7 ms·

In these kinds of discussions about marijuana I often see people supporting the legalization of all drugs (see current top post in this thread). As someone who

In these kinds of discussions about marijuana I often see people supporting the legalization of all drugs (see current top post in this thread). As someone who disagrees with this stance (but has very little personal experience with drugs and is probably misinformed about some of these things), could someone give counter-arguments for my concerns? I'd like to better understand the point of view that all drugs should be legal instead of a very specific subset of "safe" drugs. (I do think that marijuana should be legalized) 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? 2. If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? If drugs are more accessible it seems likely that more people would experiment with and become addicted to more debilitating drugs. 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs?

StavrosK 8y ago
I don't think that a reasonable argument could be made for legalizing meth or heroin, for example. They're just too destructive/deadly. It's like how not wearing a seatbelt while driving is illegal, it's to protect you from yourself.
- nharada 8y ago
  One argument would be that by legalizing these drugs, it's much easier to offer treatment and addiction therapy. Users are less likely to get help when their habit is illegal, and the stigma around illegal activities makes citizens less willing to fund social programs that might help because they view it as helping criminals who don't deserve their hard earned tax money.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    I meant legalizing the sale of the drug, not usage. I don't think addicts should be considered criminals.
    - loeg 8y ago
      Criminalizing the supply chain has disadvantages, too. The government loses sales tax revenue and criminal organizations make large profits. Quality isn't controlled and is often dangerously polluted (e.g., fentanyl being sold as heroin). Also, not all drug users are addicts.
- jMyles 8y ago
  > I don't think that a reasonable argument could be made for legalizing meth or heroin Do you literally mean this? That all the arguments in favor of legalizing heroin are unreasonable? I'm curious to hear what you think is unreasonable about, for example, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It by Jim Gray or Drug Crazy by (unrelated) Mike Gray. It's hard for me to understand the position of prohibition of (especially the more dangerous) drugs, but it's very hard for me to imagine how you find these positions unreasonable. Here's a talk advocating legalizing all drugs which I think is something like the definition of reasonableness (15 years old - it feels a little dated now, but still good stuff): https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067 https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067
- DanBC 8y ago
  Legalised doesn't necessarily mean "sold in shops". meth and heroin are destructive. But illegal meth and heroin are more destructive than a medically supplied legal form.
- daeken 8y ago
  Meth is legal. It's a prescription drug in most of the world, e.g. Desoxyn in the US. Heroin is a prescription pain killer in the UK and several other countries. Many of the most notable destructive aspects of drugs come from impure and unknown products, gang/cartel distribution, and treating drug abuse as a crime rather than a disease.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >heroin, for example. They're just too destructive/deadly How is heroin inherently destructive/deadly? Most of it's problems seem to stem from its illegality.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted. Long-term use of heroin produces no long term physician damage beyond chronic constipation. Heroin is destructive because it's illegal. People take drugs of unknown purity and die from overdoses or infections. And people commit crimes to pay for the black market markup. They have heroin replacement programs in Europe where addicts get prescription heroin. Experience shows that an addicts life gets pretty boring on it (boring from the stability). Which causes many of them to actually do something with their life rather than just hustle 24/7 to pay for black market heroin.
- sambull 8y ago
  Same argument for eating meat, and fast food right?
- LouisSayers 8y ago
  If you legalise it you can tax it, you can ensure people don’t go overboard with personal consumption, and ensure the drugs are actually not laced with potentially deadly substances. It makes users more visible, and gives an easy point of contact to help those that want the help. I’d say it comes down to how you deliver the drugs - like you should not sell to people that have never used it, and it should still require something like a mini consultation before you get it - allowing people that really want help to walk away from it. People today are taking harder drugs - so why not put a supportive and regulated context around that. Having it underground causes more problems and makes people judge others when what they really need is help.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Seat belts aren't there to protect you from yourself: They are there to make a possibly deadly activity less deadly. And in some drug classes (like heroin), this is what legalisation does. We already have experience with heroin and other opiods because of the medical uses. With legalisation, we can make sure the strength is correct. We can get rid of some impurities. We can make meth in a proper science lab instead of blowing up a neighborhood house. We can be sure of clean needles, clean products, and things like that. If someone starts to come into clinics often, we can suggest treatment early on. We can educate people on signs of addiction and a slew of other things. It won't stop a subset of problems, just makes them a little better.
Clubber 8y ago
The main issue for me, and I'm on the fence, is that the cure is worse than the crime in the majority of cases. Any guilty plea, likely coerced, will result in a permanent record which is searched by all employers and will pretty much remove the chance for gainful employment for 7 years. In some states, this is for life. The only way this would be remotely helpful if it somehow was a "wake up call," totally shocking the person into going straight. I'm not sure how likely this outcome is, but this person wouldn't be able to stay straight for long, because he can only get crap jobs for the next 7 years. No reason to pursue a good career, and the best medicine for a shitty life is more drugs. The way the punishments for drugs are administered today, it almost guarantees repeat use, because people are set up to fail in life, which leads to despair, which leads to more drug use and eventually more crime. If not completely legalized, I would be ok with a small citation (like a speeding ticket), no arrest, no criminal record, and free drug counseling (not forced because it would get you fired). I would actually be ok with a robo-call every week nagging for counseling. The bottom line is the US governments have one tool, and it's a big ass hammer. They aren't capable of learning anything else. Not in my lifetime anyway. Might has well rule the drug war unconstitutional. It's only legal under the dubious and often abused commerce clause. We had to have a constitutional amendment for prohibition and repeal. I don't see how illegal drugs are any different.
djsumdog 8y ago
The trouble is that we treat all drugs and addiction as a crime. At least in the US, treatment options for opiad addictions are stupid expensive. Only rich people go to rehab. The normal person can't shell out that money or take that time off work. America needs to have better treatment programs and options for people who want them, and less stigma from punishment and less funding for private for-profit prisons. A good case study is probably Portugal. I heard a speaker tell an audience that if you are caught with serious drugs in Portugal, you go before a board, and basically lay our your life before them. They then give you required next steps; treatment options or whatever. But if you're supporting your family, paying your bills, have no debt you're not paying on to buy drugs, then they might just tell you to come back in six months. It's a case-by-case individual approach from what I understand. Other alternatives are safe injection houses. If you're going to inject, at least have a safe place with clean needles and nurses who are there if something goes wrong or you finally decide you want to quit.
btown 8y ago
The Wikipedia article on this is remarkably balanced, with arguments on both sides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug... In general I believe that there exists a healthier balance towards decriminalization than what currently exists in most states (particularly due to how criminal rehabilitation is treated by society), but that full and absolute legalization of all drugs would cause more problems than it would solve.
jMyles 8y ago
OK, so first, you bring up three points, which if they were sound, are good ones. However: 1. Has it? Jacob Sullum (for whom I have a great deal of respect) addressed this fairly squarely in Saying Yes. That's over a decade old now. He also addressed this as one of his main points during his appearance on C-SPAN[0]. Are you saying that you have research to correct his work? Have you presented this to him? 2. Here, you presume that addiction is spread through a vector of casual use. But that has never been shown, except in the strange case of nicotine, which appears to be an outlier in this property. [1] In fact, in times and places of widespread drug use and in times of temperance and sobriety, addiction seems to afflict between 10 and 20% of the population. The evidence suggests that some people are pre-disposed to addiction, and that the act of drug use has only a small effect compared to this pre-disposition. So then the question becomes: why treat this segment of the population like an underclass? 3. Again, do you have evidence to support this claim? There are today many functional heroin users - see the medical field, for example. ...but even if you were correct on these three points, is that sufficient to justify such a repressive, immoral policy as prohibition? Don't you think that, in the absence of prohibition, people will generally be healthier and have better access to help? What do you say about prohibition psychedelic drugs? Isn't this an affront to religious freedom? Your points seem to assume that drugs as we know them will continue to be drugs as we know them in the absence of prohibition, but it's far from clear that that's the case. For example, we currently have access to alcohol (a drug which is as dangerous as any) in varying degrees of concentration, from beer (relatively benign) to grain alcohol (which can cause death quite easily). However, during alcohol prohibition, access to milder forms of alcohol disappeared, leaving people to drink mostly whiskey (and often horribly impure whiskey at that). James Gray talked about this quite a bit and quite convincingly I think. [2] Similarly, today, we have a very corrupted view of plant drugs because the benign forms (coca leaves, poppy tea) are unavailable, so people with a taste for those plants instead use cocaine and heroin. In the absence of prohibition, we will likely see more people return to use of the plant forms of those drugs, just as the end of alcohol prohibition has gradually pushed the slider toward beer and wine (although liquor use still hasn't returned to pre-prohibition levels). Finally, the best argument against prohibition is probably that it funds incredible evil in the world. Illicit drugs are a market of over $400 billion at the wholesale level. A great deal of this money in turn funds criminal gangs or third-world dictators. Why allow them to continue to corner this market? [0]: https://www.c-span.org/video/?176758-4/us-drug-policy https://www.c-span.org/video/?176758-4/us-drug-policy [1]: http://drugwarfacts.org/node/3343 http://drugwarfacts.org/node/3343 [2]: https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067 https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067
forapurpose 8y ago
> 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? Two thoughts: A balance has to be struck. We can't preemptively take away people's liberty to do anything that the government claims might harm others. That would be a very restrictive, totalitarian society, with government empowered to control any activity; driving is a danger to others, for example. On the other hand, we don't accept people walking around with plastic explosive in their pocket. The question is, how dangerous is each drug? Alcohol makes people violent, for example. Also, the illegal drug trade creates an enormous amount of violence domestically, and also undermines government and funds insurgencies throughout Latin America, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the worst-case scenario for violence among users, legalization might reduce violence overall, especially organized violence. > 2. If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? If drugs are more accessible it seems likely that more people would experiment with and become addicted to more debilitating drugs. > 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs? Both questions assumed no regulation or other measures. For example, certain drugs can require prescription (e.g., if the doctor diagnoses addiction), and sale and distribution of them can be regulated through pharmacies, like other prescription drugs. Other drugs can be regulated like alcohol. Treatment can be part of the prescription.
xtian 8y ago
Is the current legal situation actually preventing the deleterious societal effects you predict? There is an enormous amount of crime and abuse associated with controlled substances now. If our current strategy was going to work, wouldn't it have done so by now? Addiction does not result from experimentation. That's not how drugs work. Vulnerability to abuse and addiction comes from social, mental, and emotional instability. Furthermore, addiction is not a phenomenon unique to drugs. It's a neurotic state that can twist any activity which is healthy or innocuous in moderation (e.g., shopping, gaming, weightlifting) into an unhealthy obsession. Healthy, secure, and informed people generally don't have any interest in drugs like meth or heroin, even if they have access. Criminalizing the people who have fallen into abuse and addiction isn't addressing any of the root problems. It just perpetuates the broken system.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? It isn't largely prevented now, prohibition has not been effective. > If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? Public health screenings and interventions that aren't inhibited by fear of criminal sanction. Addiction to certain drugs serious through entire populations now, with prohibition, and treating it as criminal matter complicates intervention. > It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs? Perhaps. Making drug use itself a crime obviously doesn't prevent that from happening, so I'm not sure how that is an argument against ending prohibition.
tripletao 8y ago
The usual argument isn't that "all drugs are great". It's that meth, heroin, etc. are harmful, and even more harmful when they're banned, because the second-order consequences of prohibition (funding organized crime, risk of overdose due inconsistent purity, reluctance for user-criminals to seek help, etc.) more than offset any benefit from decreased availability. This is more of a factual question than a moral one. It's hard to get data, but experiences like Portugal's point in favor of at least decriminalization. Even with perfect data, you have to decide how to value lives of Americans who choose to take drugs vs. Mexican civilians caught in drug war crossfire vs. .... Quickly: 1. "Largely prevented as it is now"? Take a walk through SF... 2. If heroin were legal, would you try it? The legal risk is hardly the biggest reason to avoid the stuff now. 3. Lots of addicts are high-functioning even now. The goal is that more would be with lower prices, consistent dosage, public health support with less stigma / legal risk, etc.
- mrep 8y ago
  We also need better education. Dare preached to me that basically all drugs were terrible and extremely addictive. Turns out, after I did more research and tried some, the effects very greatly. Marijuana is way less addictive and harmful than heroin and meth. However, lots of people don't do that extra research and so once they realize the information about marijuana was largely BS, they incorrectly assume drugs like heroin and meth are no big deal either.
loeg 8y ago
Basically all of your questions apply to alcohol as well.
pmoriarty 8y ago
"It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now?" Alcohol is one of those drugs. Do you want to go back to Prohibition? It is widely acknowledge not to have worked, just as the current War on Drugs hasn't worked to prevent use of other drugs. "If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity?" Drugs were legal in the US and other countries for most of their history, and yet productivity was fine. The US War on Drugs was mostly started in the 1970s. Before that, most drugs were legal, and before the 20th Century, all drugs were legal. US productivity did fine. The only major counterexample that I know of is the massive opium addiction prevalent in China around the time of the Opium Wars. My impression is that it did impact productivity there, but I don't know a lot about it, and would need to research more. Anyway, I think we have to look at the root causes of addiction. Many of those causes are social in nature, and have less to do with the legal status of drugs than things like poverty, despair, hopeless, etc. Those could be addressed in better ways than by making illegal the substances that make the miserable lives of drug addicts bearable. "It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs?" Just because you're addicted doesn't mean that you can't work a normal job. I've read of a 20-year study of doctors in the UK who were addicted to heroin. The study found that as long as the addicted doctors were provided a steady supply of the drug, they actually performed slightly better than their unaddicted colleagues. Anyway, addiction is not the inevitable result of drug use. Some people can use drugs and not get addicted. This is especially true of psychedelics, which can actually be used constructively and to the benefit of the user and of society.
dalore 8y ago
Alcohol causes all those 3 things and yet it's legal. But when you are aggressive and violent, you get arrested for that. If drugs are legal, they will actually be harder to get. Kids can get drugs easier then getting alcohol because the black market for alcohol is not as big (since it's legal). In the Netherlands, weed is seen as not really cool by the youngsters and so they aren't as keen to take it up. If people have no money due to drugs, they can also have no money due to gambling, or no money due to internet shopping, but we don't call them crimes, if someone commits a crime for no money, arrest them for the crime. But it's more a health issue, if someone gets addicted now to say computer games etc and has no money we treat that as a medical issue like normal.
shripadk 8y ago
Here is my take on it: Rebellion is a big part of teenage life (especially if the child is from a broken home). There is an urge to break rules, to question authority and to disobey the law. But the urge to rebel varies from one individual to the next. Trying banned drugs is one way to rebel against the system. You say: > 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? How do you know that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behaviour? It's because it's in the list of banned substances. Banning gives it the popularity it would have never gotten in the first place. There are plenty of pharmaceutical drugs that are equally or possibly more potent than the list of banned substances but are not in common knowledge primarily because those drugs haven't been banned. That's one big advantage of legalization. It removes these drugs from the bucket list of rebellious things to do. The novelty wears off with time. > 2. If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? If drugs are more accessible it seems likely that more people would experiment with and become addicted to more debilitating drugs. That isn't going to happen the way you think. Those who weren't going to dope in the first place wouldn't be inclined to anyways. That leaves the others who were already addicted. These people always got the adulterated/spiked drugs from the peddler which put them at real risk of overdosing. At the very least, those addicted now can be taken care off by Government rehabilitation institutions that would be legally permitted to administer a clean doze of the drug in reducing amounts, slowly getting the addicted person off the dangerous drug if possible. > 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs? Yes but it's going to stop the spiral of new people getting addicted. The danger here is the attachment of drugs with acts of rebellion. The only way to separate the two is by legalizing drugs. Also what is the Government gaining by prohibition? Instead of solving the problem of drug abuse, prohibition creates two big problems: 1. A thriving black market controlled by the Mafia. 2. No tax revenue for the Government and huge costs for enforcing Prohibition. Governments, in my opinion, should not concern with social issues. It should be purely legislative and administrative, only intervening during natural disasters or wars. The burden of solving social issues should rest only and only with the society. Currently, in all countries that have one or the other forms of Prohibition, the Government has taken over the burden from the society instead of letting the society/community self-regulate.
BurningFrog 8y ago
It's hard to imagine that legal drugs could cause more "aggressive and violent behavior" than the US government's War On Drugs, which has really been a war on its own population. Millions of people thrown in jail for years or decades, millions of lives destroyed. It's hard to measure, but at least 100,000 dead Americans, plus countless people in Colombia and other countries where the war has been fought even more violently.
buttcoinslol 8y ago
> 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? The #1 drug responsible for violent behavior is alcohol. It's legal. In fact, the answers to your other two questions can also be explained away with "alcohol already applies here and it's legal". Assuming you have equal access to both, it's far easier to be a functioning opiate addict than it is to be a functioning alcoholic. I have been both an alcoholic and an opiate addict, fortunately I am not a current user of any drugs.
lukeschlather 8y ago
I wouldn't argue that all drugs should be legal, but I also don't think it should be a criminal matter. The idea that you can end up with life in prison for having drugs on you is just bonkers. It probably shouldn't be treated as a civil matter either, it should be treated as a medical matter. Something like first offense - 1 night in rehab. Second offense, 1 week in rehab. After that every offense is one month in rehab. There is of course something of a "lesser of two evils" issue here though. The status quo where you can get life in prison for a small amount of drugs is probably worse for society than total legalization. > 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. I do think this is probably overblown. People who can't earn an income are more likely to be homeless, and therefore are more likely to be visible. The number of functional addicts is almost certainly understated because they hide it well.

StavrosK 8y ago

I don't think that a reasonable argument could be made for legalizing meth or heroin, for example. They're just too destructive/deadly. It's like how not wearing a seatbelt while driving is illegal, it's to protect you from yourself.

nharada 8y ago
One argument would be that by legalizing these drugs, it's much easier to offer treatment and addiction therapy. Users are less likely to get help when their habit is illegal, and the stigma around illegal activities makes citizens less willing to fund social programs that might help because they view it as helping criminals who don't deserve their hard earned tax money.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  I meant legalizing the sale of the drug, not usage. I don't think addicts should be considered criminals.
  - loeg 8y ago
    Criminalizing the supply chain has disadvantages, too. The government loses sales tax revenue and criminal organizations make large profits. Quality isn't controlled and is often dangerously polluted (e.g., fentanyl being sold as heroin). Also, not all drug users are addicts.
jMyles 8y ago
> I don't think that a reasonable argument could be made for legalizing meth or heroin Do you literally mean this? That all the arguments in favor of legalizing heroin are unreasonable? I'm curious to hear what you think is unreasonable about, for example, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It by Jim Gray or Drug Crazy by (unrelated) Mike Gray. It's hard for me to understand the position of prohibition of (especially the more dangerous) drugs, but it's very hard for me to imagine how you find these positions unreasonable. Here's a talk advocating legalizing all drugs which I think is something like the definition of reasonableness (15 years old - it feels a little dated now, but still good stuff): https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067 https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067
DanBC 8y ago
Legalised doesn't necessarily mean "sold in shops". meth and heroin are destructive. But illegal meth and heroin are more destructive than a medically supplied legal form.
daeken 8y ago
Meth is legal. It's a prescription drug in most of the world, e.g. Desoxyn in the US. Heroin is a prescription pain killer in the UK and several other countries. Many of the most notable destructive aspects of drugs come from impure and unknown products, gang/cartel distribution, and treating drug abuse as a crime rather than a disease.
ryanlol 8y ago
>heroin, for example. They're just too destructive/deadly How is heroin inherently destructive/deadly? Most of it's problems seem to stem from its illegality.
- refurb 8y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted. Long-term use of heroin produces no long term physician damage beyond chronic constipation. Heroin is destructive because it's illegal. People take drugs of unknown purity and die from overdoses or infections. And people commit crimes to pay for the black market markup. They have heroin replacement programs in Europe where addicts get prescription heroin. Experience shows that an addicts life gets pretty boring on it (boring from the stability). Which causes many of them to actually do something with their life rather than just hustle 24/7 to pay for black market heroin.
sambull 8y ago
Same argument for eating meat, and fast food right?
LouisSayers 8y ago
If you legalise it you can tax it, you can ensure people don’t go overboard with personal consumption, and ensure the drugs are actually not laced with potentially deadly substances. It makes users more visible, and gives an easy point of contact to help those that want the help. I’d say it comes down to how you deliver the drugs - like you should not sell to people that have never used it, and it should still require something like a mini consultation before you get it - allowing people that really want help to walk away from it. People today are taking harder drugs - so why not put a supportive and regulated context around that. Having it underground causes more problems and makes people judge others when what they really need is help.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Seat belts aren't there to protect you from yourself: They are there to make a possibly deadly activity less deadly. And in some drug classes (like heroin), this is what legalisation does. We already have experience with heroin and other opiods because of the medical uses. With legalisation, we can make sure the strength is correct. We can get rid of some impurities. We can make meth in a proper science lab instead of blowing up a neighborhood house. We can be sure of clean needles, clean products, and things like that. If someone starts to come into clinics often, we can suggest treatment early on. We can educate people on signs of addiction and a slew of other things. It won't stop a subset of problems, just makes them a little better.

Clubber 8y ago

The main issue for me, and I'm on the fence, is that the cure is worse than the crime in the majority of cases. Any guilty plea, likely coerced, will result in a permanent record which is searched by all employers and will pretty much remove the chance for gainful employment for 7 years. In some states, this is for life. The only way this would be remotely helpful if it somehow was a "wake up call," totally shocking the person into going straight. I'm not sure how likely this outcome is, but this person wouldn't be able to stay straight for long, because he can only get crap jobs for the next 7 years. No reason to pursue a good career, and the best medicine for a shitty life is more drugs. The way the punishments for drugs are administered today, it almost guarantees repeat use, because people are set up to fail in life, which leads to despair, which leads to more drug use and eventually more crime. If not completely legalized, I would be ok with a small citation (like a speeding ticket), no arrest, no criminal record, and free drug counseling (not forced because it would get you fired). I would actually be ok with a robo-call every week nagging for counseling. The bottom line is the US governments have one tool, and it's a big ass hammer. They aren't capable of learning anything else. Not in my lifetime anyway. Might has well rule the drug war unconstitutional. It's only legal under the dubious and often abused commerce clause. We had to have a constitutional amendment for prohibition and repeal. I don't see how illegal drugs are any different.

djsumdog 8y ago

The trouble is that we treat all drugs and addiction as a crime. At least in the US, treatment options for opiad addictions are stupid expensive. Only rich people go to rehab. The normal person can't shell out that money or take that time off work. America needs to have better treatment programs and options for people who want them, and less stigma from punishment and less funding for private for-profit prisons. A good case study is probably Portugal. I heard a speaker tell an audience that if you are caught with serious drugs in Portugal, you go before a board, and basically lay our your life before them. They then give you required next steps; treatment options or whatever. But if you're supporting your family, paying your bills, have no debt you're not paying on to buy drugs, then they might just tell you to come back in six months. It's a case-by-case individual approach from what I understand. Other alternatives are safe injection houses. If you're going to inject, at least have a safe place with clean needles and nurses who are there if something goes wrong or you finally decide you want to quit.

btown 8y ago

The Wikipedia article on this is remarkably balanced, with arguments on both sides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug... In general I believe that there exists a healthier balance towards decriminalization than what currently exists in most states (particularly due to how criminal rehabilitation is treated by society), but that full and absolute legalization of all drugs would cause more problems than it would solve.

jMyles 8y ago

OK, so first, you bring up three points, which if they were sound, are good ones. However: 1. Has it? Jacob Sullum (for whom I have a great deal of respect) addressed this fairly squarely in Saying Yes. That's over a decade old now. He also addressed this as one of his main points during his appearance on C-SPAN[0]. Are you saying that you have research to correct his work? Have you presented this to him? 2. Here, you presume that addiction is spread through a vector of casual use. But that has never been shown, except in the strange case of nicotine, which appears to be an outlier in this property. [1] In fact, in times and places of widespread drug use and in times of temperance and sobriety, addiction seems to afflict between 10 and 20% of the population. The evidence suggests that some people are pre-disposed to addiction, and that the act of drug use has only a small effect compared to this pre-disposition. So then the question becomes: why treat this segment of the population like an underclass? 3. Again, do you have evidence to support this claim? There are today many functional heroin users - see the medical field, for example. ...but even if you were correct on these three points, is that sufficient to justify such a repressive, immoral policy as prohibition? Don't you think that, in the absence of prohibition, people will generally be healthier and have better access to help? What do you say about prohibition psychedelic drugs? Isn't this an affront to religious freedom? Your points seem to assume that drugs as we know them will continue to be drugs as we know them in the absence of prohibition, but it's far from clear that that's the case. For example, we currently have access to alcohol (a drug which is as dangerous as any) in varying degrees of concentration, from beer (relatively benign) to grain alcohol (which can cause death quite easily). However, during alcohol prohibition, access to milder forms of alcohol disappeared, leaving people to drink mostly whiskey (and often horribly impure whiskey at that). James Gray talked about this quite a bit and quite convincingly I think. [2] Similarly, today, we have a very corrupted view of plant drugs because the benign forms (coca leaves, poppy tea) are unavailable, so people with a taste for those plants instead use cocaine and heroin. In the absence of prohibition, we will likely see more people return to use of the plant forms of those drugs, just as the end of alcohol prohibition has gradually pushed the slider toward beer and wine (although liquor use still hasn't returned to pre-prohibition levels). Finally, the best argument against prohibition is probably that it funds incredible evil in the world. Illicit drugs are a market of over $400 billion at the wholesale level. A great deal of this money in turn funds criminal gangs or third-world dictators. Why allow them to continue to corner this market? [0]: https://www.c-span.org/video/?176758-4/us-drug-policy https://www.c-span.org/video/?176758-4/us-drug-policy [1]: http://drugwarfacts.org/node/3343 http://drugwarfacts.org/node/3343 [2]: https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067 https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067

forapurpose 8y ago

> 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? Two thoughts: A balance has to be struck. We can't preemptively take away people's liberty to do anything that the government claims might harm others. That would be a very restrictive, totalitarian society, with government empowered to control any activity; driving is a danger to others, for example. On the other hand, we don't accept people walking around with plastic explosive in their pocket. The question is, how dangerous is each drug? Alcohol makes people violent, for example. Also, the illegal drug trade creates an enormous amount of violence domestically, and also undermines government and funds insurgencies throughout Latin America, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the worst-case scenario for violence among users, legalization might reduce violence overall, especially organized violence. > 2. If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? If drugs are more accessible it seems likely that more people would experiment with and become addicted to more debilitating drugs. > 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs? Both questions assumed no regulation or other measures. For example, certain drugs can require prescription (e.g., if the doctor diagnoses addiction), and sale and distribution of them can be regulated through pharmacies, like other prescription drugs. Other drugs can be regulated like alcohol. Treatment can be part of the prescription.

xtian 8y ago

Is the current legal situation actually preventing the deleterious societal effects you predict? There is an enormous amount of crime and abuse associated with controlled substances now. If our current strategy was going to work, wouldn't it have done so by now? Addiction does not result from experimentation. That's not how drugs work. Vulnerability to abuse and addiction comes from social, mental, and emotional instability. Furthermore, addiction is not a phenomenon unique to drugs. It's a neurotic state that can twist any activity which is healthy or innocuous in moderation (e.g., shopping, gaming, weightlifting) into an unhealthy obsession. Healthy, secure, and informed people generally don't have any interest in drugs like meth or heroin, even if they have access. Criminalizing the people who have fallen into abuse and addiction isn't addressing any of the root problems. It just perpetuates the broken system.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? It isn't largely prevented now, prohibition has not been effective. > If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? Public health screenings and interventions that aren't inhibited by fear of criminal sanction. Addiction to certain drugs serious through entire populations now, with prohibition, and treating it as criminal matter complicates intervention. > It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs? Perhaps. Making drug use itself a crime obviously doesn't prevent that from happening, so I'm not sure how that is an argument against ending prohibition.

tripletao 8y ago

The usual argument isn't that "all drugs are great". It's that meth, heroin, etc. are harmful, and even more harmful when they're banned, because the second-order consequences of prohibition (funding organized crime, risk of overdose due inconsistent purity, reluctance for user-criminals to seek help, etc.) more than offset any benefit from decreased availability. This is more of a factual question than a moral one. It's hard to get data, but experiences like Portugal's point in favor of at least decriminalization. Even with perfect data, you have to decide how to value lives of Americans who choose to take drugs vs. Mexican civilians caught in drug war crossfire vs. .... Quickly: 1. "Largely prevented as it is now"? Take a walk through SF... 2. If heroin were legal, would you try it? The legal risk is hardly the biggest reason to avoid the stuff now. 3. Lots of addicts are high-functioning even now. The goal is that more would be with lower prices, consistent dosage, public health support with less stigma / legal risk, etc.

mrep 8y ago
We also need better education. Dare preached to me that basically all drugs were terrible and extremely addictive. Turns out, after I did more research and tried some, the effects very greatly. Marijuana is way less addictive and harmful than heroin and meth. However, lots of people don't do that extra research and so once they realize the information about marijuana was largely BS, they incorrectly assume drugs like heroin and meth are no big deal either.

loeg 8y ago

Basically all of your questions apply to alcohol as well.

pmoriarty 8y ago

"It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now?" Alcohol is one of those drugs. Do you want to go back to Prohibition? It is widely acknowledge not to have worked, just as the current War on Drugs hasn't worked to prevent use of other drugs. "If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity?" Drugs were legal in the US and other countries for most of their history, and yet productivity was fine. The US War on Drugs was mostly started in the 1970s. Before that, most drugs were legal, and before the 20th Century, all drugs were legal. US productivity did fine. The only major counterexample that I know of is the massive opium addiction prevalent in China around the time of the Opium Wars. My impression is that it did impact productivity there, but I don't know a lot about it, and would need to research more. Anyway, I think we have to look at the root causes of addiction. Many of those causes are social in nature, and have less to do with the legal status of drugs than things like poverty, despair, hopeless, etc. Those could be addressed in better ways than by making illegal the substances that make the miserable lives of drug addicts bearable. "It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs?" Just because you're addicted doesn't mean that you can't work a normal job. I've read of a 20-year study of doctors in the UK who were addicted to heroin. The study found that as long as the addicted doctors were provided a steady supply of the drug, they actually performed slightly better than their unaddicted colleagues. Anyway, addiction is not the inevitable result of drug use. Some people can use drugs and not get addicted. This is especially true of psychedelics, which can actually be used constructively and to the benefit of the user and of society.

dalore 8y ago

Alcohol causes all those 3 things and yet it's legal. But when you are aggressive and violent, you get arrested for that. If drugs are legal, they will actually be harder to get. Kids can get drugs easier then getting alcohol because the black market for alcohol is not as big (since it's legal). In the Netherlands, weed is seen as not really cool by the youngsters and so they aren't as keen to take it up. If people have no money due to drugs, they can also have no money due to gambling, or no money due to internet shopping, but we don't call them crimes, if someone commits a crime for no money, arrest them for the crime. But it's more a health issue, if someone gets addicted now to say computer games etc and has no money we treat that as a medical issue like normal.

shripadk 8y ago

Here is my take on it: Rebellion is a big part of teenage life (especially if the child is from a broken home). There is an urge to break rules, to question authority and to disobey the law. But the urge to rebel varies from one individual to the next. Trying banned drugs is one way to rebel against the system. You say: > 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? How do you know that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behaviour? It's because it's in the list of banned substances. Banning gives it the popularity it would have never gotten in the first place. There are plenty of pharmaceutical drugs that are equally or possibly more potent than the list of banned substances but are not in common knowledge primarily because those drugs haven't been banned. That's one big advantage of legalization. It removes these drugs from the bucket list of rebellious things to do. The novelty wears off with time. > 2. If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? If drugs are more accessible it seems likely that more people would experiment with and become addicted to more debilitating drugs. That isn't going to happen the way you think. Those who weren't going to dope in the first place wouldn't be inclined to anyways. That leaves the others who were already addicted. These people always got the adulterated/spiked drugs from the peddler which put them at real risk of overdosing. At the very least, those addicted now can be taken care off by Government rehabilitation institutions that would be legally permitted to administer a clean doze of the drug in reducing amounts, slowly getting the addicted person off the dangerous drug if possible. > 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs? Yes but it's going to stop the spiral of new people getting addicted. The danger here is the attachment of drugs with acts of rebellion. The only way to separate the two is by legalizing drugs. Also what is the Government gaining by prohibition? Instead of solving the problem of drug abuse, prohibition creates two big problems: 1. A thriving black market controlled by the Mafia. 2. No tax revenue for the Government and huge costs for enforcing Prohibition. Governments, in my opinion, should not concern with social issues. It should be purely legislative and administrative, only intervening during natural disasters or wars. The burden of solving social issues should rest only and only with the society. Currently, in all countries that have one or the other forms of Prohibition, the Government has taken over the burden from the society instead of letting the society/community self-regulate.

BurningFrog 8y ago

It's hard to imagine that legal drugs could cause more "aggressive and violent behavior" than the US government's War On Drugs, which has really been a war on its own population. Millions of people thrown in jail for years or decades, millions of lives destroyed. It's hard to measure, but at least 100,000 dead Americans, plus countless people in Colombia and other countries where the war has been fought even more violently.

buttcoinslol 8y ago

> 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? The #1 drug responsible for violent behavior is alcohol. It's legal. In fact, the answers to your other two questions can also be explained away with "alcohol already applies here and it's legal". Assuming you have equal access to both, it's far easier to be a functioning opiate addict than it is to be a functioning alcoholic. I have been both an alcoholic and an opiate addict, fortunately I am not a current user of any drugs.

lukeschlather 8y ago

I wouldn't argue that all drugs should be legal, but I also don't think it should be a criminal matter. The idea that you can end up with life in prison for having drugs on you is just bonkers. It probably shouldn't be treated as a civil matter either, it should be treated as a medical matter. Something like first offense - 1 night in rehab. Second offense, 1 week in rehab. After that every offense is one month in rehab. There is of course something of a "lesser of two evils" issue here though. The status quo where you can get life in prison for a small amount of drugs is probably worse for society than total legalization. > 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. I do think this is probably overblown. People who can't earn an income are more likely to be homeless, and therefore are more likely to be visible. The number of functional addicts is almost certainly understated because they hide it well.