4 ms·

That's a useless oversimplification of the problem. Such immediate solutions have enormous pitfalls. For example, in Europe, cocaine got significantly cheaper

That's a useless oversimplification of the problem. Such immediate solutions have enormous pitfalls. For example, in Europe, cocaine got significantly cheaper and rather easy to find. This led to a a considerable increase of its popularity during the last three years or so. Cocaine is starting to take 'market' from cannabis based drugs which are much less dangerous and carry much softer consequences. 'Legalize drugs' is a too naive statement, the drug situation needs to be carefully analysed and adequate solutions need to be put in practice based on as much factors as possible. That said, generally, in developed countries I think consumption decriminalization is a positive thing at present time. It makes room for advances in thins like hygiene, medical treatment of addicts, etc. without creating easier access to drugs.

speleding 15y ago
I agree that "legalize all drugs" is problematic, and probably not a good idea. "legalize all drugs less addictive than coffee" is a better option, that allows cannabis and mushrooms. (some people argue "all drugs less addictive than alcohol", but that would include cocaine). However, that still has the problem that customer won't know for sure what they're buying without some sort of FDA control, and small kids getting their hands on the stuff too easily. So as a third revision I propose "Regulate all drugs less addictive than coffee to be legally available to adults". Not very catchy.
- yelsgib 15y ago
  Who gets to decide which drugs are addictive? The main claim by anti-legalization politicians is that cannabis is addictive. Giving any small group of humans the right to decide which properties drugs have and how important/dangerous those properties are is EXTREMELY dangerous. This is not kids stuff. Millions live and die by these decisions. Who do we trust to make such decisions?
  - speleding 15y ago
    Yes, I know that is complex, that's why I sidestepped the issue by saying "less addictive than coffee". That's pretty easy to determine in a controlled double blind and most people agree with it intuitively.
yelsgib 15y ago
Underlying your arguments is the belief that some people are better at making these sorts of decisions than others. The belief that any group of people (no matter how large) should dictate the consumption patterns of another group of people (no matter how small) is inherently anti-democratic. You claim that the drug situation should be carefully analysed. Well, it must be analysed by someone, right? Who will do the analysis? Who deserves this power? Who do we trust enough to make unbiased decisions in this domain? Another underlying assumption that you seem to be making is that drugs are bad. You want to allow room for advances in hygeine, medical treatement, etc. but you don't want people to do more drugs. I want people to do more drugs. I want there to be more and deeper research into drugs. I want people to trip more. I want cocaine and heroin addicts to have easy access to ibogaine. I want there to be less shame associated with having gone through a period of heavy addiction. I want people to smoke weed and do mushrooms and LSD and 2CE on their days off rather than getting drunk. "Legalize drugs" is not an over-simplification, it is a purification. It is the only position which is consistent with freedom and mutual human respect. It is the only position which has any hope of allowing humanity to move towards a healthy and mature stance on drug use. Your attempt to cast it as a "simplification" is a subtle (and all-too-common) context-switch from the land of ideals into the land of hubristic utilitarianism/pragmatism.
r0s 15y ago
Did the availability of Cocaine in Europe decrease the violence associated with it's trafficking? This is the case in the US: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/11/cocaine-plummeting-price-nationwide-drop-violent-crime/474/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/11/co... Also, illegality has had no effect on use rate.

speleding 15y ago

I agree that "legalize all drugs" is problematic, and probably not a good idea. "legalize all drugs less addictive than coffee" is a better option, that allows cannabis and mushrooms. (some people argue "all drugs less addictive than alcohol", but that would include cocaine). However, that still has the problem that customer won't know for sure what they're buying without some sort of FDA control, and small kids getting their hands on the stuff too easily. So as a third revision I propose "Regulate all drugs less addictive than coffee to be legally available to adults". Not very catchy.

yelsgib 15y ago
Who gets to decide which drugs are addictive? The main claim by anti-legalization politicians is that cannabis is addictive. Giving any small group of humans the right to decide which properties drugs have and how important/dangerous those properties are is EXTREMELY dangerous. This is not kids stuff. Millions live and die by these decisions. Who do we trust to make such decisions?
- speleding 15y ago
  Yes, I know that is complex, that's why I sidestepped the issue by saying "less addictive than coffee". That's pretty easy to determine in a controlled double blind and most people agree with it intuitively.

yelsgib 15y ago

Underlying your arguments is the belief that some people are better at making these sorts of decisions than others. The belief that any group of people (no matter how large) should dictate the consumption patterns of another group of people (no matter how small) is inherently anti-democratic. You claim that the drug situation should be carefully analysed. Well, it must be analysed by someone, right? Who will do the analysis? Who deserves this power? Who do we trust enough to make unbiased decisions in this domain? Another underlying assumption that you seem to be making is that drugs are bad. You want to allow room for advances in hygeine, medical treatement, etc. but you don't want people to do more drugs. I want people to do more drugs. I want there to be more and deeper research into drugs. I want people to trip more. I want cocaine and heroin addicts to have easy access to ibogaine. I want there to be less shame associated with having gone through a period of heavy addiction. I want people to smoke weed and do mushrooms and LSD and 2CE on their days off rather than getting drunk. "Legalize drugs" is not an over-simplification, it is a purification. It is the only position which is consistent with freedom and mutual human respect. It is the only position which has any hope of allowing humanity to move towards a healthy and mature stance on drug use. Your attempt to cast it as a "simplification" is a subtle (and all-too-common) context-switch from the land of ideals into the land of hubristic utilitarianism/pragmatism.

r0s 15y ago

Did the availability of Cocaine in Europe decrease the violence associated with it's trafficking? This is the case in the US: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/11/cocaine-plummeting-price-nationwide-drop-violent-crime/474/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/11/co... Also, illegality has had no effect on use rate.