The legalization of drugs

Meth is almost entirely a product of drug prohibition. Just as when alcohol was prohibited people switched to drinking dangerous moonshine; drug prohibition has pushed people into less enjoyable and more harmful drugs. Meth is popular now not because it's some kind of wonder drug but because it's real easy to make.

I layed it out in my OP, so I don't see how he didn't know where my argument was coming from. As far as 'proving' something wouldn't work that has never been tried is impossible. I made my predictions and listed the predictors. Anyone who wants to think otherwise is certainly welcome to it. I implore everyone who feels strongly about decriminalizing drugs to campaign for such a measure if they want. Maybe in enough time we'll see if they get what they want... We'll just and wait see if they want what they're going to get.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

How can something be prohibited against if it doesn't yet exist? How can you make meth illegal prior to its manufacture? Obviously, that has nothing to do with it. The fact is that meth is outlawed after its been made crystal clear the effects of the drug on the human body. Yes, it is relatively easy to make because you can pick up most of the items in at the corner store. As far as its harm is concerned, knowing the ingredients makes carcinogens from cigarettes seem trivial. Hydrochloric acidAcetoneMethanolIodinePseudoephedrineRed PhosphorusTo give you examples, this is like Scotchguard, nail polish remover, paint thinner, match heads, battery acid, etc... Its a horrible drug. Legalizing it is a terrible idea, IMO. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Your response makes it clear I've not communicated my point to you.Meth (among other drugs) exists as a regularly taken recreational drug because of prohibition. I'm not talking specifically about the prohibition of Meth in particular, but drugs in general. If it weren't for prohibition, people would instead be taking much safer (and apparently more enjoyable and controllable) drugs such as Cocaine or Opium. If these were legal, and regulated, then instead of taking dangerous, unpredictable and often adulterated drugs people would tend to stick to safer, more enjoyable and more controllable highs.Which exactly mirrors what happened with alcohol prohibition. During prohibition people tended to drink Moonshine - which frequently contained both Methanol and fusal alcohols (which are distinctly more harmful than Ethanol), was of largely unpredictable strength and was often adulterated with other liquids. What's more it was vile, vile stuff - which is why after prohibition it pretty much disappeared.

Of course, but we do have the alcohol prohibition experience as well as various experiments with the decriminalisation of cannabis to take into account.What's clear to me is that blanket "zero-tolerance" policies do not work. They haven't worked for the past 40 years. I personally propose the strictly controlled legalisation of clean, well manufactured opiates and cannabis. If we can decriminalise the vast majority of users (and ensure they don't use stuff that is cut with all sorts of crap) then we could focus far more resources on treatment.Meth, on the other hand, is just the worst type of junk and should not be legalised. However, as PaulK points out, if we can offer cheaper and safer alternatives then that could provide a way of depopularising it.As I have said before, all of this would certainly still leave many problems - most especially the harsh realities of addiction - unsolved. The choice, however, is clear. Do we want addicts to rely on state support, or on petty crime and drug cartels? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Heheheh... isn't the choice clearer than that?Do we want addicts relying on state support, or on petty crime and drug cartels UNTIL extensive law enforcement efforts find, try, and incarcerate them so that they are forced to rely on... more expensive... state support?I might add that in the latter scenario, not only are addicts pursued and put on state support, so are nonaddicts who never would have been.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Doesn't seem to me that much is done about the addicts of tobacco\nicotine -- they just get access to tobacco. They area having areas where they can 'use' being restricted due to the side effects of smoke not due to the side effects of addiction.Alcohol addicts get a little different treatment -- when they reach the point of being unable to function in society. But there is a social cost to letting them continue at that point.Both of these addictions result in added medical costs to treat side effects of 'using' and those are born by the medical systems as well - another social cost regardless of treatment.So treating or not treating has social costs.The question comes down to letting people have the freedom to do in their personal lives what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people ...... and then picking up the issue when it does begin to hurt other people, and balancing the social costs of allowing continued freedom versus the cost of treatment\behavior modification.I personally favor a cigarette and alcohol tax that pays for added medical costs - it would be like buying medical coverage with every purchase.Marijuana would be easy to put into the same framework as tobacco from a market and tax point of view, and thus makes an exellent first level trial program. We may even find that cigarette companies, given the opportunity, would prefer to grow one versus the other.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Absolutely!Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

If BAT, for example, started making five-packs of mild spliffs they'd make a fortune both for themselves and for the state. I'd certainly treat myself now and again! Of course, the manner in which they could be sold would have suitable.

I could handle your proposal. It sounds reasonable, but more importantly, feasible. I agree that gangbusters, zero tolerance, shoot 'em' up style is not working the way it was designed to. However, legalizing any and all drugs is just as counter-productive for all of the reasons I listed. And to reiterate, I do think that we should legalize marijuana. Opium, as you shared, I'm not so sure. But I'd be willing for a trial case in certain cities.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I agreed with RJB's plan though I would disagree with his limit on meth, as well as your claim that legalizing any and all drugs would be counterproductive.First, I believe that access to less harsh/addictive drugs is likely to keep people from using the rougher stuff, regardless of their legality.Second, keeping really hard drugs illegal maintains a market in it, makes it hard for those who are addicted to get needed treatment, and continues to waste the same kind of resources picking up any and all people involved with these drugs... which never helps anyone.It is true that more people who use meth will become addicted than those who use other drugs, but that does not mean automatic doom for all such users, nor does illegality create a doorway out for the potential addict.If the problem is addiction and its effects, why can't this be handled with medical care for those who become addicted, and public service health info noting its deleterious effects?I might add that having professional labs producing things like meth, would allow for cleaner material, as well as perhaps research into safer alternatives and treatments, to move addicts onto.Edited by holmes, : ween move

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

The govenment has been fishing with a rod and real off a dock for little fish since day one of the drug war. Read and understand the links I posted. It is time to go deepsea fishing or end the war.14 billion dollars a year the 'little fish fishing'(L.F.F) has been ineffective. What is has done is lined the pockets of a few(re-read my links. . . .)It is time to change the program. I think it was you NJ who noted a recent decline in meth use in his town. This is great news. However, I am concerned with the over all impact. FYI drug use has never remained 'static' it always has peaks and valleys based on many factors.Drug use, abuse and violence are on the rise not decline. LFF is not working. It is making a select few rich is it time for a drastic change. Legalize for a few years, not forever, take some notes and compare the data. Become part of the solution or stay out of the solutions way.In short if it is broken fix it. Fix it by trying something new. The insane is the one who does the same thing over and over and expect diferent results(no quantum physic cracks - please?)

---

We are born, we live then we die.

Message 77ps - use the peek function to see how others have formated their posts.Welcome to the frayEdited by RAZD, : added link to linksEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

what is this sleep that you speak of?

per Jets to Officer Krumpki"...we're depraved on account we're deprived ..."Edited by RAZD, : title

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.