DEBATE: I argue for blanket legalization of all drugs for adults.

[benburch]

I believe that the many ills that "recreational" drug use brings to our civilization could be ameliorated in whole or in part by blanket drug legalization. That's right; I'd allow adults to buy any drug they wanted, and which somebody would consent to produce commercially, and to use that drug within the confines of the same laws that currently apply to alcohol or tobacco usage.

Follow me on this...

With complete legalization there will be no more black market sellers. All drugs will be professionally produced, and impurities in them basically nonexistant. Manufacturers would have known addresses and assets, and so would have to produce a clean product or face tort liabilities nobody with a profit motive wants to submit to.

And the worst of drugs, things like PCP, would have no market whatsoever. Too much liability for the makers! And there would be zero demand for drugs like that because of the many obtainable and safer alternatives. Who would use PCP when you can get opium or hashish? Who would use meth when you can get dexedrine and benzedrine cheaply? Who would use Special-K or DXM when you can get mushrooms and LSD?

And drugs like cocaine and heroin would no longer fuel crime at home and abroad. The Columbian Drug Cartel would fall in an instant, and the Coca-Cola company would be the biggest importer of cocaine.

Tax revenues would now be collected on all drug sales, both at the state and the local level, and this would provide a much-needed boost to flagging government revenues. And that is without even considering adding extra taxation such as is done now with tobacco and alcohol. (And I could support a tax stamp act for all recreational drugs, too.)

The drugs would have to be bought at a liquor store or similar, and THAT is where you have your opportunity to help the addict. At the point of sale you make VOLUNTARY treatment available to them. In fact, you can have voluntary treatment that is not government sponsored or regulated, so you can reach the illegals and others who cannot risk having the government know where they are. Its like this... Would you rather a wanted felon be at large as a drug addict, or would you rather a wanted felon be at large while attending a treatment program?

And I would include alcoholism in this point of sale strategy.

The only time I would force any treatment on anybody is if they present at an ER with an overdose.

I believe that this plan would;

- Reduce crime
- Reduce deaths due to overdose
- Reduce HIV transmission from shared needles
- Increase tax revenues
- Promote border security
- Drastically reduce prison costs

Comments welcome!

[Tom Joad]

1. I call for legalization of blankets for all kids. Linus especially.

[VelmaD]

2. Only one comment/problem with your treatise

Given what we've heard about how Coca-Cola's behavior in the 3rd world...are they really better than the drug cartels?

Other than that...I'm on board. What you put in your body should be your business. What should be illegal are any negative externalities. If you get high - no problem. If you get high and get behind the wheel of a car or neglect your kids or set someone else's house on fire...then we have a problem.

[benburch]

6. Like I said...

Ameliorate in whole or in part... In the case of Coca-Cola, its just partial.

[VelmaD]

9. I suppose we could always organize a boycott...

of Coca-Cola cocaine...get people to patronize their local mom and pop shop. :) Use market pressure to change their behavior. And think of the fun we'd have writing letters to our Congress-critters about the situation - can't you imagine Robert Byrd or Barak Obama using the bully-pulpit to encourage folks to use locally grown and processed drugs. *snort*

[benburch]

11. Fair Trade cocaine...

Like Fair Trade Coffee. (Which is just another South American drug...)

[anarch]

3. you've got my vote

I'd say nearly all violent drug-related crime can be directly attributed to our idiotic prohibition laws. What was true for alcohol is also true for other drugs...I say regulate it, but legalize it. Prohibition just plain doesn't work.

[GrumpyGreg]

4. I raised many eyebrows in my office when I mentioned this

strategy about 15 years ago. The looks of shock stay with me to this day.

I absoluteley agree with you, and taxes could be high(as they are with cigarettes in many states) which is a good income stream for the state.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. I'm okay with it

because we could use the money we spend in the "war on drugs" to rehab and provide job programs and make it so people don't need drugs..or even research. But it will never happen because there are too many people who make big money and they somehow have their tentacles into our legislative process.

[panader0]

7. I'd settle for legalization of pot growth.

I haven't done much of the other stuff since the 60'S. I've got my vices down to a little smoke and beer after work. But you are right that the penalties for usage are more harmful than the usage itself. The one drug I've seen do the most damage is crank. Many people have faded in front of my eyes.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. Yes, I've seen bad things happen to dear friends

behind the meth and crack, as well. The libertarian side of me says, yes, legalize it all, but the caring nurturing part of me says, "except for." Those two are real scourges.

[benburch]

28. Then you keep the drug gangs...

drive-by shootings...

crack houses...

and the illicit unsafe labs...

And you have no opportunity for diversion into treatment programs at time of sale.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. I hear what you're saying...

There are no easy solutions, but eliminating the gangs, kitchen labs, etc. is certainly a worthy objective. However, I think it will be a long time before middle America will accept having these two particular drugs legalized, even if the motivation for doing so makes total sense.

[Systematic Chaos]

8. I've said the basically the same thing for years.

I tend to believe that some government regulation should be involved though, like with the models in Europe where the addicts can get a maintenance dose of their drug for next to nothing and treatment centers are available for those who wish to quit. Having any kind of "retail" outlets that aren't strictly regulated would be a potential problem, IMO. The fee for the maintenance doses would then be the revenue that drives the program itself, and those funds that are left over could go toward drug education in the schools. My only caveat is that crimes committed by those who are under the influence of a so-regulated narcotic should be punishable by mandatory treatment and counseling in addition to the normal penalties.

Bottom line is: If drugs are completely de-criminalized then all these little gang bangers running around attacking people and invading homes wouldn't have much left to drive their lifestyle. Prisons would empty out like nobody's business (of couse, the corporatized prison industry couldn't allow THAT, could they?)

Oops, break time's over. Gotta go. But, I certainly agree with your post. :)

[w8liftinglady]

10. as a former Libertarian for 20 years-I agree

with exactly the conditions you outline.I think you will see far less drug related crime in kids,who are the targets for the dealers(at least in my area).As a nurse,I can tell you that the side effects from sharing needles and using dirty gear are as bad,if not worse,that the effects of the drugs(AIDS,hepatitis,abcesses).I have never understood why Marijuana wasn't legalized(in most parts).Because I'm subject to drug screens all the time,I can't smoke marijuana,but i would if it were legalized.
My only caveat is that you can't force treatment on an addict,even a self-destructive one who would totally benefit from treatment.

[benburch]

15. Former Libertarian here too...

now working for freedom issues WITHIN the Democratic Party.

[MadHound]

12. Great post, and I'm on board with this

This War on Drugs does nothing but create revenues for the few, and harms everybody else. Time to put an end to the madness.

[mopinko]

13. pregnant women could reduce the harm to their fetuses

without fear of going to jail. we could give them a room in the now empty prisons, give them their methadone, steak and eggs for breakfast, steak sandwiches for lunch, and steak and potatoes for dinner. then we don't have to spend $100,000 on a preemie in the nicu, $25,000/per year for foster care, (or more, since now you have a special needs kid.) plus special ed, etc. who know, you might even help her get straight.
it isn't so much crack that makes crack babies, it's that crack addicted mothers don't eat right, and are afraid/unable to get prenatal care.
i am right there with you ben. drugs are illegal because there is money in it for the right people.

[benburch]

14. We'd have a lot of money left over for that sort of thing.

And think of the JOBS this would create.

[Katherine Brengle]

16. Yeah, you know, I really want meth addicts and coke-heads to be able

to get their hands on a completely regulated product that has the exact same effects as the original stree drug and puts the rest of society in danger by impairing this person's judgment.

Hell, if you can buy it at a liquor store, then you can take it in your car, right before you drive past my house while my kid is playing outside. Maybe you're so joyously stoned out of your mind on these nice, safe, legal drugs that you run her over and kill her.

Great idea.

Sorry, but I just don't buy across-the-board drug legalisation. Rather than changing the laws about drugs, we need to change our policy on drug rehab--there need to be effective, free rehab opportunities for American citizens who find themselves battling drug addiction.

(BTW, I also have mixed feelings about the legality of alcohol--it's dangerous and addictive.)

[mopinko]

18. during prohibition, alcoholism went up.

it just plain does not work. for anything.

[benburch]

19. You don't think they already DO use it in their cars???

If so, you have NEVER talked to a cop. And it could scarcely be more available than it is now. There was an old woman selling packets of Meth outside the Dairy Queen here the other day. (Yes, I dropped a dime on her. Ice cream draws children, after all!!!)

[Katherine Brengle]

54. My husband is a cop--

and I have had plenty of exposure to drug addicts, as well as alcoholics, in my lifetime.

I never said that they don't already do this--but I have no desire to make the drug abuse itself easier. I do, however, have a strong desire to make treatment easier and more accessible--I don't think that someone who voluntarily checks him/herself into a rehab center should be able to be charged with drug crimes, as long as they complete the program, for instance.

[benburch]

58. I just cannot see any improvement coming your way.

We have been fighting the drug war tooth an nail for 80 years now, and the situation only gets worse and worse.

Ask your husband how hard it would be to go score yourself some crank or crack or heroin.

I know for fact that I would only need to drive 2 miles from here, and I could get it curbside - From somebody packing heat and with three priors.

Blanket legalization would be a VAST improvement. Cops would have resources freed to get impaired drivers OFF the streets.

[Nickster]

23. I'm with you on that. I don't personally care what people use, but I've

seen too much of the effects first hand to be ok with complete legalization. I fear people trying out these things because it's no longer stigmatized and not realizing the horrible effects it will have on them physically and mentally, then being completely sucked into an "unintentional" addiction.

[Katherine Brengle]

55. Yep--especially young people and people who are otherwise

vulnerable (i.e., the poor, people suffering from mental illness, people who are already sick).

[benburch]

61. Where did I say it would be sold to young people?

Just adults.

And with treatment programs available (try getting a slot in rehab now... You have to wait MONTHS in most places.) the poor, sick, and insane would have options available they do not now.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. Standard Operating Procedure.

"protecting the children" - the eternal, classic rationale for criminalizing consenting adult behavior.

[The Straight Story]

116. Just like only adults get alcohol :) (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

120. Actually, it's been shown that in many places, illegal drugs are easier

for kids to obtain than alcohol, precisely because alcohol is regulated and only sold to people over 21.

[benburch]

125. Right now dealers have no disincentive to sell to kids.

And studies show that a VERY high percentage of kids do obtain drugs.

Under legalization, a merchant would have a strong incentive to obtain valid ID.

Yes, some adults will give it to kids. (Already a crime.) Yes some kids will steal their parent's drugs. (like guns, we should expect a fit parent to lock the damned things up securely.) But there is access now for almost any teenager who wants drugs, at least this would create a disincentive to providing it to them. And I have heard reports that in many places drugs are considerably easier for a teen to get than alcohol. Maybe there is a reason for that?

[The Straight Story]

127. Personally, and as a former deputy

I have seen way more underage drinkers than dopers. Kids have friends that are 21 for example who can buy alcohol and they drink it. They get it from their parents' stash. They fake ID it, etc.

Booze and smokes are all over the place to get. My nephew's friend, 20, has walked into state liquor store before and not been carded (he is carded at the one on hamilton so he does not go there). The availability is very high, and the cost fairly low. I know this guy is an alcoholic or borderline.

He also does get pot fairly easily, but if his source is not available he waits - he does not have to with beer/etc.

When I was a deputy I saw a lot more kids boozed up than on drugs.

Whenever something is easier to get people will get more of it (and I mean more of it when they are not of age to have it).

I recall one night we had a man come in tripped out on several drugs. He had killed his wife and did not even realize it until after he was brought in. There is some dangerous crap out there - alcohol is bad enough but it takes a lot more alcohol to get you to a bad point than other drugs.

[skypilot]

35. That is pretty much the way I feel.

I also worry about personal relationships. I know plenty of people whose drug of choice is nothing more than pot and it can be a real chore trying to hang out with or connect with them. I've known people who did harder drugs and those friendships are pretty much over. People can be quiet tedious and obnoxioux enough without drugs. I understand that people who argue for legalization are trying to solve a huge social problem but my gut tells me that this would turn out to be a case of "Be careful what you ask for".

[Warren DeMontague]

109. So, because people are a "tedious, obnoxious, chore to hang out with"

you think we should blow $40 billion a year trying to put them in jail?

[SPKrazy]

89. One Thing Though (or maybe a couple of things)

1. legalizing it would regulate the purity, strength, etc.
2. it would reduce the crime involved in obtaining drugs
3. it removes the criminal underworld supplying it
4. it takes meth labs out of neighborhoods
5. it could be a way of better regulating it's use and where it is used (home delivery since meth heads don't really like to be around people)

I don't know, the war on drugs isn't working

It's time to try something different don't you think?

And making alcohol illegal worked so well in the 20's, thanks to that we have the organized crime networks we have today.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Yeah, well, I don't want $40 Billion a year in MY tax dollars going

to a bullshit "war on drugs" which is aimed PRIMARILY at pot smokers.

And I don't think we're accomplishing anything by filling prison cells with non-violent drug offenders serving mandatory minimum sentences that are, in many cases, longer than the sentences for violent crimes.

Prohibition. Doesn't. Work. It didn't work with alcohol, and it doesn't work with other things. Regulation is what keeps alcohol out of the hands of minors, and that's why in many places it's easier for kids to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get booze. I don't have any rose-colored glasses about any of this stuff- I've seen several different sides of all of it, and despite my 'reckless youth' I haven't done anything stronger than caffeine for many, many years. Alcohol nearly killed me, and Nicotine killed my dad. But the answer to the problem of addiction is treatment on demand, along with honest education--- not the kind of D.A.R.E. Bullshit where they tell kids pot will get them date raped or make their testicles fall off, so that the kids will never believe anything anyone tells them about truly dangerous drugs, like meth, ever again.

No, the "war on drugs" is an abject fucking failure, and frankly, the notion that the government has any business telling consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their OWN bodies is deep down offensive. If people get behind the wheel, endanger others, or whatever other example along those lines you want to toss out, then they are committing a criminal act and should be treated as such. But I greatly resent the notion that a free citizen's bloodstream or central nervous system should be government property. Fuck that.

[Porcupine]

122. You think this doesn't happen now?

I know of two active meth dealers in my little town. In one place you can sit there and watch the tweakers run up and down the stairs; twenty or thirty an hour. I have reported this to the police and they ignore it.

In the second place the guys property owner is actually a local defense attorny. Even he can't get the local narcotics squad off their butts to bust this guy. We regularly pick glass pipes up out of the lawn.

The cops bust who they absolutely have to bust and nobody else. That and the "I got lucky on a traffic stop" busts. People in your town are driving around loaded every day. I would rather they were a) identifiable and b) loaded on a regulated dose so they knew what they were taking. Option c)making drugs go away is just now a real world option.

Wake up to the real world and help us find a real solution.

[mopinko]

17. and the trouble with legislating morality

is that at the ground level, some cop has to enforce those laws. they are not stupid. many of them know it is bullshit. so it is easy for them to take the money, and look the other way. hell, it is easy for a few to take the money and join in. it will always be thus, until we have robots for cops.
until we invest in women and babies, and the future, we will be vulnerable. this shit is a waste.

[benburch]

22. One of my oldest friends tells a story...

back in the 70s, he wanted to score a pound of weed. His friend connected him... WITH A COP.

He met the cop (a sergeant) in the darkest part of the city's biggest park at midnight... And the transaction went off without a hitch. And that cop was his regular supplier for years thereafter.

And you can guess where he got the merchandise.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

26. Yep, Cops know... Former Seattle Chief was on Olbermann

Explaining it a few months ago.

[Beelzebud]

20. Marijuana should definately be legal. I'm not sure about the hard drugs.

[High Plains]

21. Marijuana legalization is on the Nevada ballot this fall.

The initiative would also order the state to come up with a regulated system of distribution, i.e. pot stores. Check out www.regulatemarijuana.org

There are also national organizations working this issue

Drug Reform Coordination Network (www.stopthedrugwar.org) is frankly anti-prohibitionist.

Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org) is the most powerful reform group.

Marijuana Policy Project (www.mpp.org) is backing the Nevada initiative and others.

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (www.norml.org)is still around.

Safer Alternatives For Enjoyable Recreation (www.saferchoice.org) has won several college campus votes calling for equalizing penalties for pot and alcohol. And they were behind November's successful marijuana legalization vote in Denver.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (www.ssdp.org) is working the campuses, too.

[ksilvas]

24. All drugs should be leagal if you can produce it yourself,

for your own consumption.
No selling and with amount limits.
You want to smoke opium, fine , grow it and
harvest it. Want to try making herion, knock yourself out, (no pun intended)
its only your arm you'll be sticking it in.
Try to sell it and thats your ass.
Same with coca, hash/marijuana, beer, liquor, LSD, mushrooms, peyote, ya gotta
make it yourself.
A gift to a friend and or barter? Depends on the State Laws.

[benburch]

25. But then you still have a black market.

And have solved little.

[ksilvas]

I wonder if people would bother, it's not technical illegal

I mean if it were legal to grow all drug source plants,
Home Depot would sell them, seed catalogs,
growing clubs. It'd be so prolific, I don't think
a black market could sustain itself.

[benburch]

31. In urban settings...

Who has an acre for poppies?

[ksilvas]

38. Well I don't think you'd need an acre but I see your point,

Mabey my idea is a bit too utopian.

[MadisonProgressive]

32. And you have amateur chemists living next door

Not very reassuring.

One other benefit that I don't think has been mentioned. Most herion users die when they get a new batch from someone who hasn't cut it down as much as the stuff they were used to - OVERDOSE!

The purity and strength of all these drugs would be standardized.

[benburch]

49. As somebody who knows how dangerous home chemistry can be...

(I used to make my own fireworks before I decided it was insane to do so) I cannot agree more.

[High Plains]

29. This would require amending or repealing UN drug treaties

The UN Single Convention of 1961, and two more in 1972 and 1988.

They bar all signatories from legalizing drugs. They are the legal backbone of the global prohibition regime. They are why pot is not legalized in Holland, even though the Dutch let it be sold.

On the other hand, we only pay attention to international law when we feel like it...

[benburch]

30. Just so.

If we can unilaterally drop the ABM treaty, we should have no problem with this.

[McKenzie]

34. One major reason for legalisation

is that doing so would cut out the huge profits that are to be made. The corollary to that is the freeing up of immense resources to deal with the effects in a transparent, and civilised, manner, not to mention freeing up LEA resources to tackle other, pressing crimes. Unfortunately, the drug trade is home to some powerful, vested interests who would stand to lose in a big way from legalisation; and not all of those vested interests dress in dark shirts with light coloured ties.

There are other issues such as how money flows through the banking systems of the world and assists in maintaining liquidity of capital. Cutting off the flow of drugs money would have serious implications for the world's financial systems because of the way that liquidity of capital interacts with the capitalist system as we operate it.

The irony is that alcohol, one of the most destructive drugs of all, is perfectly legal despite causing untold numbers of premature deaths, road accidents, family breakdowns, violence and the whole demonology of shitty things we could do without. Of course, the US tried to ban the stuff during Prohibition. The consequences should inform even the most dense individuals is that as soon as something becomes illegal, but is in high demand, organised crime follows close behind.

It is not a tenable argument to support alcohol (the public sector drug) and then decry "drugs". Either all should be legal or all should be banned because alcohol, like many drugs, has its addictive and destructive qualities. Yup benburch, I say legalise because banning just enriches the criminals and swallows up huge amounts of LEA resources at the expense of other criminal investigations.

The drugs war is, quite frankly, a sham and home to some of the worst hypocrites imaginable.

</rant>

http://narconews.com/narcodollars1.html

[stevietheman]

36. As I said in another topic, legalize marijuana, decriminalize others.

Make drug felonies into infractions, where treatment is the correction. (and those who refuse treatment will be charged with a misdemeanor)

Hard drugs ruin lives to a great extent, but imprisonment effectively ends any potential for a worthwhile life.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. Actually, hard drugs don't REALLY 'ruin lives';

not all of them, anyway. Heroin, for instance. A junkie with regular access to enough smack to stay straight and not get dopesick can function like any other member of society.

In the case of some drugs, the negative effects (crime, overdoses, et cetera) are due to the drug's illegality, irregular supply, inconsistent street-level quality and potency, black-market pricing, and the societal attitude that drug use is a moral failing that should be treated by imprisonment.

[Katherine Brengle]

60. You cannot possibly believe this--

Addiction, by its very nature, changes your ability to function within existing societal norms (this expands beyong illegal drug addiction to alcoholism and smoking).

Not to mention that heroin carries the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission.

Also, any "hard" drug impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle or other heavy equiptment, alters your brain and body functions (speeds you up, slows you down), and does permanent damage to mutliple body systems, including internal organs and the human brain.

[Spider Jerusalem]

67. Actually, that's not true, either;

the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission associated with use of injected heroin is a byproduct of its illegality and the fact that clean, sterile needles aren't readily obtainable by most addicts; and a longterm heroin/opiate user doesn't experience ANY intoxicating effects from its use; using merely makes them capable of normal function. Case in point: William Stewart Halstead was a famous American surgeon at the turn of the last century, and was one of the founders of Johns Hopkins Medical School; he injected himself with two grains of morphine every day, and operated and taught classes while doing so; he lived what most would consider a full life that one could hardly argue was devoid of meaningful social contribution.

Not to mention that long-term opiate use has less associated risk of negative physiological impact than almost any other drug.

This isn't something I 'believe'; it's something I know, because I bothered to learn actual facts relating to drug use, addiction, and its consequences rather than relying upon propaganda.

[benburch]

83. Needle exchange works.

I can cite you studies where HIV and Hepatitis rates drop markedly when clean needles and syringes are available.

A Syringe costs maybe 30 cents. A dose of Heroin costs about the same. (Actual retail cost assuming a 100% mark-up.)

If you could buy them together, maintenance for a junkie would cost about $1.20 a day and carry ZERO risk of HIV or Hepatitis transmission.

No need to commit crime to maintain that.

Heck, even the least skilled panhandler could score that much begging in the street. (But most junkies in England, where maintenance doses are provided, manage to hold down jobs.)

Anybody who gives a damn about the truth of the matter, rather than the manufactured morality of the drug war should read the literature. Its readily available.

I know several junkies and ex-junkies though my AIDS and Sexworker's rights activism. Porn actress Miss Sharon Mitchell who runs the Adult Industry Medical clinics is an ex-junkie. As a RN, she always had access to clean needles. She never contracted HIV. She never contracted Hepatitis. And I would wager that, without her access to clean needles, neither of those things would be true now.

(BTW, I am not outing her; She made a movie about being a junkie in recovery.)

EDIT: I am of course referring to the price Heroin WOULD be if legalized. It is a simple plant product and very cheap to make.

[skids]

93. The studies have already been done.

Well socialized, "normalized" heroin users with a steady supply hold jobs, raise families, and in fact, often quit using.

Socially ostricised heroin users associate with criminals, steal for cash from just about anyone, suffer medical problems from contaminated drugs, uneven dosing, contaminated needles or other harm done to the body by stuff like boiling heroin on tinfoil for inhalation, they have a piss-poor diet, often become poly-drug abusers (since their dealer is pushing other stuff on them) and end up dead in an alley.

It's a no brainer. Why would anyone believe otherwise? Oh right -- it's EEEEEEVILLLL.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hepc/hepatitis_c/pdf/harm_reduction_e/switzerland.html

[MaraJade]

114. Fine. . .

As long as users NEVER, EVER seek taxpayer financed help for any problems or
illnesses related to the use of drugs.

Under the influence and kill someone through vehicular homicide? We throw the
book at you and the affected families may sue you for millions. You (the user)
take and assume full liability. No money? Then your family is held liable.

Get stoned and engage in unprotected sex and get HIV as a result? You (and your
family) are fully liable for all medical expenses. No Medicaid assistance. No
SSI.

You choose to take recreational drugs, you suffer the consequences in full.

(This should apply to alcohol abuse as well. . .)

[Sammy Pepys]

37. Would you do away with prescriptions?

That's right; I'd allow adults to buy any drug they wanted, and which somebody would consent to produce commercially, and to use that drug within the confines of the same laws that currently apply to alcohol or tobacco usage.

So I could buy Dilaudid or Oxycontin or whatever I wanted without having to seek a prescription from a doctor?

[benburch]

41. Yes.

Though clearly doctors would still write prescriptions, and insurance will only pay for prescriptions, and pharmacies can choose not to serve you without one.

[Sammy Pepys]

43. But everything would basically become "over the counter"...

....would that be correct?

[benburch]

46. Yes. Correct.

IF the pharmacies and drug companies will agree with that, you'll be able to buy therapeutic drug over the counter.

This is just as it was until the 1930s.

Sane people will still ask for a prescription from a doctor. And I cannot imagine that many people will just wake up one day and decide to go out and score them some Synthroid.

Also, since you CAN order any drug except the scheduled ones online from pharmacies in Canada and Mexico with only a consult from a quack doctor via email, this is not a major change in availability. Most such prescriptions are for Viagra, Valium, and Xanax anyway. (Xanax being what Noelle Bush was arrested for presenting a forged prescription for...)

And as I describe in the OP, the pharmacist will attempt to divert you into treatment if he thinks you are an addict. Voluntary point of sale diversion. And he would be very within his rights not to sell to you if he thought you needed help, too.

[Sammy Pepys]

56. I don't think that's the problem.

There are lots of prescription drugs out there that require a great deal of supervision when taken. You can't mix them with other drugs, you can't take them if you have certain conditions, you may have to follow a certain diet or follow a certain dosage schedule....you get what I'm saying.

And it might not be the drug itself someone is interested. Meth addicts don't buy pseudophedrine because they have colds.

And leaving it up to a pharmacist to decide who needs treatment and who doesn't is pretty weak, since there's usually several pharmacies within a square mile of each other. And what authority are they going to have to put you into treatment?

Besides, if pharmacists can deny drug sales in a fairly arbitrary manner like that, then you give even more power to those who don't want to sell the morning after pill or conctraceptives for whatever twisted reason they have.

[benburch]

70. Why would anybody buy pseudophedrine for anything BUT colds...

When you can go to the liquor store and buy meth directly?

And like I say, no sane person is going to dose themselves without supervision, and CLEARLY no insurance plan is going to pay for those drugs any way other than a valid prescription!

Have you priced out most drugs at their retail price lately? Nobody would want to pay for them at retail when they can get them through insurance.

And I am not saying that pharmacists ought to be able to deny a PRESCRIPTION. Just OTC sales.

Will a few nutjobs buy things that harm them? YES. Same nutjobs now forge prescriptions, and hold up pharmacies with guns.

[Sammy Pepys]

82. Meth is a homebrew substance

First of all, you're not going to find any pharmaceutical company anywhere who's going to make it for sale at these "liquor stores" for liability reasons, and any legal substitute that comes along is probably not going to do the job. So they'll all be buying up the pseudo or whatever formerly prescription-only substance that will make a good substitute.

I think relying on high retail drug prices as sort of a "gatekeeper" for dosage is folly. The fact that you'll be able to procure prescription narcotics over the counter will be incentive enough for people to get the cash anyway possible....it'll be one less barrier. Highly addictive prescription narcotics like dilaudid or generic percodans are not really all that expensive in the scheme of things. I don't think you're doing the crime rate any favors there...particularly in terms of petty robbery or identity theft.

Look, if you want weed or shrooms legal, just come out and say it...but I think easing prescription rules is a recipe for disaster.

[benburch]

84. You are so wrong.

And SO badly informed.

If it were legal, I believe that it would be made commercially. Money to be made equals supply.

As for substitutes if liability is a concern, I think you will find that Dexedrine is QUITE safe, and produces essentially the same effect as Meth. The reason you do not see illicit Dexedrine is because the synthesis is much more difficult than meth. Right now Dexedrine is prescribed for people with daytime sleepiness, ADHD, and as a weight control aid. Because it is a scheduled drug, and requires one of the special DEA forms, very little of it makes it into the black market.

And I personally could care less if weed or shrooms were made legal. No impact on me. If I wanted them illegally, I'd have them now. As could ANYBODY who cared to.

And those are not the things that cause drive-by shootings and drug turf wars. Those are caused only by the so-called "hard" drugs.

Keep the current drug laws if you want continued violence, pain, heartache, and disease. For that is their only result.

Continuing to do what we have been doing for 80 years, without result, is INSANITY.

[High Plains]

94. Methamphetamine is a Schedule II drug under the CSA

sold under the brand name Desoxyn.

http://www.healthsquare.com/newrx/des1613.htm

[benburch]

132. Looks like it is prescribed for many of the same things...

as ritalin or dexedrine;

"Why is this drug prescribed?

Desoxyn is used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This drug is given as part of a total treatment program that includes psychological, educational, and social measures. Symptoms of ADHD include continual problems with moderate to severe distractibility, short attention span, hyperactivity, emotional instability, and impulsiveness.

Desoxyn also may be used for a short time as part of an overall diet plan for weight reduction. Desoxyn is given only when other weight loss drugs and weight loss programs have been unsuccessful."

[Pithlet]

115. Sane has nothing to do with it.

"And like I say, no sane person is going to dose themselves without supervision".

Most people do not carry a degree in pharmacology, and can't be expected to obtain and retain that level of knowledge. That level of knowledge includes knowing what should and shouldn't be taken under a doctor's supervision. And, sane or not, it just becomes too tempting to, say, get a hardcore pain pill for that killer migraine that pops up at 2 am, and you've forgotten that you're taking another medication that can't mix with it, or weren't aware that you can't mix it, so you send your partner out to get it for you. Requiring a prescription is a barrier of protection. I'm for decriminalization of hard drugs, and legalization of pot. I wouldn't take that as far as making all drugs over the counter, however. That is a recipe for disaster.

[Dorian Gray]

78. But isn't that dangerous?

Over the counter medications? People will self medicate all the time. (Lord knows I will do anything to avoid the doctor's office.) Which means that drug interactions or allergies may not be caught. There's a reason that prescriptions are required for many medications.

[benburch]

85. Your insurance would never pay for OTC.

So most people would not buy that way.

However, if you have an earache, and the last six times you had one the doctor prescribed polymixin ear drops, and you buy some over the counter this time, what is the harm in that?

Also, any pharmacy you have an account with would check for interactions in their computer system anyway, and warn you.

[FreedRadical]

39. ???

What about the real affects of drug use? Do you really think that legal drugs would be less harmful than street drugs.

[benburch]

42. Yes, absolutely.

Many of the ill effects are caused by illegality;

Dirty needles being the worst, but impurities and unknown strength (which causes fatal overdose) follow close behind.

[High Plains]

53. Good question.

It doesn't serve us well to ignore the real negative effects of drug abuse or addiction. Doing stimulants for days at a time can make you pretty crazy and unpredictable. Doing too much of an opiate can kill you. Drinking alcohol and driving is a recipe for disaster.

All of those negative effects would not go away if drugs were legal.

But so many other negative effects would: the loss of liberties and growth of the police state, the acquisitive crime of junkies paying black market prices for drugs, the structural crime of drug sellers adjudicating disputes with guns (because, being outside the law, they can't sue), the spread of HIV/AIDS through dirty needles, etc.

We're spending nearly $40 billion a year, state and federal, to enforce the drug laws. With a tiny fraction of that, we could really start to address the harms related to drug use (and not caused by drug prohibition).

[Virginia Dare]

40. I agree with you.

In our great-grandparents' time, most if not all narcotics were legal. I think the only time there was a black market was during the Civil War when supply didn't meet demand. I think most people in this country fail to grasp what powerful control the pharma companies really have, worldwide. They literally hold our lives in their hands.

[ksilvas]

44. So legal or Illegal there will be one clear winner no matter what.

The pharmaceutical Corporations.
They win no matter which way the
legal pendulum swings.
Which is why, despite it's inherent inconveniences,
my grow your own theory would never fly.

[benburch]

48. Well, you'd always be free to grow your own.

If drugs are legal, no way your row of ganja in the back yard will be a problem.

[High Plains]

57. We could always nationalize the pharmaceutical companies.

Actually, I can't think of a better industry to nationalize. Greedy bastards.

It'd give a whole new meaning to "People's Drugs."

Or the production and distribution of recreational drugs could be made a government monopoly.

[benburch]

65. That is always a possibility.

One I will not hold my breath for, though.

[High Plains]

73. True. But the point is you don't have to be a capitalist to support

legalization, and we don't have to have a system of corporate drug pushers.

[benburch]

86. Agreed.

But it is an easier "sell" if you tell people jobs and revenues come with the deal.

[FreedRadical]

45. What happened to the topic?

when the reality sets in the conversation stops! My hood was destroyed by what we believe was the intentional crack poisoning by our government. I remain pissed about this. So lets just give the people all the drugs they want. Do you think this will motivate the people to get involved in the process of political change?

[benburch]

47. I do believe it will motivate people.

Property values would rise without the drug gangs.

Women who are addicts will not need to take up streetwalking to support their habits.

Drive by shootings will basically end.

Crack houses will be non-existant.

HIV rates will plummet.

[High Plains]

69. No denying crack is nasty and can mess people up.

But let's pull this apart a little bit. What is it that crack has done?

Stupid jabbering crackheads wandering around--function of the drug.

Crackheads being violent because they're high--function of the drug (but rare).

Crackheads stealing shit to get rocks--function of black market prices due to prohibition.

Gun battles between dealers--function of prohibition (seen any gun battles over liquore franchises?)

Oppressive drug war police presence--function of prohibition.

Hundreds of thousands of black men in prison--function of prohibition.

Large number of disenfranchised drug felons--function of prohibition.

Inadequate treatment facilities--function of budget priorities.

As for crack "destroying" the ghetto, I think it was Eddie Murphy who riffed on that: "Yeah, before crack it was all yachts and garden parties."

[FreedRadical]

74. And what of meth?

The glare is off crack. Know any tweekers?

[High Plains]

77. Ah, crack for white boys.

Another stimulant that can give people problems.

The same argument stand for meth as for crack. Yes, meth use can be a problem, and yes, drug prohibition makes it worse.

Edit: And yes, I know some tweakers. I have some young acquaintances in jail right now waiting to be sent to prison for ingesting it.

[misternormal]

50. When there would be assurances...

...that adults... responsible adults, will not buy drugs and allow their children and their friends to partake of them for parties, recreation and the like, I would be for it.

But there have been case after case to parents, buying alcohol for their over-indulged children, and allowing the kids to have friends over for parties, that I think at this point legalizing recreational drugs for adults would be wrong.

I feel that I am a responsible adult, and I am sure you as as well, or you would have not suggested this idea, but keep in mind that there are so many that are not.

I am sure that the argument could be made that we "Are not our brother's keeper", but to place drugs out there for irresponsible people to allow children to have them, I think that would be just as irresponsible.

[benburch]

51. The alcohol laws...

which I stipulate would be extended to include drugs (and which often DO already include them) would be enforced by cops who no longer had to worry about street gangs and similar issues.

I suspect that MANY fewer kids would have access to these drugs under legalization than presently.

Ask any High School teacher about how many kids get any drug they want NOW. My plan could scarcely be worse.

[High Plains]

62. The drugs are already out there.

The question is do we regulate and control them or leave it to the black market?

By your logic, alcohol should be illegal, no? After all, some people break the law and give it to kids.

[benburch]

64. We in Chicago remember when alcohol was illegal...

[FreedRadical]

59. There is something a little RIGHT sounding about that comment

Just because it's legal doesn't mean the problems of addiction goes away. Aren't we still warning new mothers about the dangers of smoking and drinking? Isn't there still a problem with people robbing truck drivers for cigs? This shit is not about crack houses in the hood. Remember only 40% of drugs use is in the hood. Guess were the other 60% is.

[benburch]

63. Incarcerating a large fraction of all inner city black males....

.... for drug related offenses is such a LEFT proposition, after all.

[FreedRadical]

66. Agreed.

The lop sided legal system and other social issues shouldn't be blamed on one side or the other. These are our problems. I just can't support the position of legalizing drugs, as much as I love my kill bud

[FreedRadical]

68. Addiction is real

Legalizing drugs will not help

[benburch]

71. Yes it would. GREATLY.

Because it would make it no longer an underground problem that can only be supported through crime.

It would free vast resources now put into the police state and the prison-industrial complex to fund treatment.

[High Plains]

72. Please check out my post #69 in response to one of yours.

Legalizing drugs will not stop addiction, no. But it will undo a whole bunch of other nasty shit that disproportionately affects minority communities. And it would free up resources so that people with drug problems (which is only a minority of drug users, even crack users) can be helped.

[High Plains]

75. You love your "kill bud," but you still think you should be arrested

for smoking it?

[FreedRadical]

79. I know stupid huh.

For me it's about escape.

[Gold Metal Flake]

76. Agree.

I would forbid advertisements for drugs. To make it fair, I would eliminate all advertising for alcoholic and tobacco products as well. Word of mouth will suffice. Naturally there would be a huge backlash by the alcohol and tobacco industries, but if we assume that we can actually get drugs legalized, we should also assume that there is such a changed socio-political climate as to allow the people to tell the alcohol and tobacco industries to FO.

All drug compounds must be made within the United States. No importing from other countries. Put our people to work, and do not solicit purchases from countries that might not share our new drug policy. Wanna bring in pot or poppy seeds? Get an approval and do it. No uncontrolled movement, however.

This would solve the question of industrial hemp once and for all, goddammit.

All the societal restrictions would apply, like DUI/DWI and public intoxication. However, we would have to work to keep fundy-types and control-freak constabulatories from enacting draconian restrictions. I would expect that Amsterdamonian (eh, it was fun to type) coffee shops to spring up, and zoning them 10 miles out of town near the Memorial Twenty Foot Turd Stack is bullshit.

Companies would still sniff pee. That's a separate struggle.

Imagine, billions of dollars of waste, deadly gang activity, rampant corruption and the egregious loss of our liberties ended.

[Gold Metal Flake]

80. Walter Cronkite Has just written on this topic..>>link

Telling the Truth About the War on Drugs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-cronkite/telling-the-truth-about-t_b_16605.html

[FreedRadical]

81. Thanks guys

I got to go, but I look forward to reading through this post tonight. You've all given me food for thought. Now it's back to the other world.

[JNelson6563]

87. Here is my detailed & lengthy argument

I agree with you.

[pinto]

88. Meth, whether pharmaceutical grade or home cooked will still fuel crime,

violence, domestic abuse, child endangerment/abandonment and psychosis. I just can't go for that.

[High Plains]

95. Ooh, scary, sounds like alcohol.

Seriously, people who commit crimes like you mention should be arrested. People who use meth and do not commit those crimes should not be arrested, neither should the people who sell it.

[pinto]

105. Meth's much more devestating. Ask users. There a many more living

alcoholics and opiate addicts than there are meth addicts. You don't see an old meth addict. They die young.

[benburch]

117. Three questions?

1. Do you seriously think usage would go up that far? And if so why?

2. And why would anybody choose this over a safer alternative?

3. Right now we have unsafe drug labs pouring toxic chemicals into the watershed where they bioaccumulate, or exploding, or poisoning the children that live in the flat upstairs, and drug sales and import related violence. Do you seriously think that the other sorts of violence and mayhem caused by this will increase so far, in spite of treatment availability, to overcome the complete abatement of these causes of harm?

P.S. I'm back now, sort of.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. I agree 100%. But the best ad against meth is meth users themselves.

Also, meth is made from primarily legal ingredients.

And, (this is the part they NEVER want to tell you in drug propaganda land) the places where meth use is way up, and where disaffected folks with nothing to do huff paint thinner, or use power drills to put holes in their heads, all kinds of stupid shit in pursuit of the eternal buzz, are precisely the places where people DON'T have access to actual drugs, like pot.

Bottom line is, people have always and will always seek ways to alter their consciousness. If smacking their head against an anvil is the only option available to them, you will probably see a marked increase in anvil smackin'.

[benburch]

90. I'll be back to this topic later...

Gotta go babysit for my brother so they can get a night out... :)

[blindpig]

91. I agree except

cannabis production should be open to anyone. Shouldn't be no difference from growing tomatoes. Perhaps sustenance growers could pay a small licensing fee.

It would be wrong to have to buy from Phillip Morris what I can grow in the backyard. There are no real toxicity or impurity issues with this substance and I imagine the sheer volume of home growers would render a black market moot.

[High Plains]

97. There definitely needs to be a two-tier system for cannabis.

Regulated commerical production and sales.

Unregulated personal use production.

Like with home-brewed beer.

[DoYouEverWonder]

92. Debate?

What's there to debate? You make complete sense.

Now we can't have any of that around here, can we?

[leftofthedial]

96. I'll go you one better

all drugs should be mandatory

[Joey Liberal]

98. Not too sure about Heroin, Meth or Crack

But damn, we've got to legalize Marijuana. Anyone up for a Doobie? :).

[cigsandcoffee]

99. The problem I have with this is kids getting it

When I was young, I frequently exceeded my limits with alcohol - alcohol that I was too young to buy outright, but was able to procure anyway.

Won't (basically good) kids have access to far more potent and dangerous drugs - morphine, cocaine, or whatever - then they do now? There would be an enormous rash of OD'd kids who were trying to be macho with an adult legal product.

[Swamp Rat]

100. Yes! Let's end the lie that is the War on Drugs.

I'm with you 100% :thumbsup:

:kick:

[LostinVA]

101. And every cop I know agrees with you (except for meth and PCP)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

102. no debate. just do it. Do it!

[Coastie for Truth]

103. Only down side of blanket legalization

It would remove a source of outside income for the minuscule fraction of rotten apples in the criminal justice system and at the interface between organized crime and government (bigger then Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff combined)

[High Plains]

104. Okay, but how do we sell this to politicians?

What approaches can bring them around?

[tavalon]

106. I cannot debate this one with you

because I entirely agree with you. I take mine one step further. I think all drugs should be available over the counter, legal and illegal.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. Philosophically, I don't think it's any of the government's business what

consenting adults do with their own bodies.

Although logistically it's hard for me to envision heroin and cocaine being available at the corner store (like they were 100 years ago, of course... and the sky didn't fall) I have to say that, balanced against my naturally libertarian impulses and the fact that criminalization is a stark fucking disaster when it comes to foisting morality on people and controlling this kind of behavior.. I tend to agree with you.

And I agree with Velma. What you do with your own body should be your own damn business. If you get behind the wheel, neglect your kids, rob a bank, whatever- THEN you're a criminal and should be treated as such.

[spanone]

111. I second that argument.

[Blue_Tires]

112. i'm also in favor of this

nt

[MaraJade]

113. I strongly agree. . .

As long as the drug using person is then liable and responsible for any and all treatment for
any and all illnesses resulting from the use of the drugs.

No falling back on the system; no Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security
Disability or Income payments. The drug user should assume all legal and medical
responsibility for the results of non-pharmaceutical drug use. No help from any
government agencies or assistance agencies at all. NONE.

[High Plains]

137. Personal responsibility, yes, but...

You seem to be going a little bit overboard. Into the realm of the punitive, almost.

I spend my life paying into Social Security and you want to deny me benefits because I smoke pot?
Drug users are taxpayers, too, you know. We're not all hanging out on the corner. In fact, the vast majority are employed.

No health care for drug users?

What about the alcohol drinker who develops cirrhosis (sp?) of the liver?

What about the smoker who develops emphysema?

What about the overeater who develops heart problems?

What about the skiier who needs knee surgery?

[DrBloodmoney]

118. Absolutely agree!

My response is colored by my beliefs that:

1. People have always, and will always seek out mind-altering substances. It is part of the human collective experience since the dawn of time, and it's here to stay.
2. The War On Drugs is a war that is to be waged and never won. It is a failing tactic and the most glaring public policy failure in the United States currently.
3. Addiction is a disease. It is a medical problem, not a criminal problem.
4. The War On Drugs has created a far larger criminal component to drug use in America. The level of drug-related violence and crime in this country directly correlated to the escaltion of the War On Drugs.

Once we accept that addiction is a medical problem (and not a criminal one) and that the greater good would be served by legalization, this discussion can move forward. We need to separate the criminal elements from the abuse elements.

1. Tax
2. Regulate quality
3. Treat

Harsh criminal penalties for:

1. Selling/providing to minors (age<18)
2. Driving under the influence
3. Committing any crime under the influence

[MaraJade]

123. Agree that addiction is a disease, but

people who choose that route should bear full responsibility for it.

Treatment should be at the complete expense of the user. No public financing.

I don't care if adults take drugs, as long as no children are affected. If
children are affected, or non-users are harmed, penalties should be as sharp as the law allows.

We all should have a right to destroy ourselves if we want.

[DrBloodmoney]

130. The public is already funding

both treatment programs and penal systems for these folks. It is time for a paragdigm shift. The current one is not working. The tax revenue from the legal sale of narcotics would be used to generate treatment (along with a good deal of other things).

[mzmolly]

121. I've got no issue with it other than people in poverty who make a living

dealing may no longer? However, in the long run, it's probably advantageous. I don't think Democrats should run for office on this premise however. ;)

An aside, I also think prostitution should be legal.

[MaraJade]

124. Agree that prostitution should be legal, but

married men who see prostitutes should be required, under penalty of imprisonment,
to inform their wives. Due to the marriage contract, wives should have the opportunity
to opt out of the contract should the husband choose to use the services of a
prostitute. In marriage, the sexual favors of the spouse are the exclusive right of the
other spouse. If a person doesn't care to share their spouse, they shouldn't have to.
I, for one, would not want any sexual contact with my husband if he'd had sex with another
woman. Aside from the emotional issues and the damage to the marriage bond, problems with
the potential spread of disease are too great. My sister got disease from her philandering
ex-husband, so I know. Innocent people should not be exposed to bacteria and pathogens
(including HIV) without their full consent and knowledge.

A law like this could be easily enforced by requiring prostitutes to work only at brothels
where an employee could collect identification from the patrons.
Prostitutes who refuse brothel work could be arrested.
Of course, services could be refused to anyone whose identification and phone number could not be verified (driver's licenses can be swiped at POS terminals). This would also protect the whores
as positive ID of the Johns would be available in the event of trouble. A registry of persons
who use the services of prostitutes could be compiled and their families contacted and informed.
Most married women would want to protect themselves and their children from diseases spread by
prostitutes, and would opt out of marriage to a man who wanted to use prostitutes.

[calmblueocean]

126. I can't go as far as "all drugs".

Marijuana? I'm definitely open to that. But hard drug use and addiction has a crippling effect on people's lives, on the lives of their families, and on society. Making drugs cheaper and purer doesn't change the raw facts that drug addiction is one of the nastiest, most brutal, most wasteful, self-destructive things that can happen to a human being, and that that self-destruction has negative social effects, including child abuse and neglect, among others.

With complete legalization there will be no more black market sellers.

So you're saying you'll sell heroin to 7th graders? As long as you have age restrictions, there will be a black market. (But since you'll sell to all adults, you'll undoubtedly end up with more 7th graders on heroin. Or whatever the designer drug du jour is.)

And the worst of drugs, things like PCP, would have no market whatsoever. Too much liability for the makers!

As long as you have corporate liability, there will be a black market.

Beyond that, though, corporations would have huge incentives to create novel addictive drugs. I simply do not share your faith in the goodness of the market here. I would expect the capitalist hive mind to devise substances thousands of times more personally and socially destructive than the drug cartels have been able to.

And drugs like cocaine and heroin would no longer fuel crime at home and abroad. The Columbian Drug Cartel would fall in an instant, and the Coca-Cola company would be the biggest importer of cocaine.

Of course they'll still fuel crime. It doesn't matter how cheap your high is if addiction has made you unemployable. Something else to think about is that addicts are easily exploitable. Ever see "Bumfights"? You say you'd make the offer of voluntary treatment at the place of purchase, but addiction is not a rational process; it is the surrender of reason.

Ultimately, I'd be more convinced if I saw you reckoning at all with the personal and family destruction addiction causes. I just don't see it here. Sorry.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Philosophically, the libertarian in me says that adults have to be free

to make choices involving their own bodies- even bad ones.

The realist says that the optimial approach would be to adopt a "harm reduction" strategy like the Netherlands has towards hard drugs. Treat it (use, not sales) as a health issue, not a law enforcement one.

But there is NO reason- none, in my mind- that marijuana shouldn't be legal, regulated, and taxed for people 21 and over. And I might include the garden variety psychedelics in there, too.

And I speak as a person with both family and personal experience around addiction. I'm one of the 10% or so of the population that can't drink- alcohol very nearly killed me, and as such I've been clean and sober for a very long time.. But I also understand that just because *I* can't drink it, that doesn't mean no one should, and I certainly don't think too many alcoholics would be helped if people were regularly thrown in jail for five, ten, or fifteen years for posession of a flask of Jack Daniels.

I've seen the damage drugs, (alcohol being one of the most dangerous and deadly) can cause- and as someone who spent a lot of time in his youth following the Grateful Dead around, I also certainly witnessed the very REAL and often totally unnecessary damage the 'drug war' can cause.

Honestly, I think, overall, that the misery and wrecked lives caused by the $40 Billion-a-year drug war and the turning of millions of non-violent people into criminals merely for making choices about their own bodies, I do think that trumps the sometimes legitimate concerns about addiction. If the fear is that kids will get a hold of certain substances because they're legal for adults, then you make providing them to kids the very serious crime, like providing kids with alcohol is a criminal offense. If that's the concern, then make the mandatory minimum sentences for that. Likewise, neglecting your kids or driving under the influence- once you cross the line into endangering or fucking up other people, then you become a matter for law enforcement... but I have a hard time buying that, even supposedly well-intentioned (although pre-war on terra it sure gave them a nice excuse to start eviscerating the bill of rights), the government has any proprietary right to tell consenting adults, even ones with bad judgement, what they can or cannot do with their own bodies and bloodstreams.

And locking 'em up en masse sure as shit isn't solving the problem.

[calmblueocean]

133. We're not too far off.

I definitely agree that there is a certain class of drugs which can and should be legalized. I think our war on marijuana is asinine and destructive. No one should ever go to jail or prison for smoking, carrying, or selling pot. And I agree also that many psychedelics could be legalized as well. But some hard drugs are just too socially harmful to legalize.

An idea I've never heard anyone talk about, but that I find intriguing, would be a civilian "drug license". To be allowed to buy certain drugs, you would need to get your drug license, the same way you need to get a driver's license in order to drive. Getting your drug license would involve drug-specific education, first-hand instruction about addiction (how it affects users, their families, what treatment options are available should you or someone else become addicted) and a requirement that any drug-related infractions (i.e. driving while stoned) will revoke your license.

I am sympathetic to the idea that people should be able to do as they wish as long as they don't harm others, and I think that many people can use many drugs responsibly. I just can't go as far as the OP did by saying "all drugs should be legalized."

[Warren DeMontague]

136. I think another aspect of the license idea, which I also came up with

at some point, would be that it could balance the competing impulses in our society to let people make their own choices and to protect them from themselves with regards to things that might be harmful. Lots of things can be very bad for you, from hard liquor to triple bacon cheeseburgers. Maybe if people want the freedom to indulge in those things, they have to sign a release as part of the license process...

Another, side aspect of the 'war on' hard drugs like opiates is the fact that these drugs do have legitimate usage that is made more difficult via the 'war on drugs' as well. Honestly, if I ended up with crippling pain due to terminal bone cancer, worrying about becoming addicted to morphine would be pretty far down my list of concerns. And I certainly wouldn't want my doctor terrified to prescribe me adequate pain management medication because of the DEA- which is the situation we have now.

[High Plains]

138. That's Mark Kleiman's idea. It always seem to go over like a

lead balloon whenever it is brought up.

[Warren DeMontague]

140. Yeah, well, no one in power wants to fuck with the status quo.

$40 Billion dollars a year is a serious gravy train, and "Senator Flotz is tough on crime" is a fuckload easier to fit into a 30 second campaign sound bite than actual ideas and solutions.

[Random_Australian]

128. No! NO NO NO! JUST NO!

You'll make teens think that these things aren't so risky! (THIS IS FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE)
In Nimbin, the No. 1 reason for ambulance callouts is to attend youth suicide attempts. Drugs affect your judgement, remember! And think of how easily this stuff would get to those who arent supposed to get it, after all in the area (in which I lived until 5 days ago) most kids got drunk from 14 onwards.
This shite can really destroy forming minds. I've lost friends and family too it.

SO NONE OF THAT BS!

Sorry for that harsh tone, but the subject makes me so angry!I've seen too many unpleasant things for my short life.

[benburch]

131. Nobody is advocating giving drugs to teens.

Nobody at all. We are talking about adults here.

[High Plains]

139. I think you're making things up.

Youth suicide attempts are the number one cause of ambulance calls in Nimbin? Let's see the numbers. And what does that have to do with drug use, anyway?

No one here is talking about making it legal for teens to use drugs. But if you want to throw me in prison because some kid somewhere might do something stupid, you can go fuck yourself. Sorry for the harsh tone, but I've seen too many unpleasant things in my not so short life.

[Booster]

134. I might agree with you if we didn't have a sitting president who

would probably take LSD.

[benburch]

135. I think he already does! nt