Why is it illegal to get high?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In Alabama, the drug laws are billed as a public safety issue, and I think there is some truth in that. If you are driving erratically, a policeman can pull you over and give you a breathalyzer test for alchohol that gives a pretty accurate result of the amount of alchohol in your blood at that moment. There is no similar test for any other drug. So how can you be prosecuted for driving while under the influence of drugs other than alchohol? You are a menace to public safety if you are high and driving, yet I can't prove what drug you were high on when you were pulled over.

Now expand that to airline pilots, crane operators, etc.

Also expand that to the workplace. Firing someone without a proven cause is costly to employers because their unemployment compensation rates go up. So how do you prove that you fired a guy for being high at work? In Alabama it is illegal to do a drug test on just one employee. All employees must be tested. And then the same consequences must apply to all. That means any employee, regardless of his efficiency or work record would have to be fired if he/she came up positive. So how do I fire just one employee for being high without being able to prove it?

I know you're going to say "But what about just toking a little weed in my own home?" That's fine by me, but who's going to keep you from then going out in your car or going to work, etc?

Bottom line, develop a quick and accurate test for drugs similar to the ease and efficiency of the breathalyzer and I'd be behind you to legalize drugs. That is, as long as I can then fire you if you show up high at your job

All of your points would be valid if the drugs laws were stopping people from doing drugs.

Anyone who wants to get high, does.

 

[Mark Felt]

All of your points would be valid if the drugs laws were stopping people from doing drugs.

Anyone who wants to get high, does.

Laws don't stop people from doing anything. They provide consequences. The consequences may stop people, or they may not, but the laws, they do nothing.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Laws don't stop people from doing anything. They provide consequences. The consequences may stop people, or they may not, but the laws, they do nothing.

That is implied in my statement.

 

[Gurdur]

All of your points would be valid if the drugs laws were stopping people from doing drugs. Anyone who wants to get high, does.

All of your point would be valid if the murder laws were stopping people from murdering. Anyone who really wants to murder, does.

All of your point would be valid if the theft laws were stopping people from stealing. Anyone who really wants to steal, does.

Or, IOW, Jerome, engage brain before posting!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

All of your point would be valid if the murder laws were stopping people from murdering. Anyone who really wants to murder, does.

All of your point would be valid if the theft laws were stopping people from stealing. Anyone who really wants to steal, does.

Or, IOW, Jerome, engage brain before posting!

That is just silly.

Possessing drugs are what is illegal, not just the act of causing others harm whilst high.

 

[JFrankA]

Because the government owns you and can decide what you do with your body for its own profit. How dare you question the government! The government is infallible! Obey!

To get off topic a bit, here...

I don't think it's entirely the government's fault. I think the people have a hand in it too, at least in this country, I can't speak for others.

It's a dynamic of "what we can say to make the people to approve of me" versus "what will the government give me to make me happy".

I can't blame everything on the US government. For example, we might not have chosen Bush for his first term, but we sure did for his second term.....

This whole mix are people, with money, with influence and groups, religious, non-religious, special interests, humanitarian, etc, all involved in this dynamic. In my humble opinion, and I don't mean to be offensive, but to be screaming "it's all the government's fault" is simply giving more power to the government rather than doing something about what you're upset about.

 

[JFrankA]

I wanted to make some responses to some posts. Sorry I'm a little late, busy at work.

I hate to be the odd-ball here. But I think most laws against (most) drugs are rather logical. Considering the addictive and highly destructive properties of certain drugs (heroin and crystal meth to name a few) Enforcing laws against getting high off crystal meth is a good idea! Some substances that are actively policed off the streets are severely detrimental to ones health. If there were no regulation of drugs I don't think America would be as productive as it is today (to say the least).

But with that logic, alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, hell even red meat should be illegal. Everyone I know drinks caffine. Most people will tell you they can't get anything done without their coffee in the morning. It seems to me that the drug increases production. So does cocaine, I hear.

And what about cigarrettes? Nicotine is one of the most detramental drugs out there. And I've seen smokers take a long than scheduled or even unscheduled work break just to get a smoke in.

At any rate, it doesn't explain why it's illegal to get high in the privacy of your own home.

Of course this then brings on the question of education. If people know what is right from wrong they wont do the wrong(usually). Just as I don't actively seek heroin in my city because I know the effects of the drug. Though that may be an entirely different subject altogether.

In reality there will be un-educated poor people who will do the drugs that ruin their lives and, because of their addictive properties, get hooked on drugs that are near constant revenues for drug dealers.

So I guess we come to the catch-22 of better educating people on the effects of drugs, or making drugs illegal because the public can't handle access to things they simply don't fully understand.

Obviously our education system isn't doing too well at successfully accomplishing it's goal in it's own sector, and that once a year health class where kids learn about drugs (amongst other things) isn't really cutting it. Kids will be the youthful, foolish, and daring individuals they are. And the more disconnected the parents are from the children (such as the case of a broken home) the more chances of said children to part-take in illegal activities, and possibly skip that ever-so informative health class. So with these mischievous spawns we have a group of potential dealers, and addicts (in this case only addicts). At this point the decision to enforce education has failed and the drugs that are (in a theoretical sense) legal will be used to the point of extreme detrimental abuse.

But as I guess you can go right along and say that we just need to improve our education system. So maybe when we have a majority of educated persons will we not still get those who may use the detrimental properties of a drug to commit suicide? Of course this is theoretical as well because the thought of an entire well educated society is as obscure as the thought of an entirely peaceful one. Also some could argue that one should have the right to end his own life, just as he has the right to ruin it.

I completely agree that there should be clear education about drugs. Not the scary, preachy kind, but the simple facts. But, as it was stated before, all the education in the world won't stop a person from doing something if they want to do it or try it. Just ask anyone who is trying to lose weight.

 

[wolfgirl]

It's so highly politicized at this point that there's no rational reason.

My following comments only apply to pot, because I think that there are some complexities to the use of more serious and addictive substances (like alcohol and nicotine ) that I don't really feel able to address intelligently. But for pot:

If it's for my own good, to protect me from the "dangers" of pot, please don't bother. I neither want nor need the government to be my father and take care of me. As long as I know what the dangers are (the truth, not the propaganda), I should be left to make my own decision. People die of smoking cigarettes every day (maybe every hour, I don't know the numbers), but it's still legal.

If it's for the public good, there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that someone smoking pot represents a danger to anyone else. I wouldn't advocate DWH any more than I would DWI, but apart from that, I don't see the harm. People kill people in drunken rages all the time. People get high and forget to kill people.

If it's to prevent illegal activities surrounding drug use, well, as someone else pointed out, that's a circular argument. The reason that there are illegal activities surrounding illegal drugs is because they're illegal. People don't have to live a life of crime to obtain cigarettes or beer because they can just get them at the store. If they could walk into the local 7-11 and pick up a pack of cannabis, they wouldn't have to resort to illegal activity to get it.

 

[Mark Felt]

My following comments only apply to pot, because I think that there are some complexities to the use of more serious and addictive substances (like alcohol and nicotine )

Alcohol isn't addictive.

 

[Belz...]

But with that logic, alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, hell even red meat should be illegal. Everyone I know drinks caffine. Most people will tell you they can't get anything done without their coffee in the morning.

I don't drink coffee, and I'm usually more productive in the early hours of work. I think the catch with coffee is the same as with nicotine: you get used to it, and you get the feeling that you're "low" without it. It is a drug, after all.

I'm not sure why drugs should or should not be illegal. Perhaps because people do crazy, dangerous things while under the influence (more so than alcohol, that is) ? I don't know.

 

[slingblade]

Alcohol isn't addictive.

Who says?

 

[Mark Felt]

Who says?

Let me rephrase. Alcohol isn't chemically addictive, but it is addictive in the same way that gambling is.

 

[JFrankA]

I don't drink coffee, and I'm usually more productive in the early hours of work. I think the catch with coffee is the same as with nicotine: you get used to it, and you get the feeling that you're "low" without it. It is a drug, after all.

I agree with you there, Belz. I'm the same way.

(Cool new avatar btw.)

I'm not sure why drugs should or should not be illegal. Perhaps because people do crazy, dangerous things while under the influence (more so than alcohol, that is) ? I don't know.

Well, as I stated before, I strongly think that it's a more emotional thing than a real rationalization thing. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

I've personally seen people's reactions of drinking too much alcohol go from loving everyone then falling asleep to being loud then trying to beat up everyone. If such an unpredictable drug is legal, why aren't others? Especially if people's reactions are more predictable (and peaceful one at that)!

 

[Arthur Denton]

I understand that position, but correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the reason getting high is illegal is because illegal drugs are illegal. Isn't that a circular arguement?

What about people who are getting high on legal drugs? What if pot and the rest were legal? That pretty much cancels your reason why someone would get arrested when they are high.

Sorry for the late reply, JFrankA. I only saw your reply today. Yes, it is a circular argument, better, I guess it is. But, if you think about the market theory of drugs, I guess you'll understand my point. Drugs (legal or not) only exist because there are small consumers. People who get high pay for people who traffic (or who legally produce it) to bring them the thing. Therefore, they are tending this demand, and wouldn't do so if these small buyers suddenly stopped spending their hard earned money on this crap.

Take cigarettes, for example, they're insanely bad for you in the long term. People in the ocident are trying to stop smoking. The tobacco companies are dealing with a wave of repression over smoking, with bans, and advertizings. What they do? They jump to China, where smoking is still seen as "to be cool". What if suddenly, by an alien ray or divinity, humankind stop smoking all at once. Tobacco industry will exist no more! The same may be said about illegal drugs. We both know it (end of use) will not happen. People love to get high and, to be honest, I don't give a damn about that as long as they don't hurt anyone. But if they're high, they must be arrested because the traffic continues cause of their option, and all the violence we see linked to drugs is actually getting bigger every time he snorts his coke. But the addict won't stop if he ain't arrested,and the cycle continues. I firmly believe that you shall attack on both sides, in order to dismantle the budgets of drug selling organizations (even the legal ones) so that we finally see humankind actually getting healthier on its habits.

And I would praise the government who legalize all the crap that they currently think it's illegal. It'd bring the industry to these potential markets, it would generate taxes, and the consequent reduced cost effectiveness would make these bastard bandits who sell coke to kids feel the pain where it hurts: In their pockets.

 

[Arthur Denton]

I don't drink coffee, and I'm usually more productive in the early hours of work. I think the catch with coffee is the same as with nicotine: you get used to it, and you get the feeling that you're "low" without it. It is a drug, after all.

I'm not sure why drugs should or should not be illegal. Perhaps because people do crazy, dangerous things while under the influence (more so than alcohol, that is) ? I don't know.

Heh, I'm the opposite. I need coffee, I know it's bad, but I love it desperately. Coffee and chocolate. I know it is addiction, I know it will hurry my death: But man, I can't resist spresso.

 

[JFrankA]

Sorry for the late reply, JFrankA. I only saw your reply today. Yes, it is a circular argument, better, I guess it is. But, if you think about the market theory of drugs, I guess you'll understand my point. Drugs (legal or not) only exist because there are small consumers. People who get high pay for people who traffic (or who legally produce it) to bring them the thing. Therefore, they are tending this demand, and wouldn't do so if these small buyers suddenly stopped spending their hard earned money on this crap.

Take cigarettes, for example, they're insanely bad for you in the long term. People in the ocident are trying to stop smoking. The tobacco companies are dealing with a wave of repression over smoking, with bans, and advertizings. What they do? They jump to China, where smoking is still seen as "to be cool". What if suddenly, by an alien ray or divinity, humankind stop smoking all at once. Tobacco industry will exist no more! The same may be said about illegal drugs. We both know it (end of use) will not happen. People love to get high and, to be honest, I don't give a damn about that as long as they don't hurt anyone. But if they're high, they must be arrested because the traffic continues cause of their option, and all the violence we see linked to drugs is actually getting bigger every time he snorts his coke. But the addict won't stop if he ain't arrested,and the cycle continues. I firmly believe that you shall attack on both sides, in order to dismantle the budgets of drug selling organizations (even the legal ones) so that we finally see humankind actually getting healthier on its habits.

Okay, I can see where you're coming from on this. But it seems to me that this idea is basically flawed because it's set up to fail. In other words, since we know that the end of use will never come, as was the case with prohibition of alcohol has shown, how can we logically expect it to occur with any drugs? Also, as it's been stated before, all drugs are either legal or illegal, and the illegal ones are all lumped together as equally bad, whereas something that seems to be more dangerous than pot, namely alcohol, is legal but regulated.

Therefore, the whole illegal thing is set up to fail. At least, that's what it seems to me.

And I would praise the government who legalize all the crap that they currently think it's illegal. It'd bring the industry to these potential markets, it would generate taxes, and the consequent reduced cost effectiveness would make these bastard bandits who sell coke to kids feel the pain where it hurts: In their pockets.

Here I completely agree with you.

It seems to me that if someone wants to do coke, let's say, would he rather buy from a licenced company that has to adhear to regulations to make a "clean" product or would he want to go to someone that is not following the regulations, take a chance and possibly pay a lot more? I'm thinking making drugs legal would really hurt crime a lot, after all, it is taking away one of their most popular products....

Another reason why I just can't see why drugs can't be legal, with regulations. It seems to be working for alcohol and cigarettes. (Or if I'm wrong there, please someone correct me. I admit I don't have the "paper" facts to back up that statement). And each drug would have different regulations, such as the difference between smoking cigarettes (e.g. legal to consume nicotine and drive) and drinking alcohol (e.g. illegal to consume alcohol and drive).

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Let me rephrase. Alcohol isn't chemically addictive, but it is addictive in the same way that gambling is.

Wrong.

Alcohol Withdrawal

The severity of these withdrawal symptoms is usually dependent upon how "chemically dependent" the chronic drinker has become.

 

[3point14]

Just as an aside, for those that think that because something is addictive it should be illegal, what are their thoughts on World of Warcraft?

 

[JFrankA]

Just as an aside, for those that think that because something is addictive it should be illegal, what are their thoughts on World of Warcraft?

I play World of Warcraft. I love it. Rogues rule!!!!!!!!!!!!

But there's a big difference between an "addiction" such as World of Warcraft, gambling, food, sex, etc, etc, etc. and and addiction to something like Crystal Meth.

The difference is that no matter how much the first kind of addiction can give a person the "reward high", it's still coming from the natural body chemistry. The person wants to do it because of a reward system. This is not really an "addiction" but a compulsion: a learned response to a stimulus. World of Warcraft is good with that because the formula is simple: You complete a quest, you get a reward. That's the entire game. It's a learned response.

With some drugs, however, there is a chemical reaction that actually releases more of the "reward high" chemical than the body can normally release on it's own. This is more than just a reward response, because the chemicals are brought to such a high level, that the "normal level" is that person is actually raised. Then that person, in order to feel "normal", has to take the drug. That's more than just a compulsion, and more than just a reward system. Also with some drugs, there are chemicals that the body adapts to. Taking that away causes some of the withdrawal symptoms. World of Warcraft, gambling, etc, cannot do that. Nothing foreign is introduced into the body.

It's a difference of a behavior (reward system) compulsion and an actual physical (foreign-chemical introduction and adaptation mixed with a reward system) addiction.

 

[MrAdam]

I wouldn't say world of warcrack is too comparable with drugs. At least not in a terribly exact sense. Really isn't it just a different way one spends his time on the computer? You may spend your equal amount of time on the computer, reading and messaging, while someone else is spending that same amount of time playing world of warcraft. Though just the same, it can be taken too far, as anything can.

Essentially what i'm saying is everything that CAN be addictive (or especially has psychological addictive properties i.e: oh man i really want to level up my character 10 times today before the sun rises again) isn't always, or should be, illegal.

In the case of drugs, I wouldn't say addiction is the only verdict for it's legality. Crystal Meth (as I've seen) can do horrible things to someones life, and yes most of those mishaps do occur in consequence to addiction, you have to realize that those mishaps (which I originally linked some rather graphic pictures to, but I haven't made enough post to do that!) Don't usually happen with a WOW player, or a gambler for that matter.

I guess my stance on the matter is if the substance can and will become addictive because of it's chemical make-up and does have severe detrimental effects to ones body in consequence of it's addictive properties, then it should be illegal. Though, many factors have to be taken into play like the levels of it's addictive properties (I'm guessing crystal meth is much easier to fall victim to then alcohol.)

Anyway ideologically I'd wish all drugs were legal and society as whole could actually cope with responsibility.