Why is it illegal to get high?

[Gurdur]

Regarless whether it is chemically addictive or not, is this a reason to make it illegal?

I have a question for you.

Why make PCP or cocaine (in any form, including crack) legal? Those two especially.

 

[Pvt. Stash]

because...

I have a question for you.

Why make PCP or cocaine (in any form, including crack) legal? Those two especially.

because it takes the profits out of the hands of criminals and results in less violence.

Or at least thats what these guys say... http://www.leap.cc

 

[Smackety]

Regarless whether it is chemically addictive or not, is this a reason to make it illegal?

I mean, I know it was stated earlier that cigarettes are getting more and more illegal, but I have yet to see it being illegal to smoke in your own home.

I just can't believe that something can be illegal because it's addicting - chemically or no.

(And I must apologize to the rest of the world, here, I know I'm being very USA centric, I am simply because I really don't know the details of the law in other countries. Please add that information to the discussion, Thanks).

Addictive potential is only one factor to consider. The biggest factor in determining if something should be illegal, in my opinion, is whether or not society could function for the benefit of the greatest number of people if the activity were legal.
As Gurdur suggested, legal PCP or Crack cocaine fails this test, our society could not possibly function better by letting all the crackheads out of prison. Some illegal drugs I think could be made illegal without destruction to society, and could possibly decrease related criminal activity. I think that legalizing marijuana would let a lot of non-violent potheads out of prison, which would not hurt society at all, and would end smuggling and weaken organized crime, both of which are also positives.
Heroin is kind of a toss up. The users are not generally violent, though some commit crimes to get money to get high. The drugs are smuggled and distributed through criminal networks, possibly even terrorist organizations. Full legalization could mean not helping as many addicts kick the habit, so some third option (government distribution?) would have to be invented.

 

[Arthur Denton]

Regarless whether it is chemically addictive or not, is this a reason to make it illegal?

I mean, I know it was stated earlier that cigarettes are getting more and more illegal, but I have yet to see it being illegal to smoke in your own home.

Alcohol and cigarettes wont be made illegal because there will be just another black market worker for those things, and also because it employs a ******** of people. Not to mention the fiscal renounce that governments would have to do with that.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I have a question for you.

Why make PCP or cocaine (in any form, including crack) legal? Those two especially.

Freedom of choice. In regards to legislation, there ought to be a compelling reason to prohibit certain activities rather than permit them to occur.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I kind of always thought that illegal drug laws are on sort of a ratchet. Whatever the reason for a rise in support to restrict them - racism, moral panic, or what have you, there's no political motivation to reverse any changes, even if the motivation to make the laws stricter is short lived. Individual politicians might be interested in relaxing drug laws, but both parties rightfully think it's be political suicide to do it - even if they dislike drug laws, which I don't think they do.

 

[Lonewulf]

The thing that amazes me is the vast amount of people in jail or prison in the United States, especially compared with the past (7 times more today than in 1980, 2.3 million people in jail or prison...)

And a lot of them have gone to jail thanks to jail and drug policies.

2.3 million people. My brain explodes when thinking of that figure.

 

[JFrankA]

I have a question for you.

Why make PCP or cocaine (in any form, including crack) legal? Those two especially.

Why not?

I know the point you are trying to make, but my reply is the same: why would that make a difference?

I mean, people have gotten very violent while drunk on alcohol, people have died from taking too many legal pills. And one can get halucinations from drinking too much cough syrup.

Should the effect of the drug determine it's legality? So drugs that make the majority of people calm and dumb (like pot) be okay? I know several people who won't smoke pot because it makes them paraniod of everything. At the same token, I've known some people who use cocaine to become extermely productive.

Why would those drugs be any different?


ETA: Don't get me wrong, I can see restrictions on certain drugs, as there are major differences between the restictions of something like asprin and alcohol, but why illegal?

 

[Ausmerican]

The simplest reason that marijuana wont be legal in the near future is the lack of income the government would likely see from it.

Most politicians these days are fairly well informed on the effects of weed. I would guess we are getting toward a point now where it is almost possible that a majority of adults have tried weed at some time. Look at the current U.S. Presidential race. Obama admits he has tried it. McCain was a young guy in the 60's and went to Vietnam so there is a good chance he has tried it. Hillary probably "didnt inhale" at the same time as Bill and tell me Ron Paul isnt on some mighty good stuff! If any drug was going to be legalized it would be pot.

However there is not as much financial incentive to counterbalance the political suicide part of the equation as people think. A few people on this thread have said the government could make a fortune regulating and taxing marijuana but could they really?

For quite a few users yes. But marijuana is the easiest drug to grow cultivate and prepare yourself. No distilling or cutting with other chemicals or anything. Just plant, grow, pick, dry and smoke. No profit for the taxman if you do that all in your back yard. So no incentive to change the law.

 

[dirtywick]

Why not?

I know the point you are trying to make, but my reply is the same: why would that make a difference?

I mean, people have gotten very violent while drunk on alcohol, people have died from taking too many legal pills. And one can get halucinations from drinking too much cough syrup.

Should the effect of the drug determine it's legality? So drugs that make the majority of people calm and dumb (like pot) be okay? I know several people who won't smoke pot because it makes them paraniod of everything. At the same token, I've known some people who use cocaine to become extermely productive.

Why would those drugs be any different?


ETA: Don't get me wrong, I can see restrictions on certain drugs, as there are major differences between the restictions of something like asprin and alcohol, but why illegal?

What crack does to people isn't really the exception in the way that a mean drunk is. And it's not even the effect, but the problem isn't what they do when they're high really, but what they do to get high. It doesn't take long for somebody addicted to crack or heroin to literally lose everything.

Not that people addicted to crack have a problem getting crack anyway, but you really don't want to live around that, raise your kids around it.

 

[JFrankA]

What crack does to people isn't really the exception in the way that a mean drunk is. And it's not even the effect, but the problem isn't what they do when they're high really, but what they do to get high. It doesn't take long for somebody addicted to crack or heroin to literally lose everything.

Not that people addicted to crack have a problem getting crack anyway, but you really don't want to live around that, raise your kids around it.

I get your point, but that point falls short because there are people addicted to painkillers legally. In fact, my ex-wife takes care of my son and she's taking several pain killers including oxycotton, morphine and vicodin. Doesn't that come from the same thing that heroin comes from? (Correct me if I'm wrong there, please).

It seems to me that if it was legal, there wouldn't be a question as to "it's bad to raise your kids around it". In fact, because I run an adult website and produce my own pornography, I am seen as less reliant in raising my son than my ex-wife is. The courts knew that she was taking these drugs, the courts knew she was addicted to them, yet gave her custody simply because I ran an adult site (on a part time basis), produced (adult only) porn (and I shoot and produce that porn not where I live).

(Now, again, I don't mean to hijack my own thread, and I'm not bellyaching here, I'm just stating a fact to ask the question. So far, I haven't seen a real answer. No offense, just hadn't seen one).

 

[Pvt. Stash]

oh I dunno...

But marijuana is the easiest drug to grow cultivate and prepare yourself. No distilling or cutting with other chemicals or anything. Just plant, grow, pick, dry and smoke. No profit for the taxman if you do that all in your back yard. So no incentive to change the law.

I know I would MUCH rather go down to the corner an Purchase my stash than to plant/care for plants for 3 months before I could enjoy them...

With your rational theres no reason to legalize alcohol either... because its SO easy to brew yourself there'd be no incentive to change the law right?

 

[JFrankA]

I know I would MUCH rather go down to the corner an Purchase my stash than to plant/care for plants for 3 months before I could enjoy them...

With your rational theres no reason to legalize alcohol either... because its SO easy to brew yourself there'd be no incentive to change the law right?

I agree with this point. I don't think that "because everyone would be growing their own" would be the reason for it to be illegal.

I have a friend who's very ...frugal. She doesn't smoke pot, but she does smoke legal, tobacco cigarettes. In order to save money, she actually buys the paper and the tobacco separate and rolls her own cigs.

She says that it works out to be much cheaper than buying regular rolled cigarettes. I don't know this for sure, but if it's true, then why don't most smokers do this too?



ETA: Apparently, it is cheaper. There's a ton of articles about this. http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/cigarette/cigarette.html and this article http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/06/04/new-yorkers-make-you.html

 

[Crundy]

Just a quick note: it isn't acceptable to use the old "Alcohol/Tobacco is more dangerous than X, and yet X is illegal and Alcohol/Tobacco isn't" argument. The only reason they are legal is because (as prohibition proved) making them illegal would create more problems than it solved. If alcohol was discovered tomorrow it would become illegal shortly afterwards.

Things are only made illegal when general use turns into widespread abuse. Magic mushrooms in the UK is a good example of this. Until recently fresh mushrooms were legal, but any form of preparation (inc. drying) was a class A drug. Therefore the hippies who went picking a couple of times a year were left alone while the barons chemically extracting Psylocybin from the mushrooms or drying huge quantities for widespread sale were targetted. This changed when the internet allowed large quantities of easy available fresh mushrooms to be shipped from places like Holland to head shops and directly to customers in the UK, and the problem became more apparent. The government responded by outlawing the possession of fresh mushrooms. Game over for us all.

Same is true of Ketamine. It was covered by the medicines act (making it illegal to produce or distribute) but was not listed in the misuse of drugs act, making it legal to possess. When illicit manufacture and use of it increased, it got listed in the misuse of drugs act.

It's only a matter of time before Salvia Divinorum use becomes widespread enough that it too will be banned. So it seems it's more due to the scale of the (ab)use that causes a drug to be outlawed, rather than addictive potential or hospital admissions.

 

[quarky]

Let's take a look at the countries with the most liberal drug laws:

How are they doing?

 

[Ausmerican]

I know I would MUCH rather go down to the corner an Purchase my stash than to plant/care for plants for 3 months before I could enjoy them...

With your rational theres no reason to legalize alcohol either... because its SO easy to brew yourself there'd be no incentive to change the law right?

I agree totally. I also would much rather go down to the corner and purchase it. But are you gonna purchase it from a store or the guy that lives on that corner who IS willing to put in the work, grows better stuff and gives you a better deal than the store does because he isnt obligated to add in the taxes and transport costs as the store is?

Are you really trying to say that distilling alcohol is as easy as growing a plant? There are quite a few dead and badly injured victims of 'still' explosions and fires that would disagree with you there.

 

[JFrankA]

I agree totally. I also would much rather go down to the corner and purchase it. But are you gonna purchase it from a store or the guy that lives on that corner who IS willing to put in the work, grows better stuff and gives you a better deal than the store does because he isnt obligated to add in the taxes and transport costs as the store is?

Are you really trying to say that distilling alcohol is as easy as growing a plant? There are quite a few dead and badly injured victims of 'still' explosions and fires that would disagree with you there.

I dunno....some of us have don't have a "Green Thumb". Personally, I couldn't keep a dandilion growing.....

Obviously, I've never grown pot at all, but from what I've read, it's not all that easy: I've read that the plant itself needs a LOT of light which generates heat which can cause a fire if not properly wired or the heat not dissapated properly.

In fact, wasn't there an episode of "Weeds" in which a fire started because of all the heat from the growing lamps?

Personally, if I smoked and it was legal, I'd buy it in stores without a second thought of growing it. I'm sure there would be plenty who would too, dispite knowing the "weed growing" neighbor. I also think that the I'd buy it commercially because it would have to reach government standards. This way, I am sure it would be the pure stuff, not anything foriegn mixed with it.

Of course, that last point depend on trust in both your neighbor and the government....

 

[corynski]

Greetings All
Sorry I'm late for the discussion but I've skimmed over the first few pages.
I've been around pot since 1959, and have read alot about how initially it got scheduled by J Edgar Hoover and his hit man, Harry Anslinger. They railroaded the legislation through without even notifying the medical profession, saying that it was a killer drug, etc. etc. But people were very naive then and none of the current drugs were floating around. America in the 1950's really was very idyllic, and people were very frugal and serious. Everyone was still getting over the shock of the depression and WWII. I was 22 before I ever heard of pot.

I think governments have good reason to make pot illegal except for medical use, where it really is the equivalent of aspirin, a miracle drug. The problem I think is that pot makes learning difficult, especially reading and numbers, which makes it diasaterous for schoolkids. I could see legalizing it like alcohol, at age 18 or 20, but we know kids always get into their parents stuff, and if dad and mom are growing their own analgesic on the back porch, the kids will be getting into their stash, or growing it somewhere too. I only wish people would get educated before experimenting with mind altering substances, any of them.

I think governments have a natural aversion to anything they can't control. Try to imagine how you would control 350 million people. And I personally think politicians get so high on influencing and controlling other people they can't understand why anyone would want to get high on drugs. Plus both the US and Russian governments tried alcohol prohibition and failed miserably.