6 ms·

> Marijuana is clearly a big piece of the puzzle, but what about legalizing harder drugs like cocaine? All drugs should be legalized and regulated. Especially

> Marijuana is clearly a big piece of the puzzle, but what about legalizing harder drugs like cocaine? All drugs should be legalized and regulated. Especially cocaine. You will not have peace on this Earth until that happens. The drug cartels will simply move onto the next forbidden fruit. Prohibition is, as Paul and many others point out, an assault on basic human rights and freedoms, and it carries with it a tax on society. Not just in terms of dollars wasted but in lives ruined. Education + Legalization. Erowid and scientific fact in every classroom instead of propaganda and lies. This is not exactly a difficult concept to grasp, and various parts of the world (like Portugal, Holland, etc.) are finally waking up to it, and their quality of life is improving because of it. Unfortunately, years of lies, fear-mongering, brainwashing and propaganda can be hard to erase.

lukifer 16y ago
If you've seen firsthand what a drug like meth does to a person, it makes you think twice about the ideal that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their body/mind. The fact is, not everyone has the good judgment to make responsible use of that freedom, and some drugs really are much nastier than others, causing deep harm to both the user and society. At the same time, we would be deluding ourselves to think that locking people up changes anything, whether we go after the supply or the demand. The best way to move towards a sensible drug policy is to start by admitting that there are no good solutions, and that the best we can hope to do is to minimize harm, both from the drugs themselves, and the cartels. (I agree, though, regarding drug education: Erowid has the capability to save far more lives than DARE ever could.)
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  The key is to address it as a problem for mental health professionals rather than a problem for the criminal justice system.
- itistoday 16y ago
  > If you've seen firsthand what a drug like meth does to a person, it makes you think twice about the ideal that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their body/mind. The fact is, not everyone has the good judgment to make responsible use of that freedom, and some drugs really are much nastier than others, causing deep harm to both the user and society. I have, and not just for meth, but for heroin, and alcohol, and nicotine, and caffeine, and all sorts of other drugs. Have you seen first hand what it looks like when somebody takes a women and fucks her in front of her husband, then tortures her, and finally cuts her head off? What about a man being thrown alive into an acid bath? No? Would you like to see that? Can you imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes? Just head South of the border. Ask for the Zetas. Ask for the families of people who have been kidnapped and turned into slaves. This is the _reality_ of drug prohibition. Entire neighborhoods living in constant fear. Methamphetamine can cause some damage to the human body when abused. So can water. The difference between a hit of meth in your hand and a punk standing over your head with a rifle pointed at your temple should be obvious. The difference between a hit of meth in your pipe and the unrelenting human suffering that goes on in America's overflowing prisons should be obvious. It is the difference between personal choice and the consequences thereof, versus violence imposed upon you by another, completely out of your control. It is the difference between freedom and prohibition. I could kill myself by overdosing on a number of substances right at this moment, but I don't. It's because I know better, not because there's a law against it. It is far easier, cheaper and more humane to educate a population and provide them with the healthcare and counseling that they need than it is to deal with the horrors that are going on around you today due to prohibition. Compassion and understanding and freedom will lead to a better world. Prisons and prohibition perpetuate suffering.
  - lukifer 16y ago
    > Prisons and prohibition perpetuate suffering. No dispute whatsoever. I'm 100% in favor of decriminalization for these reasons and more; that's different than full-blown legalization, though. Remember the law of unintended consequences. And in fairness, at least some of the gangsters you describe would continue to perpetrate horrors even if all vice laws were eradicated overnight. There's still plenty ill-gotten gains to be derived from extortion, human trafficking, organ harvesting, etc. I suppose what I'm saying is that decriminalization is necessary, but not sufficient, for an effective drug policy. Remember that part of Portugal's successful program is getting as many addicts as possible into (state-funded) rehab/treatment. As the cops stand down, we also need the doctors to stand up.
    - itistoday 16y ago
      > I'm 100% in favor of decriminalization for these reasons and more; that's different than full-blown legalization, though. Remember the law of unintended consequences. Decriminalization is neutered legalization. We should stop coming up with excuses for sending people to prison. Prisons don't create model citizens, they are a breeding ground for suffering and are a waste of human potential. Their existence is symptomatic of a poorly functioning society. If someone wants to buy marijuana, then it only makes sense for there to be someone who sells it. Otherwise you still have a problem. Legalization is combined with regulation so that you don't have the problem of major corporations funneling millions of dollars into advertising campaigns targeting children (as we learned with cigarettes). This is a problem that most programmers should be familiar with. It's a function minimization problem. Minimize suffering(x). > As the cops stand down, we also need the doctors to stand up. Yes, if there were a mantra to chant, it might be: legalization, education, and rehabilitation. You have to have all of them to get the best result.
      - lukifer 16y ago
        > Prisons don't create model citizens, they are a breeding ground for suffering and are a waste of human potential. Couldn't agree more; in fact, this is a problem far above and beyond drugs alone. I dare say that prisons likely have the lowest efficacy of any social program in the history of the world. :P That aside, prohibition being evil and ineffective doesn't change the fact that drugs are dangerous. The worst ones are capable of altering a person's judgment and personality, and creating harm to others. Taking prohibition away solves the problem of prohibition; it does very little for the problem of addiction. (For that matter, I'm also in favor of socialized mental health care, which could be a highly effective harm reduction technique for drug addiction and alcoholism, but for some reason you get labeled a freedom-hating commie for suggesting such things.) :P
- erikpukinskis 16y ago
  If you could walk into the drugstore and buy mushrooms, marijuana, 2CB, 2CI, LSD, DMT, adderol, MDMA, heroin and cocaine, how many people do you think would still be playing around with meth?
  - lukifer 16y ago
    In some circles (truckers and construction workers), use of meth can directly translate into less sleep and therefore more money. And yes, I still think recreational meth users would also still exist. Never underestimate the self-destructive capacity of addictive behavior/personality.
  - dinkumthinkum 16y ago
    I don't know what your response is meant to convey. Are you implying that legalizing heroin would be great to stem the tide of meth abuse?
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      First off, very few people would use heroin if opium were legal. But even ignoring that, heroin is one of the safest drugs there is. There are virtually no longterm negative effects on physical or mental health[1], and it's almost impossible to accidentally O.D. on, especially if you're doing it with folks who have access to naloxone. Of the 500k+ current users, there are only ~200 deaths per year from heroin[2], and a good chunk of those are suicides. In other words, it's perhaps 25x safer than smoking American cigarrettes. [1] C.f. The Consumer Union Guide to Licit and Illicit Drugs. [2] Not counting polydrug deaths.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  The idea that anyone has the right to regulate someone else's life based on morality is deeply puritanical. It may seem like a different problem when posed in the form of a highly addictive and often destructive behavior such as meth use but it's still the same fundamental issue. How much harm does being homeless do to society? How much harm does having a bad credit score do to society? Smoking cigarettes? Listening to thrash metal? Rock climbing? Eating a cheeseburger? Being HIV positive? What's the proper response to these sorts of things? History has shown us in no uncertain terms that it is impossible to protect people from themselves. And every attempt to do so will fail utterly. Will result in more harm to the individual and more harm to society than the problem attempted to be addressed. There are good ways and bad ways to deal with the problems that, say, meth addiction creates. The wrong way is to try to regulate what people can put into their own bodies, that road leads to addicts who can't seek help because of fear of jail, it leads to no-knock militarized police raids, it leads to a criminal justice system increasingly cut-off from the populace. It leads to corruption, to gang violence, and to tragedy of epic proportions. There are too many examples from history to pretend otherwise. P.S. http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3582329113/ http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3582329113/
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    Nobody is trying to protect people from themselves- they are trying to protect themselves, those close to them, and those unable to protect themselves. You may try to argue drugs are a purely personal experience, but anyone who had an alcoholic for a parent will tell you otherwise.
    - itistoday 16y ago
      And note how little prohibition did to stop the existence of alcoholic parents. They were still around, but you had to deal with Spatz Columbo running around too, shooting up the place. If you want to fix the alcoholic parent problem, create a society that reacts to them in a compassionate manner instead of throwing people in prison.
      - 16y ago
- sedachv 16y ago
  "If you've seen firsthand what a drug like meth does to a person, it makes you think twice about the ideal that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their body/mind." It's been stated in other replies, but it bears repeating: this argument is nonsense. You can use the exact same reasoning to argue for banning anything that has ever caused harm to people (which is pretty much everything, ever).
wisty 16y ago
Education + Legalization + Excessive Regulation. Just make sure all the dangerous stuff can only be administered in licensed venues by trained professionals. Make users fill out a 12 page disclaimer before they are served. Make sure that the centers are decorated as tastefully as the average welfare office. The hardcore addicts will flock to the centers, which will kill the street trade. But casual users and people looking to experiment won't bother; and they won't be able to find street dealers, as the dealers can't make a profit off the addicts anymore.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Just make sure all the dangerous stuff can only be administered in licensed venues by trained professionals." Has that stopped dealers from selling Vicodin? Extacy was also legal at one point and it didn't stop anyone from using it as a club drug. "The hardcore addicts will flock to the centers, which will kill the street trade. But casual users and people looking to experiment won't bother; and they won't be able to find street dealers, as the dealers can't make a profit off the addicts anymore." There will always be a black market..even if it's legal. This is because many people won't want to have to go to a doctor...and it will still be the most convenient. I also would be interested to see how a doctor can ethically give you a prescription for a substance that does absolutely nothing to benefit you.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    I also would be interested to see how a doctor can ethically give you a prescription for a substance that does absolutely nothing to benefit you. This is not what is meant by legalization. There would not be a black market because doctors would not prescribe these drugs, you would be able to buy them at your local, licensed convenience store (with proof of ID). Is there a black market for alcohol or caffeine? If there is it's so tiny that somehow I've never encountered or heard about it. The same would be true for heroin, cocaine, etc.
    - rick888 16y ago
      "This is not what is meant by legalization. There would not be a black market because doctors would not prescribe these drugs, you would be able to buy them at your local, licensed convenience store (with proof of ID)." The community kind of screwed themselves on this one. They got "medical marijuana" semi-legal. Now you are trying to tell me that it's not really good as a medical device and that we should sell it like alcohol? Why not just tell us the truth to begin with: It has very little medical benefit and the only reason you want it legal is to get high. I also can't stand behind a community that puts out propaganda making it seem like marijuana has no adverse health effects.

lukifer 16y ago

If you've seen firsthand what a drug like meth does to a person, it makes you think twice about the ideal that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their body/mind. The fact is, not everyone has the good judgment to make responsible use of that freedom, and some drugs really are much nastier than others, causing deep harm to both the user and society. At the same time, we would be deluding ourselves to think that locking people up changes anything, whether we go after the supply or the demand. The best way to move towards a sensible drug policy is to start by admitting that there are no good solutions, and that the best we can hope to do is to minimize harm, both from the drugs themselves, and the cartels. (I agree, though, regarding drug education: Erowid has the capability to save far more lives than DARE ever could.)

mortenjorck 16y ago
The key is to address it as a problem for mental health professionals rather than a problem for the criminal justice system.
itistoday 16y ago
> If you've seen firsthand what a drug like meth does to a person, it makes you think twice about the ideal that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their body/mind. The fact is, not everyone has the good judgment to make responsible use of that freedom, and some drugs really are much nastier than others, causing deep harm to both the user and society. I have, and not just for meth, but for heroin, and alcohol, and nicotine, and caffeine, and all sorts of other drugs. Have you seen first hand what it looks like when somebody takes a women and fucks her in front of her husband, then tortures her, and finally cuts her head off? What about a man being thrown alive into an acid bath? No? Would you like to see that? Can you imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes? Just head South of the border. Ask for the Zetas. Ask for the families of people who have been kidnapped and turned into slaves. This is the _reality_ of drug prohibition. Entire neighborhoods living in constant fear. Methamphetamine can cause some damage to the human body when abused. So can water. The difference between a hit of meth in your hand and a punk standing over your head with a rifle pointed at your temple should be obvious. The difference between a hit of meth in your pipe and the unrelenting human suffering that goes on in America's overflowing prisons should be obvious. It is the difference between personal choice and the consequences thereof, versus violence imposed upon you by another, completely out of your control. It is the difference between freedom and prohibition. I could kill myself by overdosing on a number of substances right at this moment, but I don't. It's because I know better, not because there's a law against it. It is far easier, cheaper and more humane to educate a population and provide them with the healthcare and counseling that they need than it is to deal with the horrors that are going on around you today due to prohibition. Compassion and understanding and freedom will lead to a better world. Prisons and prohibition perpetuate suffering.
- lukifer 16y ago
  > Prisons and prohibition perpetuate suffering. No dispute whatsoever. I'm 100% in favor of decriminalization for these reasons and more; that's different than full-blown legalization, though. Remember the law of unintended consequences. And in fairness, at least some of the gangsters you describe would continue to perpetrate horrors even if all vice laws were eradicated overnight. There's still plenty ill-gotten gains to be derived from extortion, human trafficking, organ harvesting, etc. I suppose what I'm saying is that decriminalization is necessary, but not sufficient, for an effective drug policy. Remember that part of Portugal's successful program is getting as many addicts as possible into (state-funded) rehab/treatment. As the cops stand down, we also need the doctors to stand up.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    > I'm 100% in favor of decriminalization for these reasons and more; that's different than full-blown legalization, though. Remember the law of unintended consequences. Decriminalization is neutered legalization. We should stop coming up with excuses for sending people to prison. Prisons don't create model citizens, they are a breeding ground for suffering and are a waste of human potential. Their existence is symptomatic of a poorly functioning society. If someone wants to buy marijuana, then it only makes sense for there to be someone who sells it. Otherwise you still have a problem. Legalization is combined with regulation so that you don't have the problem of major corporations funneling millions of dollars into advertising campaigns targeting children (as we learned with cigarettes). This is a problem that most programmers should be familiar with. It's a function minimization problem. Minimize suffering(x). > As the cops stand down, we also need the doctors to stand up. Yes, if there were a mantra to chant, it might be: legalization, education, and rehabilitation. You have to have all of them to get the best result.
    - lukifer 16y ago
      > Prisons don't create model citizens, they are a breeding ground for suffering and are a waste of human potential. Couldn't agree more; in fact, this is a problem far above and beyond drugs alone. I dare say that prisons likely have the lowest efficacy of any social program in the history of the world. :P That aside, prohibition being evil and ineffective doesn't change the fact that drugs are dangerous. The worst ones are capable of altering a person's judgment and personality, and creating harm to others. Taking prohibition away solves the problem of prohibition; it does very little for the problem of addiction. (For that matter, I'm also in favor of socialized mental health care, which could be a highly effective harm reduction technique for drug addiction and alcoholism, but for some reason you get labeled a freedom-hating commie for suggesting such things.) :P
erikpukinskis 16y ago
If you could walk into the drugstore and buy mushrooms, marijuana, 2CB, 2CI, LSD, DMT, adderol, MDMA, heroin and cocaine, how many people do you think would still be playing around with meth?
- lukifer 16y ago
  In some circles (truckers and construction workers), use of meth can directly translate into less sleep and therefore more money. And yes, I still think recreational meth users would also still exist. Never underestimate the self-destructive capacity of addictive behavior/personality.
- dinkumthinkum 16y ago
  I don't know what your response is meant to convey. Are you implying that legalizing heroin would be great to stem the tide of meth abuse?
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    First off, very few people would use heroin if opium were legal. But even ignoring that, heroin is one of the safest drugs there is. There are virtually no longterm negative effects on physical or mental health[1], and it's almost impossible to accidentally O.D. on, especially if you're doing it with folks who have access to naloxone. Of the 500k+ current users, there are only ~200 deaths per year from heroin[2], and a good chunk of those are suicides. In other words, it's perhaps 25x safer than smoking American cigarrettes. [1] C.f. The Consumer Union Guide to Licit and Illicit Drugs. [2] Not counting polydrug deaths.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
The idea that anyone has the right to regulate someone else's life based on morality is deeply puritanical. It may seem like a different problem when posed in the form of a highly addictive and often destructive behavior such as meth use but it's still the same fundamental issue. How much harm does being homeless do to society? How much harm does having a bad credit score do to society? Smoking cigarettes? Listening to thrash metal? Rock climbing? Eating a cheeseburger? Being HIV positive? What's the proper response to these sorts of things? History has shown us in no uncertain terms that it is impossible to protect people from themselves. And every attempt to do so will fail utterly. Will result in more harm to the individual and more harm to society than the problem attempted to be addressed. There are good ways and bad ways to deal with the problems that, say, meth addiction creates. The wrong way is to try to regulate what people can put into their own bodies, that road leads to addicts who can't seek help because of fear of jail, it leads to no-knock militarized police raids, it leads to a criminal justice system increasingly cut-off from the populace. It leads to corruption, to gang violence, and to tragedy of epic proportions. There are too many examples from history to pretend otherwise. P.S. http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3582329113/ http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3582329113/
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Nobody is trying to protect people from themselves- they are trying to protect themselves, those close to them, and those unable to protect themselves. You may try to argue drugs are a purely personal experience, but anyone who had an alcoholic for a parent will tell you otherwise.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    And note how little prohibition did to stop the existence of alcoholic parents. They were still around, but you had to deal with Spatz Columbo running around too, shooting up the place. If you want to fix the alcoholic parent problem, create a society that reacts to them in a compassionate manner instead of throwing people in prison.
    - 16y ago
sedachv 16y ago
"If you've seen firsthand what a drug like meth does to a person, it makes you think twice about the ideal that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their body/mind." It's been stated in other replies, but it bears repeating: this argument is nonsense. You can use the exact same reasoning to argue for banning anything that has ever caused harm to people (which is pretty much everything, ever).

wisty 16y ago

Education + Legalization + Excessive Regulation. Just make sure all the dangerous stuff can only be administered in licensed venues by trained professionals. Make users fill out a 12 page disclaimer before they are served. Make sure that the centers are decorated as tastefully as the average welfare office. The hardcore addicts will flock to the centers, which will kill the street trade. But casual users and people looking to experiment won't bother; and they won't be able to find street dealers, as the dealers can't make a profit off the addicts anymore.

rick888 16y ago
"Just make sure all the dangerous stuff can only be administered in licensed venues by trained professionals." Has that stopped dealers from selling Vicodin? Extacy was also legal at one point and it didn't stop anyone from using it as a club drug. "The hardcore addicts will flock to the centers, which will kill the street trade. But casual users and people looking to experiment won't bother; and they won't be able to find street dealers, as the dealers can't make a profit off the addicts anymore." There will always be a black market..even if it's legal. This is because many people won't want to have to go to a doctor...and it will still be the most convenient. I also would be interested to see how a doctor can ethically give you a prescription for a substance that does absolutely nothing to benefit you.
- itistoday 16y ago
  I also would be interested to see how a doctor can ethically give you a prescription for a substance that does absolutely nothing to benefit you. This is not what is meant by legalization. There would not be a black market because doctors would not prescribe these drugs, you would be able to buy them at your local, licensed convenience store (with proof of ID). Is there a black market for alcohol or caffeine? If there is it's so tiny that somehow I've never encountered or heard about it. The same would be true for heroin, cocaine, etc.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "This is not what is meant by legalization. There would not be a black market because doctors would not prescribe these drugs, you would be able to buy them at your local, licensed convenience store (with proof of ID)." The community kind of screwed themselves on this one. They got "medical marijuana" semi-legal. Now you are trying to tell me that it's not really good as a medical device and that we should sell it like alcohol? Why not just tell us the truth to begin with: It has very little medical benefit and the only reason you want it legal is to get high. I also can't stand behind a community that puts out propaganda making it seem like marijuana has no adverse health effects.