

Discuss, people. If you disagree with my view, I would like you to say so so I can address it in the essay, and so I can discuss it with you. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see some references for the first paragraph regarding the history.

Besides that, I agree and I would also recommend you note that all of the arguments against currently illegal drugs could also apply to alcohol and tobacco.

Ofc many will never be legalized because the prison-industrial complex and their drug cartel friends make massive amounts of money off the whole thing. You can't argue with money, so it's best to encourage people not to use and hope they run out of people to lock up. When the income dries up, the political power disappears. Sadly things like this are vicious cycles. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The opening sentence is all kinds of ignorant & seems to assume that the USA is the world. China prohibited opium repeatedly during the 18th & 19th centuries but the opium trade was forced on it by the British Empire. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I broadly agree with essay but confusing "America" and "The world" is an error.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not ban cigs, too?

There's a good case for that, you know. Fun fact: As I recall, cigs are likely to have killed 1 billion people by the end of this century, more than any other human invention. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to be speaking to the cat-ahem, potato himself. Yeah, if I could press a button and get rid of cigarettes, I would do it. But in terms of policy, I think the current regimen of heavy regulation and taxation is doing a good job of reducing smoking rates and deaths as well. The problem is third world countries. John Oliver has a great bit about this, and I'd urge you to watch it on YouTube. Essentially cigarettes are many times more dangerous in third and second-world countries than in America. Due to trade deals and lack of responsible governments, cigarette companies get away with open marketing and little to no taxation. I would focus on this if I were president. But with regards to policy, a total ban would not be realistic or workable, just as with alcohol or cannabis. In short: you can't ban stupid, only regulate it to the point of insanity. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Drug on Wars

Is the biggest bullshit ever. It jails people for victimless crimes (the user himself doesn't count, as self-harm is a person's own business) and ties up resources of cops, courts and prisons needlessly and only manages to feed the drugs cartels and the prison-industrial complex and, of course, ends up targeting minorities and poor people disproportionally. A druggie is not a criminal in need of a jail sentence, he's a sick man in need of a doctor. The state should not ban the drugs, but regulate them (keep it away from the kids as much as they can... Although if a brat tries hard enough s/he'd always manage to get some booze by e.g. from an adult friend or a careless shop owner) and tax them, that would seriously damage the black market (why go to the shady parts of town,if it's legal), the cartels, the prison-industrial complex and would free the resources of the cops, courts and so on to persecute real crimes.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

its bullshit to say drugs are a victimless crime. A drug habit is an expensive thing and pushes an addict to all kinds of crime to feed that habit. There is also the fact that while drugs are illegal, every purchase of a drug is directly funding wars in other parts of the world. Look at the state of central america, and mexico in particular - every coke head in the states is fuelling the carnage. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The first one is not specific to drugs, but to any kind of addictive or obsessive behavior and not inherent to the drug itself, the second is mostly a direct consequence of the prohibition (forgot, how the prohibition of booze made the mafia in the US big, strong and powerful?).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware that the drug war in mexico is the result of the illegality of drugs, but while they are illegal, drug use fuels that war and is therefore not victimless. With my first point, it is not true to say crime linked to addiction is not specific to drugs. An alcoholic is not going to be drivem to cimmit crimes the same way a meth head will. It is wrong to say that all illegal drugs are the same with the same risks. Meth is so much worse than pot. Smack is so much worse than alcohol. You cannot treat an alcohlic the way you would treat a smack head or the way you would treat a meth head. I am all for legalization, but it will not create some kind of utopia, but it will create some huge problems for very many people that pro drug people are all to keen to ignore AMassiveGay (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

And if drugs were legal then the money that goes to the cartels would go to businesses and not the cartels that fuel those wars. Just because you can't treat every addict the same doesn't mean prohibition prevents them from becoming addicts in the first place. Most drug bust gets local dealers and not the kingpins; arresting the local dealer only ensures that someone else will replce them because demand never goes away and nothing will deter people from selling these drugs when they need the money. Assuming you do take down a kingpin there will only be an increase in violence in order to fill the vacuum left behind. Also am I committing a crime when a buy a shirt that comes from Bangladesh that was most likely made by slaves?--Owlman (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

if drugs are legal there would huge rise in drug use. Existing users habit would doubtless increase. All legalisation will do is prevent profits from drugs going to criminals, and hopefully not criminalise drug users. If you think poor communities currently blighted by drugs will suddenly become paradises if drugs were legal, think again. If you are pro legalisation you have to have some idea of how to tackle this otherwise you are propagating a fantasy. I know only too well how drug users get by today and i am under no illusions of how they would respond to legal drugs. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

and yes you are, or should be, commiting a crime if you buy a product made by child labour ir by slave labour. Iphone users take note. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if you don't buy the above argument, there's a lost-work component: for all the time people spend drugged, they aren't working to make a better world. For all the money people spend on drugs, they aren't giving to those in need. It's an extension of consumerism. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

People are under no obligation to work for a better world, or to give to those in need. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Also you could make the almost same argument about watching television.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@AH: That assumes that inaction is different than action; there's no reason to think so.

@Bob: Indeed you could. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sooo - would you support making watching television illegal on the same basis as drugs?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

it would stop all those old biddies going on the game to pay for the license fee AMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Pssh, so should I not give money to the homeless because they might go get high.; I mean do I tell a student that they shouldn't be an artist because that wouldn't be beneficial to soceity. Also people tend to take drugs for different reasons: soft drugs (hallucinogens, cannabis, etc) tend to be a cultural phenomenon, and I encourage their use, while hard drugs are taken as a treatment for mental illness. I guess I largely agree with Smerdis on his assertion that there is an "activist paradox" though I don't think it is always problematic. --Owlman (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

you shouldnt give money to homeless because they will use it to get high. Anyone who has spent time homeless will tell you this. Homeless charities recommend you don't give to homeless people directly but to charities where the money can more readily go where it is needed. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that legalizing drugs will bring paradise to poor communities, but criminalization causes an extreme amount of harm and you will lose their work will they are in prison. Clearly increasing welfare, education, and economic opportunities will avoid these problems. Also I don't care if someone gets high since I think everyone needs some relief. Icall BS that drug use would increase with the legalisation of drugs because alcoholism didn't increase after prohibition ended. When we ended prohibition we didn't do it because we now encouraged alcoholism we did it because it was better to treat individuals with their problems when they needed help and organized crime became larger. Now I do agree that it should be a crime to sell products that are made by slaves and not just child labour, but we shouldn't punish the end user even if they are knowingly comitting a crime; we should put the distributor (the pimps and drug kingpins) in jail. We can't punish natural desires like sex and drugs.--Owlman (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The prohibition analogy is flawed & can't reasonably be applied to any other drug.

If you're concerned about slavery, bear in mind that drug addiction is widely used as a tool of coercion by slavers, pimps & human traffickers around the world. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of this problem, but one should ask why people become drug users or prostitutes. The problem with criminalizing all these drugs and criminalizing prostitution (since these tend to go hand in hand) is that these people can't report the crimes committed against because they may go to jail for committing a crime. I would rether give herion addicts artificial heroin and have them use it at controlled facilities than in the streets; I would rather people take amphetamines than meth. We can also research these drugs and us them in medicine; heroin has been used in surgery, meth is an anti-obesity and anti-ADHD drug. I also think it is absolutely reasonable to use prohibition as an analogy because there are many similarities.--Owlman (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Are there? How many other narcotics have been part of everyday life, then subject to a poorly enforced ban for a decade, then legalised again? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well cannabis is slowly being legalized.--Owlman (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So, not actually similar at all. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So the only diff is, that the cops are after the users of one drug (especially, if they have dark skin or/and are poor). So? --Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? That doesn't address any of my points. Unless you can find examples of a drug which has held a similar place in society to alcohol and has been temporarily illegalised under similar circumstances, you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from the prohibition era in relation to other drug laws. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean sure it isn't exactly like the prohibition era, but it still turned low level cartels into massive, multinational cartels. Also opiods and cannabis were widely used in Asia and Latin America.--Owlman (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Look I will agree that legalization, for personal use, of hard drugs may be more problematic which is why I think we have to first decriminalizing all drugs is the best thing we can do. I think that legalizing "soft drugs" would be the farthest a society ought to go. I still stand by artificial heroin and monitored injection though.--Owlman (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

ha. I have never met a heroin user who would volunteer for 'monitored injections'. Thats going to seem like a sex offenders list for drug users. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Heroin should in point of fact be licit. The utmost euphoria of the substance is marvelous. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So you are telling me that Supervised injection site don't work?--Owlman (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

what i got from that site was no discernable impact on overdoses, public injecting and low uptake from users. So no they do not work.AMassiveGay (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

AMassiveGay, you should read this. Tldr, hardish drugs (cannabis, heroin) were decriminalized in Portugal and the usage and death rates dropped significantly. HIV rates due to needles have also dropped. It's been a considerable success.

Personally, I am leery of just suddenly legalizing heroin and selling it in stores, as it is extremely addictive and leads to overdose deaths much more often than alcohol. I worded my other essay's language such that the courts would reasonably interpret that heroin could not be sold in CVS or Walgreen's, but should also not be something people are placed in a cage for months for. Same with cocaine, crack, and crystal meth. However, the Supreme Court would interpret the language of the bill to mean that drugs found by leading scientific institutions and extensive FDA reviews to be unaddictive and relatively unharmful (psylocibin, LSD, DMT, MDMA, THC) will be legalized. That was the intent. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)