• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Legalisation

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
The legalisation of drugs is arguably resisted mostly by the fear of rampant drug-use once heroin, cannabis and crack are made available to buy.

Would that actually be true? Is there any evidence to suggest that the legalisation of drugs would lead to a huge increase in the number of users and addicts?

That said, even if there was a huge increase, it may be an easier problem to treat than what we have now (In places such as Britain and America), as it would be a health issue, not an issue of crime.

But if all the evidence suggested legalisation would be the best option, how would one ever be able to sell this idea to the general public?
 
Last edited:
Well, arguing from the base of common sense, of course it would be true. There's a demand for these kinds of drugs; black markets are harder to run than legal markets (unpredictable, more likely to contain crime, threat of imprisonment and legal punishment), yet demand is high enough that these black markets exist practically in every city and town throughout the nation, albeit in various degrees. If there's demand for the illegal stuff, then by common sense, there would be demand for the legal stuff (which, if made available legally, gets rid of many of the disadvantages of selling or buying on the black market).

Reality doesn't always play along with common sense, however, and like is not always equal to like; heroin today vs. heroin sold before it was made illegal, for instance, shows that the dosage is more powerful, and more risky than ever before (as it could easily be cut with something else to save on money). So the drugs might not necessarily be as life threatening when made legal.

Penn and Teller argued that the price level actually decreased for such "hard" drugs, but I think that they miss the other disadvantages on dealing in the black market...
 
Lonewulf said:
Reality doesn't always play along with common sense, however, and like is not always equal to like; heroin today vs. heroin sold before it was made illegal, for instance, shows that the dosage is more powerful, and more risky than ever before (as it could easily be cut with something else to save on money). So the drugs might not necessarily be as life threatening when made legal.
Click to expand...

May be an argument to prescribe drugs such as heroin to addicts. In the UK this is possible, but hardly any GP does it (Out of concern that they will become known as the GP with stacks of heroin).

Penn and Teller argued that the price level actually decreased for such "hard" drugs, but I think that they miss the other disadvantages on dealing in the black market...
Click to expand...

Well, they tend to miss a lot of stuff (such as reason), so it's hardly surprising.
 
I can see prescribing heroin to drug addicts, but the question is, when do we stop? Or is the assumption that we do this along with rehabilitation?
 
We should legalize them. I don't think it will lead to a mass of new drug users. As I said before pretty much anyone now who wants to use drugs can and will get their fix. I don't believe there are hundreds of thousands or millions of people out there who want to try drugs but don't because it's illegal. Also though I don't think legalizing it will have as big an effect on gangs as you might think. These gangs are all violent and are only out there for money (and respect). If you think this is going to shut them down and they are going to go without a fight you're wrong. Maybe it'll make all the suburban recreational drug users go buy it legally but it will be business as usual in the poor areas of the country.
 
If, as most studies have indicated, drugs are generally available to nearly anyone and at what are considered reasonable prices....

It does not seem likely to me that legalization would result in a massive increase in use. You have to wonder if we are not right now at a level of saturation, or at least close to it.

I see that a number of folks I've listened to on NPR shows lately have begun to come to the opinion that I've held for a while; that much of drug use is essentially self-medication.
That various sorts of depression are more widespread in the population than acknowledged generally, and that these people are not being served by the mental-health establishment.
 
Policenaut said:
Also though I don't think legalizing it will have as big an effect on gangs as you might think. These gangs are all violent and are only out there for money (and respect). If you think this is going to shut them down and they are going to go without a fight you're wrong. Maybe it'll make all the suburban recreational drug users go buy it legally but it will be business as usual in the poor areas of the country.
Click to expand...

How could drug gangs continue to function if drugs are legalised? Violence would still exist, most likely over something else, but I don't see how they could continue to be so heavily involved in drugs.
 
One step at a time.

Legalize dope first. No need to do it all at once. Also, people on cocaine are a bit less mellow than people on dope.

As to heroin, let the addicts have all they want, but make sure they get full strength stuff. In time, they all self destruct. Low cost option. Allows the gene pool to cast off that exceptionally weak strain.

DR
 
Undesired Walrus said:
How could drug gangs continue to function if drugs are legalised? Violence would still exist, most likely over something else, but I don't see how they could continue to be so heavily involved in drugs.
Click to expand...

They have a stranglehold in the ghettos and rule by fear. Would you take the chance of buying drugs in a store when a gang member or lookouts could see you and take out revenge for not buying drugs from them? The gangs might dry up in certain areas but I have no doubts about their survival in other areas. At the very least they would live on for years if not decades after legalization and they would step up their game of violence and intimidation because they know that if they don't they are out of business. What are these guys gonna do if their drug money dries up? Go work at Wal-Mart?
 
Gangs aren't going anywhere. Ever. Legalization wouldn't stop gangs from stealing drugs and selling them cheaper. Either that or they'll go back to robbing trains and stagecoaches. :USA: We LOVE gangs, are you kidding?

I like the Netherlands' approach. To start, they make a distinction between hard drugs (heroin, meth) and soft drugs (cannabis, mushrooms) and each are regulated separately. Drugs are not legal, they're just "decriminalized" and therefore aren't prosecuted as aggressively. That's a better tactic, IMO. Spend money on prevention and treatment rather than filling jails with potheads.
 
Darth Rotor said:
As to heroin, let the addicts have all they want, but make sure they get full strength stuff. In time, they all self destruct. Low cost option. Allows the gene pool to cast off that exceptionally weak strain.
Click to expand...

You know when Creationists say that "evolutionists" can justify killing people through evolution?

Yeah, they were thinking about arguments like this.

Do you have evidence that picking a particular drug is genetic-based, and not social-based? Until you can empirically prove this, I don't see why we should enact your idea into policy.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
The legalisation of drugs is arguably resisted mostly by the fear of rampant drug-use once heroin, cannabis and crack are made available to buy.

Would that actually be true? Is there any evidence to suggest that the legalisation of drugs would lead to a huge increase in the number of users and addicts?
Click to expand...


The obvious way to address this is to look at two legal products which are addictive, damaging to your health, and harmful to society. Tobacco and alcohol. Both of these are hugely popular - in the west about 90% of adults drink alcohol and 1 in 5 adults are current tobacco smokers.

So I think the fear is pretty reasonable, frankly. Tobacco and alcohol cost society horrendously both in terms of money and human lives. Some drugs (such as Methamphetamine) are likely to cause more harm. I honestly can't think of a reason that would stop people taking up these drugs.
 
Were people ingesting drugs at the same rate as alcohol and tobacco before they were made illegal, though?
 
MikeSun5 said:
Gangs aren't going anywhere. Ever. Legalization wouldn't stop gangs from stealing drugs and selling them cheaper.
Click to expand...


Like how all those alcohol-making gangs during prohibition now steal alcohol and sell it cheaper... oh wait.

Legalising drugs probably wouldn't have an affect on gangs that make them, but if you legalise the drugs companies will begin investing in mass production with high quality equipment, and the superior quality product, being sold cheaper, would quickly bring ruin to drug-based gangs.
 
Lonewulf said:
Were people ingesting drugs at the same rate as alcohol and tobacco before they were made illegal, though?
Click to expand...

Most of them seem to have been made illegal shortly after they appeared, and before they could establish themselves. Those that were around for a little longer appear to have been widely popular - cocaine for example. Elsewhere, if we look at the few places where these drugs are legal we see a steady increase since they became legal - Amsterdam for example.
 
Darth Rotor said:
One step at a time.

Legalize dope first. No need to do it all at once. Also, people on cocaine are a bit less mellow than people on dope.

As to heroin, let the addicts have all they want, but make sure they get full strength stuff. In time, they all self destruct. Low cost option. Allows the gene pool to cast off that exceptionally weak strain. DR
Click to expand...

Is this a joke?

You sound a bit like that guy, what's his name? The one that talked about systematic elimination of weak strains in the genetic pool?
 
Hello everyone, new there and English is not my first language, please excuse any weird wording.

Isn't there some sort of loophole problem with legalisation? Let me explain.

There are currently a lot of drugs/chemicals which are legal, medical ones, but are only available to your average person via prescription.
My understanding is that those are restricted because they can have powerful effects on human consumers, including dependency or strong side effects. Thus there is some sort of medical control for users to avoid abuse.

Illegal "recreational" drugs are said to be powerful (at the very least the hard ones), including dependency and side effects, even moreso than medical drugs. Since they are "recreational", a doctor cannot of course decide if they serve a specific purpose.

My point is, even when leaving "moral" issues aside (should the governement sell potentially dangerous products to its people which serves no "useful" purpose), it seems highly unlikely that legalisation would consist of "simple grocery shop" (if you get my drift...) if we want to tackle this "realistically". At the very least some sort of monitoring to avoid abuse should be in place?

Maybe my logic is faulty: please point any mistake in my reasoning.
 
Laeke, welcome to the forum, and don't worry about your English; you're more comprehensible than quite a few native English speakers around here.

Your points are reasonable, but I'm inclined to say the answer (as usual) is "alcohol." Alcohol is actually one of the hardest drugs out there in terms of possible damage to health, and dependency to it even has its very own word. Tobacco is also extremely habit-forming (more so than heroin, according to some studies) and while the health risks associated with it are less immediate, over a longer term they can be more lethal.

And yet, most countries permit the sale of alcohol and tobacco, albeit restricted to licensed vendors, allowed to sell only to persons above a certain age, and possibly limited at what times they can sell the product. Nobody requires a doctor's prescription to purchase alcohol or tobacco, or restricts the amount you can buy at one time. I really can't see any compelling reason to treat recreational drugs much differently from hard liquor, or perhaps over-the-counter (non-prescription) medications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom