Words simply fail me-

[Nephythys]

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Just over the United States northwest border, addicts will soon be able to get their fix from the Canadian government in the form of free heroin administered by nurses and doctors on the taxpayer's dime.

"They're using heroin. They'll continue to use heroin. What we're trying to do is prevent them from getting something irreversible like HIV, hep [hepatitis] C and overdose death,” said Dr. Martin Schechter, the director of the heroin program.



Free Heroin (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150076,00.html)

[Alex]

I agree it is wrong to give it away for free. The government should at least grow their own poppy and process it themselves and then sell it at non-profit prices.

The real benefit isn't even the reduction in transmittable disease but the elimination of the black market and ancillary criminal activity that goes along with it. Of course, 431 participants in all of Canada won't change much. They should just legalize it and create a healthy functioning above-board market for it. And all the other illegal recreational drugs too.

[Nephythys]

It fractures the mind to think that they expect the taxpayers to pay for this. If I lived there I would be livid!

[Ghoulish Delight]

I agree it is wrong to give it away for free. The government should at least grow their own poppy and process it themselves and then sell it at non-profit prices.

The real benefit isn't even the reduction in transmittable disease but the elimination of the black market and ancillary criminal activity that goes along with it. Of course, 431 participants in all of Canada won't change much. They should just legalize it and create a healthy functioning above-board market for it. And all the other illegal recreational drugs too.Here, here. The vast majority of problems associated with drugs are problems resulting from the fact that they are illegal. Murders, theft, destitution, addicts not receiving treatment, exhorbitant law enforcement costs, organized crime. All would be drastically reduced, some of it eliminated, simply by legalizing it. If it's sold through legal channels, people won't be killed for owing their brother's roomate's buddy's connection $1,400. If it's legal, the government would be collecting tax on its import and sale rather then spending billions to fight a losing battle. If it's legal, people won't be too afraid of being arrested or losing their job to seek professional help if they need it. If it's legal, proper research can be done to determine drugs' effects and find effective treatments for problems. If it's legal, the market will set reasonable prices rather than crime syndicates extorting as much as they can so people will have less need to knock over the local liquor store for the next fix.

If it's illegal, people still get their drugs, it just requires theft and murder to do it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It fractures the mind to think that they expect the taxpayers to pay for this. If I lived there I would be livid!I've heard of this before. It's not like methedone has been a much better solution. And it's quite possible that this small taxpayer expense will offset the much larger expense these people would incur if they're getting their drugs off the street and end up with AIDS or hepetitis.

[Name]

Yes, we need to start legalizing drugs, for all the reasons GD described. It just doesn't and hasn't made sense to me to spend billions on a fight that will never be won. When the government can make a massive profit off taxes on it, and maybe reduce the income tax burden on all of us.

[Nephythys]

I'm unsure of my stand on that- but I sure as hell would not want my tax dollars going to pay for some addict to get a "fix"

[SacTown Chronic]

The drop in crime would be mind-blowing. The only crime that wouldn't drop would be the steal-to-afford-my-fix crowd.

I bet the police and prison guard unions would fight like hell against any legalization efforts. I also wonder if the powers-that-be are really interested in a reduction of the crime rate.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Vancouver Police Chief Jamie Graham is among supporters who say the heroin giveaway will let junkies shoot up without having to resort to theft or prostitution to buy their drugs. Breaking that cycle of crime, they argue, is the first step toward turning an addict's life around.

“I’m not a medical expert, this is not my field. I'm an expert in public safety," Graham said. "And if this will help reduce the crime rate — I'm all for it."

Good thing you don't have to pay taxes in Canada.

[Not Afraid]

I agree it is wrong to give it away for free. The government should at least grow their own poppy and process it themselves and then sell it at non-profit prices.

The real benefit isn't even the reduction in transmittable disease but the elimination of the black market and ancillary criminal activity that goes along with it. Of course, 431 participants in all of Canada won't change much. They should just legalize it and create a healthy functioning above-board market for it. And all the other illegal recreational drugs too.

Exactly!

There will always be Heroin addicts, but the black market dealers are the ones the benefit from the sale of drugs.

[mousepod]

Hmmm. This issue is pretty close to me for several reasons (that I don't need to articulate here). Lots of good points being made here.

From a purely gut level, I agree with GD. However, the idea that "legalizing it" will fix all of the problems is probably a little too "pie in the sky" for me.

Let's look at one problem with methadone clinics:
Since methadone clinics are funded by the government, and their budget is determined by the number of clients, there is an inherent disincentive to getting the junkies to kick. (I'm setting aside the fact that methadone is a bad, bad thing)
I, for one, would not be in favor of the government growing or selling any of this stuff, because all it does is allow for the possibility of the drug trade going to the hands of government profiteers instead of black market profiteers.

Since I moved to SF, I've become a supporter of the medical marijuana clubs (at least with my vote). If the federal gov would just leave it alone, it seems like this is a model that would work best.

I understand that Neph's reaction raises hackles (I, for one, have to get over the way she phrases her arguments and look at what she's trying to say), but to be honest, her attitude is probably in the majority. What needs to happen is that America needs to learn how to separate the disease of addiction from the crimes that the disease can lead the addict to committing.

Obviously, I'm in favor of the decriminalization of drug use and possession, because what an adult does to him/herself is none of my business (or the government's business).

The "war on drugs" is obviously not the answer. Setting up the government as dealers probably isn't the answer, either. Let's spend our tax dollars on education. Let's teach people that addiction can be treated. Let's treat addicts by helping them become sober.

[scaeagles]

I have never been one that believes that the legalization of drugs cures a multiple of ills. There will most certainly still be theft involved. There will be a huge black market. Drug dealers will not simply go quietly into the night because there are other outlets. I see them turning to other crime to finance their lifestyle - maybe protection rackets on stores which would sell the newly legalized drugs. Drug users will be just as violent to satisfy their addiction. As alcohol cannot be sold to minors, I'm sure drugs would fall under the same restrictions, so there is certainly still an illegal market that would be filled....illegally. Food stamps would still be sold for pennies on the dollar for cash to buy drugs, etc, etc, etc.

The problems would be different, but not necessarily reduced. Perhaps 20-30 years after legalization there might be some relief from the crime and violence associated with it, but certainly nothing in the short term.

Take prostitution in Nevada. Legal in some areas, but legal brothels are far more expensive than the average hooker walking down the strip in Vegas, I'm sure. I would not be in the least surprised if regulation, testing for purity and content, blah, blah, blah, would make a hit of crack more expensive at the local Walgreens than on the street. And I would not sit quietly if my tax dollars were used to fund one hit for one addict, and I could see that happening.

[Ghoulish Delight]

From a purely gut level, I agree with GD. However, the idea that "legalizing it" will fix all of the problems is probably a little too "pie in the sky" for me.
I never claimed it would fix all of the problems. And it will likely create a few new ones. But it's no different than prohibition. Making alcohol illegal created more problems than it solved.

[Nephythys]

Not sure what is wrong with the way I phrased anything- considering all I said was I would not want my tax dollars going for this.
:confused:

[Ghoulish Delight]

The problems would be different, but not necessarily reduced. Perhaps 20-30 years after legalization there might be some relief from the crime and violence associated with it, but certainly nothing in the short term.Your point? Yes, it will take time. I disagree with it taking that long because, among other things, with the isntant decrease in spending in enforcement, combined with increased revenue from taxes, efforts and resources can be concentrated on solving those remaining issues.[/quote]

Take prostitution in Nevada. Legal in some areas, but legal brothels are far more expensive than the average hooker walking down the strip in Vegas, I'm sure. I would not be in the least surprised if regulation, testing for purity and content, blah, blah, blah, would make a hit of crack more expensive at the local Walgreens than on the street. Supply and demand. Legalized prostitution doesn't significantly increase the supply. You aren't going to suddenly have women clamboring to sell their bodies just because it's legal. Yes, there will be more, but you're right, not enough to offset the increased costs of running a legitimate business as opposed to walking the streets. But drugs? The most popular is a weed. Legalize it and California alone could probably supply the whole nation it grows so well out here. Others can be mass produced with relative ease. There would be no problem in increasing the supply to offset regulation costs.

[mousepod]

I never claimed it would fix all of the problems. And it will likely create a few new ones. But it's no different than prohibition. Making alcohol illegal created more problems than it solved.

Prohibition was stupid, plain and simple. But before prohibition there was a legal structure of manufacturers, suppliers and merchants. When the amendment was repealed, it was easy to restart that machine (which never really stopped anyway).

As far as I can recall, there haven't been any legal shooting galleries (I'm not talking Frontierland) or crack houses ever in the US, so the parallel to prohibition doesn't exactly work for me. As a voter, I'd need to know what the plan was before I cast my ballot...

[Ghoulish Delight]

As far as I can recall, there haven't been any legal shooting galleries (I'm not talking Frontierland) or crack houses ever in the US, so the parallel to prohibition doesn't exactly work for me. As a voter, I'd need to know what the plan was before I cast my ballot...Well there WAS a time when these drugs were legal. But no, there hasn't been a formal system before. And clearly there would have to be a plan, obviously a free-for-all wouldn't work, and would never happen in this day and age.

So of course it will take time, effort, and planning. It wouldn't be a instant fix. But a long term effective plan is better than the costly and ineffective war on drugs which creates more problems than it solves.

[mousepod]

Well there WAS a time when these drugs were legal. But no, there hasn't been a formal system before. And clearly there would have to be a plan, obviously a free-for-all wouldn't work, and would never happen in this day and age.

So of course it will take time, effort, and planning. It wouldn't be a instant fix. But a long term effective plan is better than the costly and ineffective war on drugs which creates more problems than it solves.

...and so ends my argument. I'm with you 100%.

[scaeagles]

GD, you are making the assumption that demand increases because it becomes legal. I reject that. There is not any profit for the drug companies in mass producing enough, say, ecstacy. Users use whether it is legal or not, and I doubt any significant increase in users will be evident if legalized. Therefore, supply and demand doesn't work as you are thinking it will.

Also, i doubt any drug companies would mass produce these types of drugs. Can you imagine the lawsuits they would open themselves to?

[Ghoulish Delight]

There is not any profit for the drug companies in mass producing enough, say, ecstacy. Huh? How is there no profit in meeting demand? By definition, there's always profit in supplying the demand.

No one's sued alcohol companies for drunk driving deaths, why would drug companies be liabel for anything?

[Name]

as long as the net revenues are greater then the costs to produce, there will always be a profit in production.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Users use whether it is legal or not, and I doubt any significant increase in users will be evident if legalized. Therefore, supply and demand doesn't work as you are thinking it will.I would have to completely disagree with you. In my experience, there are plenty of people that do not do drugs very often simply because it is harder to get than booze. I used to be heavily involved in that kind of thing. With heroin you're talking about hardcore addiction - yes, they'll get it anyway they can. But with more recreational, less addictive drugs, you'll get people who simply use when it's around. I feel the same way about alcohol - if it were completely unavailable tomorrow, I wouldn't go to the black market to get it, but as it is, I'll pick up a six pack at the supermarket.

[scaeagles]

Huh? How is there no profit in meeting demand? By definition, there's always profit in supplying the demand.

My assertion is that demand does not increase enough to make it worth while for the drug companies.

Also, I'm sure Columbian drug Lords and the Mexican cartels will really be happy allowing their business to go legit. There is no way they will stop exporting cocaine, basically saturating the marketplace and driving prices down so that it will be unprofitable for legit companies.

Those who are producing and selling illegally will not stop doing it illegally simply because there are legal outlets. They want their profits and will be unwilling to share them with drug companies. I would even predict a certain amount of violence directed at board members of companies that would produce. Why do Columbian drug lords assassinate judges in Columbia? Because the judges enforce laws that cut into their bottom line. These people are evil and ruthless and it is about the money. If the demand does not completely dry up, they will be fighting for their illegal profits whether it is legal or not.

[BarTopDancer]

Not sure what is wrong with the way I phrased anything- considering all I said was I would not want my tax dollars going for this.
:confused:

You phrased it quite well. Straight to the point and stating your opnion on it. I see nothing wrong with the posts I've seen.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Those who are producing and selling illegally will not stop doing it illegally simply because there are legal outlets. Bootleg alcohol stopped when Prohibition was tossed.

If the drug cartel starts making money without blood, they'll be happy, I think.

[Sheila]

I would have to completely disagree with you. In my experience, there are plenty of people that do not do drugs very often simply because it is harder to get than booze. I used to be heavily involved in that kind of thing. With heroin you're talking about hardcore addiction - yes, they'll get it anyway they can. But with more recreational, less addictive drugs, you'll get people who simply use when it's around. I feel the same way about alcohol - if it were completely unavailable tomorrow, I wouldn't go to the black market to get it, but as it is, I'll pick up a six pack at the supermarket.

Although I probably would react the same way as you, CP (although my last experience with illegal substances was when I was 20), I think this argument is not true for many people.

If you look at the countries where heroin and other drugs have been legalized, those countries have a huge problem with the vast numbers of people who become addicted and are no longer contributing members of society. Just the stories coming out of the Netherlands are scary.

So although in principle I agree with legalizing drugs, I'm not sure that it's the right thing to do either.

[Not Afraid]

Alcohol has been legal for a while now and there are nore alcoholics than ever before with numbers growing daily. Alcohol-related death is the #1 cause of death (combining all health matters caused by alcoholism).

Personally, I think heroin would be my drug of choice were it legalized. It give they type of "high" that I prefer.

And, there are no "less addictive" substances except maybe pot - and that's another discussion.

[Claire]

I don't know about elsewhere, but in Oregon, meth is a HUGE ass problem. Every crime everywhere in the state is blamed on meth addiction. Prostituting children, stealing the metal from bridges to sell, stealing cold medicine (which is now pretty much under lock and key now in Portland), neighborhoods going to hell because there's a meth lab on every street corner, you name it, it's all being done.....because of addiction to meth.

I'm not sure what can be done about it. It doesn't seem like legalizing it and manufacturing meth in a "safe lab" is the solution.

I don't think it's any different with heroin. It's just too dangerous....the high, the addiction, the associated health risks.

Legalizing pot on the other hand....my position has wavered over the years. Currently, I'm leaning toward a controlled legalization of it. But who would control it and how? I have no freaking clue!!

I'm not completely averse to the program they have in Canada....I like where they want to go with it, but it's hard to stomach the concept here in the tax-paying States.

[Not Afraid]

Why is Pot different? You can't drive after smoking it? The same legal laws would apply. Maybe it's addicting, maybe not (medical opinion differs) but alcohol is addicting and logal. I just can't "get" it.

Of course, I'm one who says either make alcohol illegal or legalize the lot of it.

[Claire]

I guess my beef is with the physical toll that heroin and meth take on the body versus something like pot.

Kelly's uncle is......as I type.....wasting away to nothing and dying due to the effects of alcohol on his various systems. His liver is shot, as are several other vital organs and he's just waiting to die.....nothing can be done. So I have seen the mess that alcohol can do a body (and a family--he's got three grown children that he basically ditched 20 years ago, because alcohol was more important). But it's such an extreme case.

I have nowhere special I'm going with this rambling post....my thoughts on all of it have shifted over the last several years, so I don't have a firm stance anymore.

[€uroMeinke]

I'd be all over the halucinagens myself - I want to dream in cartoons

[Not Afraid]

Oooh! I haven't done 'schrooms in years!

This is a very bad thread for me to be in. I know too much.

[Claire]

Mmmmm, shroom tea anyone? Many a high school afternoon was a-wasted by the shroom tea. I think shroom tea is a magical potion.

[Scrooge McSam]

I think the key is how these substances would be classified. If a drug, the FDA would automatically be involved, which really speaks to some of the points Scaeagles made earlier. Alcohol can have all the deleterious effects of some of these other substances being mentioned but it's not classifed as a drug.

[Not Afraid]

Alcohol can have all the deleterious effects of some of these other substances being mentioned but it's not classifed as a drug.

Exactly. And why not? Well, big alcohol companies for one.

I truely love this conundrum.

[blueerica]

:watching everyone:

A clock, of sorts.... (http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm)

:back to watching:

[SacTown Chronic]

Fvcking OxyContin is legal, man. This is one ass-backwards country.


And by ass-backwards I mean "For Sale".

[blueerica]

Fvcking OxyContin is legal, man. This is one ass-backwards country.


And by ass-backwards I mean "For Sale".

HAHAHA!

You're killing me Larry!

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Such an interesting topic, that of drug legalization.

As a musician, I've seen so much abuse. I've also done my share of abusing, to be blunt. I remember trying cocaine once just to see what it was like and 5 years later realizing that I couldn't remember the last day that I hadn't done it. I also remember quite vividly the day I decided "No more". No intervention, no counseling. I just stopped. That was over 10 years ago. I remember watching a friend of mine who tried smoking heroin once and 6 months later showing up at my house at 2 in the morning with a loaded 357 Magnum a bag of heroin and a plea for help. We got him help and he survived. Most aren't as lucky. It is stories like this that make me realize that while logically, legalization may make a lot of sense, a lot of people would suffer in the process.

And yet, I don't think I have ever seen a drug that I consider more dangerous than alcohol. I've seen it absolutely ruin people's lives and yet they just can't stop. I watched it take a heavy toll on both of my parents, contributing to the death of one of them. I've seen it ruin so many friends. I think one of the scariest things is that the process can be so gradual between social fun and a real problem. Most people don't ever really see it coming. at least that is how it seems. I have a friend right now that for years was a casual drinker, who now downs about a half bottle of rum a day and doesn't see a problem. It's quite scary. And while I do have an occasional glass of wine or cocktail, I also am very clear with myself about where I don't want to go.

Which brings me to pot. I used to smoke ridiculous amounts of pot in my youth and that was neither healthy, nor productive. In my old age, I've learned that moderation is the key. While not trying to advocate, I really think it is the least dangerous of all substances out there, sans the effects that heavy usage can have on the lungs. Inhaling hot smoke is never healthy. I've often felt that had society determined that pot would be the socially acceptable one, rather than alcohol, we would have all been a lot better off. It just doesn't have the same violence associated with it. It doesn't have a known toxicity level. The biggest danger appears to be apathy, and even then, one has a choice to be a lazy bum or not. I know plenty of people that are regular users who aren't what I would call lazy.

So to find a way to wrap this rambling post up, I think what we need more than anything else in regards to drugs is real, honest, education. Not scare tactics, not commercials of eggs in frying pans, but real studies that show what the dangers are and honesty. Let's face it, people have been ingesting mind altering substances since the beginning of time and will always continue to do so. Let's at least give them real facts and treatment options if they so desire. Other than that, legal or illegal, we aren't going to stop people from ingesting substances, whether it be pot, heroin, or caffiene. I think focusing on this as a health issue and not a criminal issue, would go a long way towards combatting the problem. We can't just keep throwing people in jail for abusing substances. It doesn't work. The "war on drugs" is a losing battle that makes the politicians feel good and that is all. And it is costing us incredible amounts of money to try to stop something that, IMO, can't be stopped.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

And, there are no "less addictive" substances except maybe pot - and that's another discussion.Your husband brought up the least addictive of the lot - hallucinagens. Shrooms and LSD are far less addictive than pot, which is far less addictive than coke or heroin. Yes, one can be addicted to any drug the same way you can be a sex addict or a gambling addict (and these are serious addictions that destroy lives) but there is a difference between that and chemical addiction.

That clock is so horrifying. All that money that could build schools....down the drain. The war on drugs isn't even working, how can they continue it?

[mistyisjafo]

Education is fine and good and all but who here in jr. high/high school even paid attention to the lessons you heard in class? Even I tried pot and I was what you would have considered a "good" kid!

I'm not sure legalizing is all that great idea either but I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer to the problem.

Pot can be addictive. Any drug can be addictive from asprin to heroin. Every person differs when it comes to abuse of a substance.

I also think that if you legalize pot, I figure you got to legalize it all.

That's just my 2 cents

[Ghoulish Delight]

Pot can be addictive. Any drug can be addictive from asprin to heroin. Every person differs when it comes to abuse of a substance. Gambeling can be addictive, lobster can be addictive, TV can be addictive. There's no definitive research, but most evidence points to 2 kinds of addiction, a true chemical dependancy to the substance or a "psychological addiction" (which is actually probably also a chemical dependancy to hormones like seratonin or adreneline, but the difference is it's internally driven chemistry rather than externally introduced chemistry).

Basically, something that creates a true chemical dependancy, MOST people will get addicted to. Some people won't as their individual body chemistry differs, but they are the exception. Things like heroine and cocaine seem to fall into this category.

Contrast that with a psychological dependancy. This is most easily seen with something like gambling. Clearly, since the addict isn't ingesting anything, it more likely has to do with a dependancy on something that originates internally. It's likely that most people wouldn't be susceptible to this kind of addiction, only those with a specific body chemistry. Or, it's also possible that everyone is susceptible to this kind of dependancy, if they happen to run across the one thing that triggers the right levels of whatever hormones to cause the addiction. Who knows.

Now, most evidence seems to point to marijuana falling into the second category. Most people do not form a chemical dependancy on the substance (thc) itself, but rather the small percentage of users that are addicts become addicted to the secondary physiological response such as increase seretonin levels. No different than people with abnormal addictions to TV, gambling, or food.

Where am I going with this? I don't know. Other than, there's a certain ammount of commone sense and observational science that can be applied to determine which drugs are more of a concern than others.

The bottom line is, the war on drugs is a complete failure. Total prohibition is equally as dangerous and ineffective as total anarchy. To me, it's clear that the direction we should be moving is towards managing consumption in a constructive way rather than throwing everything we have into fighting a losing battle.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Your husband brought up the least addictive of the lot - hallucinagens. Shrooms and LSD are far less addictive than pot, which is far less addictive than coke or heroin.

With hallucinagens, and even with pot, I would say that it isn't the substance that is addicting, but rather the experience. If you don't have a good experience, you aren't going to continue using. If you do have a pleasurable experience, you may continue but not because there is a chemical compelling you to.

I've known plenty of people that tried pot, didn't like it, and didn't do it anymore. There is no physical withdrawal to stopping. Cigarettes, however... Or alcohol, heroin, etc. I know people that knew they were killing themselves with alcohol, but just couldn't stop. They weren't enjoying themselves any more and yet they continued.

I know I'm just restating what others have said more elequently but it is an important difference in the types of addiction and worth repeating, IMO.

[Tref]

Good thing you don't have to pay taxes in Canada. Toot!

I assume, the clinic that serves up the doojee will also serve up a heaping loving cup of aid and comfort. I am talking -- a safe environment that could get the junky off the drugs and back into our neighborhoods - a healthy, hard working, sociopath.

I say, let's make the P-funk legal. Jimmy the flea powder to the masses and see what stir's up, dig? Caballo is what caballo does.

Not for me though. Heaven's no. I could never handle something as intense as heroin. I would crumble and loose all my basic motor skills. I'd probably do something stupid like run out into traffic, or take up coin collecting.

I leave you with this erroneous quote:

"Who lives longer? the man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or a man who lives on roast beef, water and potatoes 'till 95? One passes his 24 months in eternity. All the years of the beefeater are lived only in time"
Aldous Huxley

[scaeagles]

I've been thinking about this more and more and the issue of personal responsibility.

I am responsible in my finances and I am investing for retirement. However, I am forced to pay into a social security system that will probably pay me (assuming I get anything) around 1% interest. I am forced to pay into this system because it is basically a government endorsed and enforced pyramid scheme, so i have to pay in so that others who have paid in before get theirs.

What is the parallel?

Why should i be forced to pay into a broken system because others have perhaps not had the foresight or even the ability to save for old age? Should I not be permitted to opt out - as members of the House and Senate are, I believe - taking my chances and getting nothing out of the system?

I am not responsible for the poor financial decisions of those who have come before me in not saving. I am not responsible for the process that got SS started in the first place.

The government has stolen my money for something that was deemed best for society. If any private company ran their retirement plan like this, the CEO and every board member would be in prison, or at least on trial.

Keeping drugs illegal is deemed as best for society. While I am certain that there are those that can (and do) use these illegal substances in a responsible manner, there are tose who will simply have no control.

So, are we responsible as a society for those who would make poor decisions simply because others would not? I don't know the answer. But there are a hell of a lot of government programs out there designed to limit or even take away personal responsibility. The examples are limitless. Am I responsible for woman who has four children by four different men and gets welfare? Well, it has been deemed as being best for society for the rest of us to pay for her irresponsible behavior. Why should we legislate to protect her from her bad decisions?

If we truly want to go the route of libertarian self reliance and responsibility, I can see the benefits for those that are responsible. I see perhaps some societal disaster because of those that are not. This would certainly shrink the size and scope of government, and that's fine with me. But if we're going to legalize drugs because it's an issue of personal responsibility, then let's take out all the government laws, rules, and regulations that protect people from themselves.

[sleepyjeff]

If we truly want to go the route of libertarian self reliance and responsibility, I can see the benefits for those that are responsible. I see perhaps some societal disaster because of those that are not. This would certainly shrink the size and scope of government, and that's fine with me. But if we're going to legalize drugs because it's an issue of personal responsibility, then let's take out all the government laws, rules, and regulations that protect people from themselves.

Well stated.....Hear, Hear!

[Kevy Baby]

I don't know about elsewhere, but in Oregon, meth is a HUGE ass problem. Every crime everywhere in the state is blamed on meth addiction. Prostituting children, stealing the metal from bridges to sell, stealing cold medicine (which is now pretty much under lock and key now in Portland), neighborhoods going to hell because there's a meth lab on every street corner, you name it, it's all being done.....because of addiction to meth.But on the plus side, you have the highest number of strip clubs per capita of any city in the US!

[Kevy Baby]

And no one has mentioned THE most addictive and destructive substance known to man: Pixie Stix (or is it Sephora?).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Keeping drugs illegal is deemed as best for society. Ah, but I disagree that it's best for society. In my opinion and observation, as I've stated over and over again, keeping it illegal has created far more problems than it ever prevented or solved. So muddying the waters with, "Well, if you are okay with SS being used for the benefit of society, why not drug laws," doesn't quite work.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

But if we're going to legalize drugs because it's an issue of personal responsibility, then let's take out all the government laws, rules, and regulations that protect people from themselves.Ok.

[mousepod]

"My thinking tends to be libertarian. That is, I oppose intrusions of the state into the private realm—as in abortion, sodomy, prostitution, pornography, drug use, or suicide, all of which I would strongly defend as matters of free choice in a representative democracy."
a different CP

[blueerica]

Keeping drugs illegal is deemed as best for society.
Ah, but I disagree that it's best for society. In my opinion and observation, as I've stated over and over again, keeping it illegal has created far more problems than it ever prevented or solved. So muddying the waters with, "Well, if you are okay with SS being used for the benefit of society, why not drug laws," doesn't quite work.

I guess the real question is: Are drug laws really benefitting society?

I think the point's been beaten in, and it's pretty tough to change people's minds on it. I guess that's why I rarely participate in here... Hmmm...

[scaeagles]

Ah, but I disagree that it's best for society. In my opinion and observation, as I've stated over and over again, keeping it illegal has created far more problems than it ever prevented or solved. So muddying the waters with, "Well, if you are okay with SS being used for the benefit of society, why not drug laws," doesn't quite work.

I disagree that SS has been beneficial to society, but that's another story.

GD, while the problems with the current system are undeniable, I think it is impossible to predict all of the problems that would arise from legalization. I have listed many that I do no think are far fetched whatsoever, and I am certain there are those that I have not even considered.

Legalization is no panacea, and is at best a trade off of problem for problem. For someone who can be (or currently is) responsible in their drug use, it is logical to conclude that they would prefer the legal route. We just disgaree on whether legalization is better for society than keeping them illegal. I would suggest that there must be some sort of compromise to keep the non-violent user out of prison.

[blueerica]

I disagree that SS has been beneficial to society, but that's another story.

GD, while the problems with the current system are undeniable, I think it is impossible to predict all of the problems that would arise from legalization. I have listed many that I do no think are far fetched whatsoever, and I am certain there are those that I have not even considered.

Legalization is no panacea, and is at best a trade off of problem for problem. For someone who can be (or currently is) responsible in their drug use, it is logical to conclude that they would prefer the legal route. We just disgaree on whether legalization is better for society than keeping them illegal. I would suggest that there must be some sort of compromise to keep the non-violent user out of prison.

Circumstantial penalties?

I wonder how easily that could translate to a prosecution/defense...

[Not Afraid]

But, there is one drug that is legal - Alcohol. Why should that be legal and no anything else? (Yeah, I know the BIG ALCOHOL company argument - I'm asking more philosophically)

[mousepod]

But, there is one drug that is legal - Alcohol. Why should that be legal and no anything else? (Yeah, I know the BIG ALCOHOL company argument - I'm asking more philosophically)

I've often considered this question, as well.
Realistically, the social stigma around drugs just isn't the same around alcohol. I don't think it has everything to do with "big alcohol" or even the legality. It's just so deeply ingrained in our culture. See this very Lounge for an example - I see caffeine and alcohol smilies, but I sure as heck don't see (or expect to see) syringes, spoons or even pills (those little blue ones sure are yummy, though - IIRC).
Maybe it has to do with the Judeo-Christian idea of wine as a sacrament. If God OKs, it, how can it be bad? Even Noah was a lush.
When I worked for Island, we used to go to parties with the High Times crew. No matter how they tried to project an image of class, they sure weren't Wine Spectator.
When I saw Sideways, I saw a depressed alcoholic protagonist who was feeding his denial with the fancy enthusiast nomenclature. Yet, the popularity of the film led to a run on Pinot. Go figure.

[scaeagles]

I can't answer that, NA. Why was ephedra just outlawed as a dietary supplement? Something like 150 people died in a year from it. Wow. Scary. Alcohol, I would presume, just might account for a few more deaths.