• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legalizing drugs?

Maybe all drugs should be legal, but some should be regulated.

There would probably be far fewer fentanyl deaths if there was a legitimate for profit space created for it.
 
Rengenshi said:
Should drugs be legal?
Click to expand...

Of course. This whole idea of imprisoning people because they ingested/injected/inhaled a politically incorrect drug is totalitarian. People have the right to live their lives as they choose, even if it is self-destructive.
 
We can go slow with it to see what the outcome would be.

Maybe one state legalizes cocaine for about 5 years and we see what the pros and cons are.

Another state could legalize meth. So on and so forth. There are reasons to legalize recreational drugs in my opinion but I don’t have the foresight to know the outcome of it.

I like to think if heroine was legal then the supply would be cheaper and safer and lead to less deaths. On the other hand if it is legal some people who would have never used it might start using it so it could lead to more deaths. Colorado was the original guinea pig for recreational marijuana. I say they should pick another recreational drug to legalize. Then other states can observe and see what happens.
 
aociswundumho said:
Of course. This whole idea of imprisoning people because they ingested/injected/inhaled a politically incorrect drug is totalitarian. People have the right to live their lives as they choose, even if it is self-destructive.
Click to expand...
Some drugs are self destructive but arguments can be made that drug users have a high enough tendency to act in ways that is destructive to others.

An example would be that drug users become so desperate they will do violent things to get money for the drugs. Legalizing drugs could make drugs cheaper and negate the need for such desperate actions.

On the other hand, the behavior of people while on drugs can make a person more prone to commit violent acts.

It is a complicated issue. I lean libertarian so I default by saying all recreational drugs should be legal but I have a hard time committing to that as the best possible scenario for society. We will have to have one state try it first to see what happens.

New Hampshire and Colorado come to mind for possible candidates to give it a go.
 
Rengenshi said:
Should drugs be legal?
Click to expand...

We certainly should decriminalize possession of them. Certain class one drugs should remain illegal for distribution. Heroin and cocaine distribution, meth, K, some others but simple possession should be channeled into rehab treatment and not prison cells.
 
Is that the way it is already?
 
alabamamember said:
Is that the way it is already?
Click to expand...

No. Depending on the jurisdiction most class ones over a small amount and some at almost any amount are indictable. All are chargeable as at least misdemeanors. Lots of folks in our prison system for mere possession of drugs.

By decriminalizing I mean having been caught with weight that’s obviously not distribution level. It should be placed into the jurisdictions of social workers and never sees a jail cell or a court room but is assigned a case worker who schedules rehab. The only thing the police would do is verify identification and fill out an intake form to move it to social workers.

It’s cheaper than prison beds as well.

Only if the accused is uncooperative would it segue back into the court system.
 
The war against drugs has been lost, only a small percentage of drugs is seized, the rest get to the consumers.

Drugs should be all legal and, at the same time, there should be enough information about their possible pernicious effects. Besides, only adult people would have access to them.

I certainly think this is the right way to cope with this matter.
 
Last edited:
The War Against Drugs was a lost cause from the very beginning. However, it gave the States the opportunity to make themselves wealthier at the expense of its citizens. Since the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the States until 2019, they could violate the rights of their citizens with impunity - and they did. That is why we end up with a $75K BMW being seized because a joint was found in the glove compartment of the vehicle.

The Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) decision by the Supreme Court was the final nail in the coffin on the War Against Drugs. Finally, after 152 years since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court finally got around to applying the Eighth Amendment to the States.

However, having said that, it needs to be pointed out that Congress still has the constitutional authority to regulate all commerce that crosses either State or international borders under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. There are a lot of products that Congress has banned, and not all of them are drugs.

The States, of course, can regulate their own intrastate commerce as they see fit. Which includes banning or permitting products. It is part of their police authority for public health and safety as a sovereign State.

As a general rule, the products that Congress and the States prohibit are for the reason that they are harmful or prove an unacceptable risk to public health and safety. This is why Congress has banned both Fentanyl and Haggis imports into the US.
 
Drugs should all be legal. The premise of hurting people "to help them" is absurd. It's meant to give people various nasty jobs: hauling people to jail for carrying something around, guarding jails, running courtrooms ... but most importantly of all, selling drugs on the black market, or working as corrupt enforcers who give certain people a pass to sell on the black market without fear. All the money for those jobs has to come from somewhere: college savings accounts, begging relatives, burglaries, etc. The point of legalizing drugs is to end the gang and corruption economy. Not to promote or normalize the use of drugs.

The most important drugs to legalize are the addictive ones. Those in thrall can't be left at the mercy of the black market; they should be able to receive their "fix" cheaply and safely until they can be cured.

The easiest drugs to legalize are the non-addictive ones with low health risks. But we must not give into the temptation to see them as cash cows, until the state is running ads pushing the use of marijuana as often as they spam people with their malignant little leperchaun and his lying pot of lotto gold.

Legalization doesn't mean that there can't be any regulation. It shouldn't be very expensive to stock a bag of cocaine next to the rice flour in the supermarket, but it would be a Bad Idea. Things have to be handled safely. When people buy something dangerous, they may be required to give informed consent, which can mean some level of training and precautions against inadvertently poisoning the neighborhood kids. Some things like fentanyl are virtually chemical weapons that should be treated more cautiously than nearly every chemical in a university laboratory. The safest possible forms of addictive drugs should be most cheaply and readily available. Addicts can get a fix by cooking poppy pods into a tea. This should be a lot easier than buying a needle full of morphine, let alone fentanyl. Similarly, actual coca leaves chewed in a traditional manner should be readily available. It should be possible for very ordinary stores to sell these safest options to whoever attests they are already an addict.

A good advocate of legalization should be a strong opponent of careless or frequent drug use. The goal is a safe society, a free society, where people have the right to do what they want, and of course educating them to help avoid addiction is part of that libertarian agenda.
 
Legalize drugs and the worst humans on the planet will head for our borders.
 
bythoughts said:
Drugs should all be legal.
Click to expand...

Off to a good start.


Wrong. Legalizing drugs affirms every adult’s right to decide what they put into their own body.

bythoughts said:
A good advocate of legalization should be a strong opponent of careless or frequent drug use.
Click to expand...

No, a good advocate of legalization should be a strong proponent of minding your own business.

bythoughts said:
The goal is a safe society, a free society, where people have the right to do what they want, and of course educating them to help avoid addiction is part of that libertarian agenda.
Click to expand...

Those two goals are contradictory. A free society means people are allowed to destroy their own lives. Government "education" regarding drugs has always been nothing more than propaganda.
 
aociswundumho said:
Wrong. Legalizing drugs affirms every adult’s right to decide what they put into their own body.
Click to expand...
Unless you're driving a car. Minding your neighbor's nine-year-old. Deep frying a turkey in a multi unit dwelling.

Don't get me wrong - people should be free; I do believe that. But we need to be mature and recognize that freedom will most often be used for practical goals and the benefit of others. Even where an animal is concerned, a pet owner can figure out that there is a middle ground between whipping a dog when it doesn't obey and leaving it to run in the road without a second thought.
aociswundumho said:
No, a good advocate of legalization should be a strong proponent of minding your own business.
Click to expand...
We can't pretend that drugs don't destroy lives. Have you ever seen a reformed tobacco addict die a slow, painful death with bone metastases? We don't mind our own business. But when we look at other people's lives, we do it with respect, not condemnation.
aociswundumho said:
Those two goals are contradictory. A free society means people are allowed to destroy their own lives. Government "education" regarding drugs has always been nothing more than propaganda.
Click to expand...
Even Prohibition leaves people free to destroy their own lives. And if the government can educate kids about how to drive a car or wear a rubber, it can figure out something useful to say about dope. But you are right that we shouldn't expect government to do all our educating for us.
 
bythoughts said:
Unless you're driving a car. Minding your neighbor's nine-year-old. Deep frying a turkey in a multi unit dwelling.
Click to expand...

Is there a point to this? You could do all of these drunk, is that an argument to ban alcohol?


ffs, human beings are not dogs. We are talking about adults who are capable of making their own decisions about something so basic.

bythoughts said:
We can't pretend that drugs don't destroy lives.
Click to expand...

We also can't pretend that people don't have the right to destroy their own lives.

 
aociswundumho said:
Is there a point to this? You could do all of these drunk, is that an argument to ban alcohol?
Click to expand...
You just quoted me saying the opposite! Point is, if we don't make a point to promote responsibility with alcohol, somebody WILL get the votes to ban it.
aociswundumho said:
ffs, human beings are not dogs. We are talking about adults who are capable of making their own decisions about something so basic.
Click to expand...
Even sober, they're mostly not capable of making good decisions about whether to ban drugs. I don't think we have to abandon the bully pulpit.
aociswundumho said:
We also can't pretend that people don't have the right to destroy their own lives.
Click to expand...
And we can't pretend that people don't have the right to informed consent based on a decent understanding of the medical and behavioral issues involved.
 
bythoughts said:
Even sober, they're mostly not capable of making good decisions about whether to ban drugs. I don't think we have to abandon the bully pulpit.
Click to expand...

No, the "something so basic" is making decisions regarding what they put into their own body.

bythoughts said:
And we can't pretend that people don't have the right to informed consent based on a decent understanding of the medical and behavioral issues involved.
Click to expand...

So what does this mean, mandatory re-education?
 
aociswundumho said:
No, the "something so basic" is making decisions regarding what they put into their own body.
...
So what does this mean, mandatory re-education?
Click to expand...
These two points are tied together. The key thing is, "decisions about what you put in your own body" are not made in a vacuum.

For example, suppose a restaurant is selling some delicious, juicy fried chicken. They're packed, and everybody is digging in with glee. Then some fascist from the Health Department comes out from the back and says "everybody out - we're closing the restaurant!" Over a little thing like Salmonella.

I mean yeah, you want the right to eat tasty fried chicken. But you weren't actually asking for the right to get sick with Salmonella. You didn't know about it.

I don't deny that people should have the right, knowing the facts, to decide what they do. I mean, I wouldn't try it with a real health inspector, or a real stomach for that matter, but there's always some guy in the crowd who says "You know, I've been building up my immunity eating Salmonella-tainted meat for years. It's part of my Scavenger Survival Strategy. And I want the right to buy all this delicious tainted chicken from the proprietor (at a discount) so I can pig out to my heart's content on the best fried chicken in the county!" That is fair and we should theoretically accommodate it.

But first, we should prioritize making sure that everybody else knows what Salmonella is, knows what the health effects are, how much the hospital bill will be, whatever. So it is fair to require, at least, a clear affirmation that the consumer knows the risks, if not an actual driver's-ed type training course. (The extent of that varies - if someone wants to smoke 1960s style marijuana, little preparation is needed, but if someone wants to buy fentanyl haphazardly mixed with another white powder, that's a different issue)
 
Mind altering drugs are uncontrollable due to their illegal status. They are controlled by the black market which is by its very nature callous unscrupulous and uncontrollable.

So long as drugs are illegal we can never hope to "control" them. Legalize all of them and we can then treat each of them individually without the chaotic and unscrupulous black market holding the reins.

I have always scoffed at the term "controlled substances". They are not controlled in the slightest. We ceded all control to nefarious elements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…