My View on Drugs (1 Viewer)

[Just A Guy]

I will start off by saying that no, I do not support this 'War on Drugs' and also no, I do not support this camp of people behind legalization. I see these as both being extremes and for the most part somewhat impractical.

Drugs increase crime by themselves. Then again, so does making them illegal by creating a profitable black market for them. Drugs are dangerous by themselves and can harm the user and the people around the user. Then again, so does creating an unregulated supply of drugs. The list goes on. It seems to me that supporting one of these or the other does not seem to be a practical solution.

The idea I am coming to revolves around one word, compromise. The idea would be to allow drug use in a controlled environment. I'll call it a drug bar. The idea is that these will be privately owned businesses that are to meet federal regulation. For example, person x cannot only have y amounts of drug z due to what has been medically found to be not excessively dangerous to the person. Those drugs purchased would then be used in the drug bar only. How it is set up, a big room, small rooms for individuals, etc, will be decided by the private business and motivated by public demand.

This will attempt to enforce responsibility with drug use along with attempting to promote safety with drug use. Perhaps by having a person trained in basic medical care, not necessarily a highly paid doctor that would be detrimental to the business, but a person who can provide basic medical care. This person would also be important to determine how 'sober' a person is. If a person is deemed a risk to the public by being too effected by the drugs, the idea would be to keep the person in the drug bar until it wears off. Providing a bed, food, entertainment, etc for this person would once again be up to the business and driven by public demand.

Allowing this environment will decrease the crime that will be caused by legalization by keeping it away from hurting the general public. This will also decrease the crime caused by illegal drug sales by removing the extreme prices that motivate the black market industry. From what I have read, the prices on drugs could be relatively low if a supply shortage wasn't created by drug prohibition. This creates safety for the general public by not allowing widespread usage of drugs that will increase crime while also creating safety for the user by regulating the drug itself, the environment it is used in, and the medical care accessibility.

Granted, this is not the freedom the camp for legalization wants, and not the anti-drug policy the camp for the drug war wants, but I feel that compromise is the best choice for both camps. It has been shown that both the drug war and legalization both have their ups and downs, and which of the two is better is debatable and not something I wish or want to address here.

Keep in mind, the entire idea is a work in progress and is completely open to being edited to work with the needs and wants of both camps. Any comments you have or changes you see being needed would be much appreciated.

 

[Mikkel]

I'm by no means for legalization of any currently illegal drug. I would, on the other hand, like to see some of the less hard drugs decriminalized. For those of you who don't know the difference between legalization and decriminalization, legalization is fully making drugs legal for the public to own, like cigarettes. Decriminalization is similar to what they have in Canada for marijuana. It makes it nearly impossible for someone to be charged with a felony for possession, and rather than having possesion be a 'crime' (i.e. you go to jail), there would still be a penalty, but it would be more in the form of something like a parking ticket. Multiple offenders would be forced to go to some sort of rehab.

Mind you, this doesn't solve the black market problem, but I think it does solve a number of legal issues and problems with the penal system. I think it will help those that really need it, rather than simply putting them behind bars, and it doesn't make 10 million Americans criminals from the get-go.

 

[teacher]

Drugs,(sip), why anyone would want to legalize them (sip) is beyond my understanding. (chug) They (sip) bring nothing but sorrow and addiction. (sip) They impair your ability to make sound decisions, (sip) lead to violence and crime, (sip) not to mention (sip) the health costs (ow, man that's gonna hurt tomorrow, sip). I would like to take this time (sip) to say to you drug users that you (sip) are a drag on society. (sip)

 

[Just A Guy]

Drugs,(sip), why anyone would want to legalize them (sip) is beyond my understanding. (chug) They (sip) bring nothing but sorrow and addiction. (sip) They impair your ability to make sound decisions, (sip) lead to violence and crime, (sip) not to mention (sip) the health costs (ow, man that's gonna hurt tomorrow, sip). I would like to take this time (sip) to say to you drug users that you (sip) are a drag on society. (sip)

I'm assuming that you are comparing alcohol to these, and I must completely agree, though in an entirely different manner. Drug bars would nearly eliminate all those, except for the health risks which it would minimize. I also happen to say that it would be an ideal solution to the problem alcohol puts on society as well. The only reason I separate the two is because of how public reaction would be. Taking alcohol and immediately putting it in this type of drug bar for alcohol would never get passed as policy because the public just wouldn't allow it.

On the other hand, putting this into place after the failure of prohibition of alcohol, seems like it would work ideally just as it would work with drugs. However, not having a time machine to go back and do it is not an excuse. Weaning the people off of legalization of alcohol seems to be what would work now. Say more potent alcohols are slowly placed into these drug bars after five years, then five years after that the next more potent, etc, or something along those lines.

I don't think this is what you were going for, but it more than handles any hypocrisy that would arise from only doing this with currently illegal drugs.

Despite being in one of the extremist camps on this (I'm personally for complete legalization, although having the market highly regulated once it's legal for hard drugs, coke, heroin, etc.) I think that this is an interesting idea. But tell me what you think of this: doing your idea for hard drugs, and legalizing drugs like pot.

Honestly, I would probably be against it, but this is coming from someone who would want to be placing alcohol in these bars [eventually]. The idea is based around public safety, and though I am sure many people would be responsible, just as many wouldn't. Basically what I'm trying to promote is 2x4 responsibility. To put this in cartoon form, the government will be there going: BE RESPONSIBLE! WHACK!

Though I can see where you are coming from, I just happen to draw the line where the 'increased risk' is enough to raise concern over public safety a few inches before you do with this idea.

 

[teacher]

I don't think this is what you were going for, but it more than handles any hypocrisy that would arise from only doing this with currently illegal drugs.

Actually bro, just (kof) preparing you for the hypocrisy to come, should this thread gain any (kof) attention, which, IMO, it wont. How many years have I come home from a long days work, to go run five, or spend a couple of hours on the heavy bag, or (kof) swim a mile, to then pour a cup of Joe and sit down to the evening news with a fattie, only (kof) to wake up the next day and hear Rush call me a long haired, maggot infested, dope smoking FM listening hippie? And look at him. Uphill battle is all I'm saying. Galen and I got your back. Careful when he's alone back there.

Just A Guy. I hope this thread gathers steam. One thing I can't stand is hypocrites. And this topic brings those fuc*kers out more than any other topic but for religion. How about it you cocktail drinking, xanex taking for your nerves "but it's legal" folks. Care to step up to the plate on this one?

 

[The Real McCoy]

teacher brings up a good point, alcohol is as destructive as they come but it's subtle and most don't realize it. Prohibition was a disaster though and it continues to be a disaster as long as drugs are kept illegal. Billions of taxpayer dollars are pointlessly spent, dealers and crime lords continue to get richer and the streets are still flooded with drugs.

If drugs were to be legalized, I doubt too many more people would do them than the ones that already do. The government could tax the hell out of them and they'd still be much cheaper than current black market prices. Imagine... $20 for a pack of good joints. That's a dollar a joint.. you think you can get a deal that sweet today? (unless you're good buddies with a dealer)

No doubt drugs are bad but keeping them illegal only makes the problem worse in my opinion.

 

[Just A Guy]

teacher brings up a good point, alcohol is as destructive as they come but it's subtle and most don't realize it.

Alcohol is just as destructive, no one is denying that. I covered that in my response to teacher in post #5.

Prohibition was a disaster though and it continues to be a disaster as long as drugs are kept illegal. Billions of taxpayer dollars are pointlessly spent, dealers and crime lords continue to get richer and the streets are still flooded with drugs.

If drugs were to be legalized, I doubt too many more people would do them than the ones that already do. The government could tax the hell out of them and they'd still be much cheaper than current black market prices. Imagine... $20 for a pack of good joints. That's a dollar a joint.. you think you can get a deal that sweet today? (unless you're good buddies with a dealer)

No doubt drugs are bad but keeping them illegal only makes the problem worse in my opinion.

This is where I'm thinking you didn't read my post at all. Prohibition on drugs is a disaster, there is no denying that. But guess what else has shown to be a disaster? Legalization. Whether it is better or worse than prohibition is not the issue here, because I support neither. No one can deny that going to either of these two extremes has been shown to be a disaster. If my idea was put into place, everything you talked about is covered.

 

[Iriemon]

Drugs,(sip), why anyone would want to legalize them (sip) is beyond my understanding. (chug)

Maybe because you view the associated facts in a distorted manner?

They (sip) bring nothing but sorrow and addiction. (sip)

Tens of millions of Americans use alcohol and marajuana in a moderate manner. Alcohol is addicting, Marajuana is not. Cigarettes most certainly are.

They impair your ability to make sound decisions, (sip)

Correct. You should not attempt to make sound decisions under the influence. On the other hand, you make look at things from a different perspective, not always a bad thing.

lead to violence and crime, (sip)

Tens of millions of Americans use alcohold and marajuana moderately had have no other propensity to violence or crime.

not to mention (sip) the health costs (ow, man that's gonna hurt tomorrow, sip).

Good argument in favor of legalization, actually. Many people die or are injured from using regulated drugs -- taking drugs of poor or unknown quality or quanity. When alcohol was illegal, many more people were injured from rotgut. Legalization would probably reduced the associated injury and health care because the drugs would be regulated as to quality and potency.

I would like to take this time (sip) to say to you drug users that you (sip) are a drag on society. (sip)

Could be. But making alcohol and cigarettes illegal would, IMO, cause more problems than would be solved.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Alcohol is just as destructive, no one is denying that. I covered that in my response to teacher in post #5.


This is where I'm thinking you didn't read my post at all. Prohibition on drugs is a disaster, there is no denying that. But guess what else has shown to be a disaster? Legalization. Whether it is better or worse than prohibition is not the issue here, because I support neither. No one can deny that going to either of these two extremes has been shown to be a disaster. If my idea was put into place, everything you talked about is covered.

The drug bar idea is shakey. People are always going to want to do drugs in their own homes and as long as there's a demand, there'll be a supply (dealers on the streets.) A lot of people would never want to be associated with the stigma of going to "drug clubs."

And where has legalization been shown to be a disaster? I could see it working providing there's a media assault of anti-drug propaganda showing the dangers much like there is with cigarettes.

 

[Mikkel]

The drug bar idea is shakey. People are always going to want to do drugs in their own homes and as long as there's a demand, there'll be a supply (dealers on the streets.) A lot of people would never want to be associated with the stigma of going to "drug clubs."

And where has legalization been shown to be a disaster? I could see it working providing there's a media assault of anti-drug propaganda showing the dangers much like there is with cigarettes.

The campaign against cigarettes is much more than advertisements. Local governments are making it illegal to smoke indoors, and in someplaces, even outdoors in public areas! On the other hand, no one would suggest making owning cartons of cigarettes a felony.

That's why I believe in decriminalization of drugs. Don't legalize them fully, because people will become irrisponsible, but rather decrease the punishments so that it can be controlled without filling up our prisons and wasting the public's money.

 

[The Real McCoy]

The campaign against cigarettes is much more than advertisements. Local governments are making it illegal to smoke indoors, and in someplaces, even outdoors in public areas! On the other hand, no one would suggest making owning cartons of cigarettes a felony.

Well naturally they'd be heavily regulated. No driving under the influence or public intoxication (like with alcohol), no use indoors (besides private residences), that kinda thing.

 

[Just A Guy]

The drug bar idea is shakey. People are always going to want to do drugs in their own homes and as long as there's a demand, there'll be a supply (dealers on the streets.)

A lot of people would never want to be associated with the stigma of going to "drug clubs."

This is where the being driven by public demand comes in. If people are don't want to be associated with it, make the 'drug bar' a multi purpose place. The best example I can come up with is slightly far off, but it should make sense. In Africa, there are testing centers for AIDS which many people refused to go to because they didn't want to be associated with the stigma of AIDS testing centers. So what did they do? They made the AIDS testing centers multi purpose health clinics so that there are multiple different things you do inside of them and you are no connected the AIDS testing. Hopefully the example explains this good enough, but all of this falls under the 'being driven by public demand' part.

And where has legalization been shown to be a disaster? I could see it working providing there's a media assault of anti-drug propaganda showing the dangers much like there is with cigarettes.

Just to throw it out there, cigarettes I don't actually have a problem with in the same way as alcohol and the illegal drugs. I believe people should be able to do whatever to their body within reasonable limits (as in not suicide and extremes like that). The problem I have with alcohol and these illegal drugs is the crime, domestic violence, DUI, etc, that can be applied. This isn't about specifically motivated by helping the person (which precautions in the drug bar as pointed out will do), but to help the general public not receieve the negative effects of an intoxicated or drugged up person.

As for where has it been a disaster, I'll tie that into the end of the next quote.

Well naturally they'd be heavily regulated. No driving under the influence or public intoxication (like with alcohol), no use indoors (besides private residences), that kinda thing.

Alcohol, even though it is regulated, it still is detrimental on society, and though seemingly better in my opinion than the alternative, has been a disaster as well. We cannot control alcohol and I think it would be foolish to think we could regulate the currently illegal drugs to standards much higher than how we regulate alcohol.

Let's look at how this regulated alcohol effects society:

"Based on this compilation and new analysis of data on alcohol and crime, we know that nearly 4 in 10 violent victimizations involve use of alcohol, about 4 in 10 fatal motor vehicle accidents are alcohol-involved; and about 4 in 10 offenders, regardless of whether they are on probation, in local jail, or in State prison, self-report that they were using alcohol at the time of the offense."

"Violence between current and former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends is especially likely to involve alcohol abuse, and all forms of violence against intimates, including homicide, have been declining in recent years."

And though it does point out "There are, however, a number of positive indicators that alcohol-related crime is generally decreasing... rates of arrest for DUI have declined by 24% since 1990. During the last 10 years, the number of highway fatalities attributable to alcohol-related accidents has dropped by about 7,000 annually, a 29% decrease", the fact still stands that legalization of alcohol has hurt society.

We cannot regulate alcohol to a high enough level to promote public safety and I fail to see how we could regulate the currently illegal drugs to a high enough level to promote a reasonable amount of public safety.

So now we get to where has drug legalization been a disaster. Let's take this alcohol for the example. Fact: Drug prohibition causes crime. Fact: Drugs still cause crime when legalized. Though crime [arguably] decreases, the outcome is still a disaster. You cannot look at the statistics of alcohol in our society and say it is not a disaster, and you cannot say just because it is better than the other extreme makes it not a disaster. One disaster is worse than the other, but both harm society in themselves and I refuse to support either extreme, I refuse to support either disaster.

 

[Thorgasm]

This idea sounds like legalization (decriminalization) with strict regulation. I am all for legalizing and regulating. History shows us that prohibition doesn't work. Either it is legal or it is not though, kinda like being pregnant. Of course with the exception of an age requirement.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Alcohol, even though it is regulated, it still is detrimental on society, and though seemingly better in my opinion than the alternative, has been a disaster as well. We cannot control alcohol and I think it would be foolish to think we could regulate the currently illegal drugs to standards much higher than how we regulate alcohol.

Let's look at how this regulated alcohol effects society:

"Based on this compilation and new analysis of data on alcohol and crime, we know that nearly 4 in 10 violent victimizations involve use of alcohol, about 4 in 10 fatal motor vehicle accidents are alcohol-involved; and about 4 in 10 offenders, regardless of whether they are on probation, in local jail, or in State prison, self-report that they were using alcohol at the time of the offense."

"Violence between current and former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends is especially likely to involve alcohol abuse, and all forms of violence against intimates, including homicide, have been declining in recent years."

And though it does point out "There are, however, a number of positive indicators that alcohol-related crime is generally decreasing... rates of arrest for DUI have declined by 24% since 1990. During the last 10 years, the number of highway fatalities attributable to alcohol-related accidents has dropped by about 7,000 annually, a 29% decrease", the fact still stands that legalization of alcohol has hurt society.

We cannot regulate alcohol to a high enough level to promote public safety and I fail to see how we could regulate the currently illegal drugs to a high enough level to promote a reasonable amount of public safety.

So now we get to where has drug legalization been a disaster. Let's take this alcohol for the example. Fact: Drug prohibition causes crime. Fact: Drugs still cause crime when legalized. Though crime [arguably] decreases, the outcome is still a disaster. You cannot look at the statistics of alcohol in our society and say it is not a disaster, and you cannot say just because it is better than the other extreme makes it not a disaster. One disaster is worse than the other, but both harm society in themselves and I refuse to support either extreme, I refuse to support either disaster.

I'm aware of what alcohol does to society, it tore my family apart and destroyed my father.

I'm also aware of the effects of prohibition.

It's a tough issue but, being a Libertarian, I believe strongly in personal choice and responsibility.

Alcohol and drugs are a disaster no matter what their legal status are, nothing is going to change that. Not legalization, not prohibition, not regulation... but I still think legalization and heavy regulation is the way to go with drugs.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with outlawing plants that grow naturally? I mean, natural resources are the cornerstone of our economy... and the only place the money is going now is to the hands of guys like Pablo Escobar.

 

[Thorgasm]

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with outlawing plants that grow naturally? I mean, natural resources are the cornerstone of our economy... and the only place the money is going now is to the hands of guys like Pablo Escobar.

No, you aren't the only one. I did give a speech on the decriminalization of marijuana and did point out if we are going to outlaw plants that grow naturally, we should outlaw poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumack.

 

[shuamort]

No, you aren't the only one. I did give a speech on the decriminalization of marijuana and did point out if we are going to outlaw plants that grow naturally, we should outlaw poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumack.

And if we look back at the history of marijuana's criminalization, we see that it has little to do with the drugs and more to do with the paper industry's ability to get a little help from the government.

Legalize it and make people accept responsibility for themselves.

 

[Just A Guy]

Dude, but think about what's actually safer. Sending someone out in public (possibly driving) to a bar, where, in public, they get intoxicated, and then they have to go through public, thus increasing the possibility of causing some harm to society (especially if driving), and then they get home.
Now if someone's smoking pot in his/her living room, who is s/he gonna hurt? No one.

That is covered in my first post:

"Perhaps by having a person trained in basic medical care... This person would also be important to determine how 'sober' a person is. If a person is deemed a risk to the public by being too effected by the drugs, the idea would be to keep the person in the drug bar until it wears off. Providing a bed, food, entertainment, etc for this person would once again be up to the business and driven by public demand."

The idea is to keep them in the bar while a danger to the general public. The problem with someone smoking pot is the same thing with alcohol. If used responsibly they are only going to do very minimal damage to the person. However, if not used responsibly driving while intoxicated, along with many other negative side effects will happen because a large group of people are not using these responsibly.

 

[quietrage]

I believe that pot should be the only "drug" to be legalized because it is not addictive like tobacco and alcohol. While it is possiable to OD on marijuana the amount someone has to smoke makes it unrealistic. Driving under the influence of marijuana would be outlawed and the offender should face penalties simular to
drunk drivers. Legallization of pot would make good tax revenue from the sale of the plant, its leafs, hash, and bongs. The hypocrisy of the outlawing of marijuana is the driving force behind my beliefs. There are of plants that an American can buy that get you high other then marijuana.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/morning_glory/morning_glory.shtml
http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml
These are just two of the plants both contain powerful chemicals simuliar to LSD.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I believe that pot should be the only "drug" to be legalized because it is not addictive like tobacco and alcohol. While it is possiable to OD on marijuana the amount someone has to smoke makes it unrealistic. Driving under the influence of marijuana would be outlawed and the offender should face penalties simular to
drunk drivers. Legallization of pot would make good tax revenue from the sale of the plant, its leafs, hash, and bongs. The hypocrisy of the outlawing of marijuana is the driving force behind my beliefs. There are of plants that an American can buy that get you high other then marijuana.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/morning_glory/morning_glory.shtml
http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml
These are just two of the plants both contain powerful chemicals simuliar to LSD.

Salvia... that stuff is NUTS... Waaayyy crazier than LSD.

What do you think about mushrooms? They're natural and not addictive.

 

[quietrage]

Salvia... that stuff is NUTS... Waaayyy crazier than LSD.

What do you think about mushrooms? They're natural and not addictive.

Forgot about them, guess if they are not addictive and if it is made clear that the ones growing in your yard might kill you i see no problems. Just have to find out more about the amount needed to OD. Also salvia does contain LSA I think.