legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

Here is my question. Why should the actions of a person be controlled if they don't represent a threat to the "public safety" of others. If a person sits at home and does heroin or cocaine they don't represent a threat to the public safety. I can understand the government's need to address issues of public safety but can't rationalize the government being involved in the personal safety of the individual.

Do we really, for example, need the government to regulate knives because we can cut ourselves with them? How about more regulations of ladders because we can fall off of them and break our necks. Obviously bathtubs aren't regulated enough because it's one of the most common places in the home where accidental injuries and deaths occur.

 

Well, that's because people that are on cocaine are a danger to society. Some violent crimes are committed by somebody that's under the influence of cocaine, which shows that somebody that's high on cocaine is a danger to society. Rick James was an example about somebody that's high from smoking crack is a danger to society.

The key difference between knives, ladders, bathtubs, and heroin and cocaine is that for most people, it's very possible and easy to use those things in a responsible matter, whereas with using some hardcore drugs, you're simply playing some risky games of Russian Roulette when somebody messes around with that sort of stuff. The risks are way greater with hardcore drugs than they are with knives.

Also, here's what I do agree with you on. I strongly believe in some harm reduction programs for heroin users. I don't believe that people should be jailed for doing something that's not a violation of anybody else's rights, however, I don't believe that drug usage should be legalised and normalized (with the possible exceptions of maybe marijuana). However, I do feel that there's lots of better alternatives to our current drug policies than the policies in which the government now has.

 

Here's why I don't believe that this will ever happen. The only reason that Colorado's voters and Washington State's voters voted Yes on the legalisation of marijuana is because of this fact that the vast majority of the public supported the legalisation of marijuana. And the only reason that they supported the legalisation of marijuana was because they viewed marijuana as not being a drug that's dangerous enough to be illegal. I don't ever believe that the vast majority of voters will suddenly become pro-heroin or pro-cocaine or pro-crystal meth, that's just some slippery slope arguments.

And, besides, there's nobody lobbying to legalise ALL drugs. NORML is only lobbying to legalize marijuana, not some hardcore drugs.

 

The problem is the fallacy of the argument. Committing a violent act of aggression against another person is against the law. The person that commits such an act is responsible for it regardless of what influences lead to that violent act of aggression. Rich James was a violent person and I tire of the excuses where he blamed it on drug use. If the person cannot restrain themself from committing a violent act then they are responsible for their actions. The excuse "it was the drugs that made me do it" are nothing but an excuse. The cocaine wasn't the reason and the cocaine didn't attack anyone.

Stop using drugs as an excuse for the violations of the Rights of Others.

Let me use an analogy. There have been Christians that have murdered abortion doctors and their "excuse" for committing murder was their "Christian" beliefs. Should we ban "Christianity" because some crackpot commits murder and uses "Christianity" as an excuse? The fact that they're a "Jesus Junkie" is fundamentally no different than someone being a "Heroin Junkie" IMHO. Both are junkies and both can commit murder and both are responsible for their personal actions. We cannot make excuses for the violent acts committed by a person. We need to blame the person.

Once again I'm going to point out that "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin don't fundamentally change the person. A non-violent person would still be non-violent when using either. A violent person may or many not be violent when using these same drugs. There are fundamental differernces between cociane and heroin though. On cocaine a person is more physically and mentally active than the average person. They actually think more about their actions as opposed to less because it's a stimulant. The same is true of any stimulant including coffee although caffeine is a relatively weak stimulant. Heroin is a depresant so a person does less, is more relaxed, and is more prone to "doing nothing" as opposed to doing something.

People don't fundamentally change when using any drug and that is something many seem to fail to understand.

 

Well, some drugs such as angel dust have been known to send their users into some blind rages, which actually means that the drugs caused them to be violent, or at least in those specific situations.

Also, somebody's judgement is impaired while they are on drugs, so they would do some actions that they normally would not do. I disagree with some of your assertions that those people would still commit those crimes even if they had no drugs available. Some people get drunk and act violent, which they would not do if they was sober. While it's absolutely true that they chose to use drugs, and therefore those people is totally responsible for their actions, because they chose to get intoxicated in the first place, it's also true that some people would act differently and not violent, if they were sober. Rick James may have had better judgement and self control if he wasn't smoking crack. People are responsible for getting intoxicated, but if he was not intoxicated, he may have acted somewhat differently.

Also, since you stated before that LSD only causes psychosis and violence if the person has those psychotic symptoms in the first place, but not otherwise, there's some evidence that's a refutation to those claims. Here's why.

Some people have bad trips because taking LSD is like playing some games of Russian Roulette-they take a chance and what happens happens. A person taking LSD that becomes psychotic doesn't necessarily need to have some pre-existing mental conditions, it can just happen because the LSD is just so unpredictable and anybody can have some bad trips. This video shows some examples of that. A bad trip on LSD can happen to anybody that takes LSD, even if they aren't psychotic beforehand. This video explains all of that.

[video=youtube;bdh3Em-fAEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdh3Em-fAEo[/video]

 

I thought Individual Liberty was supposed to be a Western paradigm? If we really just need a Nanny-State why not say so.

 

The ultimate roots of the war on drugs is the direct result of racism and religion. Many laws and customs of the early 1900's were, as well. Fortunately, most of them have fallen by the wayside, but the government propaganda machine has given the WOD a life of it's own, to the point that everybody simply "knows" drugs are bad, and even questioning the governments (lack of) authority to ban them leads to people looking at you as if you had 3 heads.

 

It is enough to induce some to use marijuana as an anti-hypocrisy medication regarding a potential, seed bearing plant that was allegedly Created on the Third day and declared Good by that Creator; only "original sinners" are claiming it is bad, on a potentially for profit basis.

 

Because most people who use it don't seem to act violently.

PCP would be a better example of a drug that causes violence more consistently. Even in the case of PCP, however, is the possibility of someone doing something violent on it worse than filling a prison cell with someone just because they violate a possession law?

The War on Drugs would be easier to defend if mandatory sentencing was ended. As things currently stand, it's the number one reason we have the world's highest incarceration rate.

 

I believe the real problem is a lack wartime tax rates, even for a War on Drugs.

 

Just listen. If we legalise PCP, the violence rates will skyrocket. That drug is way more violence causing than even alcohol, LSD, crystal meth, or crack cocaine. The amount of people that use PCP right now is way lower than some other drugs, so the small amounts of people that are in prisons right now as a result of smoking PCP, is way smaller than the amounts of violence that will happen if PCP was legalised.

Also, besides, if we legalise ALL drugs, such as heroin and cocaine and LSD and PCP, then more kids will start using them, because they will become more socially acceptable and less taboo, and they will also become more available to them.

 

Prohibition is worse because it leads to the abomination of hypocrisy, as a non-drug gateway to moral turpitude. Why would multibillion dollar pharmaceuticals not build multimillion dollar labs to compete with privateers in creating better products at lower prices?

 

Kids actually tend to go for things that are more taboo. Binge drinking, for example, tends to happen less in countries where the drinking age is lower. We have a culture that makes it exciting for young people to drink. In Germany, it's just a social thing.

That being said, legalization doesn't require a lack of a minimum age requirement for use. Although we do have issues with underage drinking, alcohol use among minors is easier to deal with than marijuana use precisely because it's legal and regulated while pot isn't (with the exception of Colorado and Washington).

PCP wouldn't likely be that different if it was sold at ABC stores, although I think most people would avoid it anyway, since you can't really socially use PCP.

Generally speaking, the drugs that are more calming tend to be the most popular. It takes a certain lifestyle or mindset to pursue something like meth or PCP. Regardless of whether they are legal or not, people will find a way to get substances that hype you up if that's what they really want.

 

Which this simply has absolutely nothing to do with the legalisation of some drugs such as PCP and LSD, which have absolutely no known medicinal values to them, and which would simply result in some more violent crimes that would plague our societies.

 

I believe the reverse is more true; simply because Individual Liberty requires it.

 

There were many myths created typically by law enforcement about PCP in the 1970's. PCP doesn't make a person "crazy" and it doesn't impart to the person "super-human strength" and law enforcement often claimed both.

It is somewhat ironic that many refer to the "dangerous side effects" of illegal drugs but then completely ignore warnings related to prescription drugs. How many prescription drugs come with warnings like "May cause convulsions and death" and people take these all of the time and think nothing about it.

 

Actually both PCP and LSD do have medicinal uses related to brain functions associated with mental disorders. This is not why they are used recreationally of course but they do have ligitimate medical uses.

There has never been any significant statistical increase in violent crime related to either PCP or LSD use. The belief that there is this association is based upon rare anecdotal cases of statistical insignificance and myth.

 

Do me a favor, tell me where in the Constitution the government is given the authority to criminalize drugs. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, in case you are unaware, because drugs are illegal, the cartels involved in the distribution of them routinely cut off people's heads for perceived slights. And they post videos of it on the internet. I can post one if you like, so you can see the real price of the war on (some) drugs. That is causing way more violence than legal drugs ever could, even if your overstated comments about drugs creating violence were true, which for the most part they are not.

 

Why don't Prohibitionists just say that we need a Nanny-State because Individual Liberty is too difficult to handle.

 

Yes, but if we legalise both PCP and LSD, the usage of those specific substances by some underaged kids will skyrocket. Just look at alcohol and tobacco, which are both two legal substances. Way more underaged kids either drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes than take either PCP or LSD.

 

It is why legalization and regulation is better; that way, multibillion dollar pharmaceuticals can create jobs building multimillion dollar labs, to produce better products at lower cost.

 

Schools tend to be one of the primary black market distribution outlets for prohibited drugs today. For those that are unaware of the fact many parents actually obtain marijuana from their school age children that have better access than the parents.

Legalization removes the black market distribution outlets from our schools which actually reduces access for young people.

Kids have never had a hard time obtaining drugs in school because the drugs are illegal and distributution isn't regulated. Its actually easier for a kid to get drugs at school than it is for them to get cigarettes or alcohol.

 

In regards to the legalisation of cannabis.

Well, the truth some statistics have shown that more kids smoke tobacco cigarettes and drink alcohol than use some illegal drugs, which is mainly because legal drugs are way less taboo than illegal drugs, which may mean that some kids may be less willing to use illegal drugs than legal substances. When marijuana becomes legalised, more older friends of underaged kids will smoke cannabis (because it would be more socially acceptable and less taboo and more available for them to use), which will mean that more of their underaged friends will do it also.

Some studies have actually shown that more kids drink alcohol or smoke tobacco cigarettes (which are both two legal substances) than smoke cannabis.

How does regulating alcohol keep this paticular substance out of the hands of some minors? Nope, it absolutely doesn't do this at all. Just look at what all of these statistics and all of these articles have always been stating lately! Nearly have of ALL underaged kids have tried out alcohol at least once! They simply will find some other ways to get this substance.

The legalisation of cannabis simply does not and will not stop kids from smoking cannabis, if they really want to smoke cannabis, they will do what some underaged drinkers do-they will simply find some other ways in which to get their cannabis!

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/underage-drinking/underage-statistics.html

 

About 1/2 of all American youth have tried cannabis and they've never had any problem with obtaining it. Smoking pot is actually very socially acceptable in young people today and those that choose to not try it are not making that decision based upon its social acceptance. They don't try it simply because they don't want to get high and that will not change.

Yes, most kids do try alcohol, often at home and often just to taste it. Many won't even become even social drinkers in the future and vast majority will never have an alcohol problem.

Most kids today don't even try cigarettes and far more try pot. There is no actual reason to even try cigarettes except as an act of rebellion and some kids will always be "rebels" and "smoking" is a sign of their rebel status. Sort of a dumb reason but a reason nonetheless.

There has never been any evidence that legalization leads to more people using drugs.

http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/activist/claim3.htm

 

Well, there has also never been some sorts of evidence that suggests that the regulation of some specific substances (such as alcohol, tobacco, or smoking cannabis) actually reduces the underaged kids from using those specific substances.

The regulation of alcoholic beverages does not stop kids from getting those alcoholic beverages, and here's why, exactly. The fact that alcohol is legal and regulated does not stop some underaged kids that want to get their alcoholic beverages from acquiring them.