• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Why Shouldn't We Legalize?

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm curious as to why prohibitionists want drugs to be kept illegal.

For me, legalization is a no-brainer for the following reasons:
1) Prohibition clearly is a failed policy, was a failed policy, and always will be a failed policy. We are an individualistic country and prohibition laws of any kind will always fail to work.
2) It is not the government's place to tell me how my life ought to be lived. It's bad enough that state governments can tell us who we can't marry; it's even worse that they can control what I put into my body.
3) There are much bigger problems on the government's budget than trying to stop people from ingesting things
4) Most of the drugs have unique medicinal properties that could be used if legalized (Which we already do with opium)

I also understand these things that are possibilities to support prohibition:
1) Drugs are, for the most part, not healthy.
2) Many drugs have addictive properties

I just want some input from the opposition
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I'll try.

We are signatory to multiple international treaties that forbid legalization. We are the ones who shoved these treaties down the throats of every other nation. Thus, a bit awkward for us to suddenly legalize.

What would happen to all the prisoners we have now if we legalized. Let them go? Keep them anyway?

What would happen to all those prisons we built?

What would happen to all the guards, administrators, suppliers and contractors for those prisons?

Everything you eat is approved by the FDA. So obviously it must be the governments place to tell you what you can put in your body.

If you legalized opiates, what would happen to the business of all those Pain Management Clinics?

OK, I hope this helped you on your path of exploration.

BTW, I bet you can't name a drug that I can't locate on Craig's List within 24 hours.....




I'm curious as to why prohibitionists want drugs to be kept illegal.

For me, legalization is a no-brainer for the following reasons:
1) Prohibition clearly is a failed policy, was a failed policy, and always will be a failed policy. We are an individualistic country and prohibition laws of any kind will always fail to work.
2) It is not the government's place to tell me how my life ought to be lived. It's bad enough that state governments can tell us who we can't marry; it's even worse that they can control what I put into my body.
3) There are much bigger problems on the government's budget than trying to stop people from ingesting things
4) Most of the drugs have unique medicinal properties that could be used if legalized (Which we already do with opium)

I also understand these things that are possibilities to support prohibition:
1) Drugs are, for the most part, not healthy.
2) Many drugs have addictive properties

I just want some input from the opposition
 

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'll try.

We are signatory to multiple international treaties that forbid legalization. We are the ones who shoved these treaties down the throats of every other nation. Thus, a bit awkward for us to suddenly legalize.

What would happen to all the prisoners we have now if we legalized. Let them go? Keep them anyway?

What would happen to all those prisons we built?

What would happen to all the guards, administrators, suppliers and contractors for those prisons?

Everything you eat is approved by the FDA. So obviously it must be the governments place to tell you what you can put in your body.

If you legalized opiates, what would happen to the business of all those Pain Management Clinics?

OK, I hope this helped you on your path of exploration.

BTW, I bet you can't name a drug that I can't locate on Craig's List within 24 hours.....
I Know that you can buy drugs anywhere but they're still illegal.

I don't think people will choose heroin over taking a painkiller in all honesty.

The prisons and guards is something that is to be taken into consideration, but I don't think that detaining people should be so much of a business. I think it would be smarter to decrease the buyers in this case.

As for the prisoners, any prisoner with only drug charges should be set free. If they have other charges then they serve out their term.

Right, they can make sure that sausage factories don't put poison in their sausage. BUT, they don't control whether or not we eat sausage.

Lastly the treaties. I did not know about such treaties and I will surely research it more. Thank you for the input
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You'll find the history of drug-banning to be very interesting.

As for your sausage analogy, yes, they can prevent the sale of that sausage, so in a way, same thing.

Prisons are a cash cow. They'll never let go of them.

Pain killers are basically heroin. But heroin is cheaper than pain pills. Isn't that interesting? Or would pain pills still be prescription but heroin not? Or will all (newly legalized) drugs require a prescription?


I Know that you can buy drugs anywhere but they're still illegal.

I don't think people will choose heroin over taking a painkiller in all honesty.

The prisons and guards is something that is to be taken into consideration, but I don't think that detaining people should be so much of a business. I think it would be smarter to decrease the buyers in this case.

As for the prisoners, any prisoner with only drug charges should be set free. If they have other charges then they serve out their term.

Right, they can make sure that sausage factories don't put poison in their sausage. BUT, they don't control whether or not we eat sausage.

Lastly the treaties. I did not know about such treaties and I will surely research it more. Thank you for the input
 

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You'll find the history of drug-banning to be very interesting.

As for your sausage analogy, yes, they can prevent the sale of that sausage, so in a way, same thing.

Prisons are a cash cow. They'll never let go of them.

Pain killers are basically heroin. But heroin is cheaper than pain pills. Isn't that interesting? Or would pain pills still be prescription but heroin not? Or will all (newly legalized) drugs require a prescription?
I know the prison system is a cash cow and it kinda saddens me.

They CAN stop the production of sausage, but they don't. And to take it a little further, if someone really wants sausage they will still make, sell, and eat it illegally.

There is no reasonable want to take heroin instead of a painkiller. Painkillers are much more effective and would be least expensive in the long run.

To answer the prescription question, not directly. There should be regulated sale of recreational drugs like tobacco and alcohol. However, like alcohol, there are some medicinal properties that drugs have. I could't tell you exactly what they are, but I know Sigmund Freud did extensive studies on cocaine and found several. Like alcohol, they can be used in different medicines and sold for recreation.
 

LucilaEverman

New member
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Location
Toronto
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the prohibition is lifted than i guess everything will be out of control..this can be done.prohibition is very important especially on drugs..
 

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If the prohibition is lifted than i guess everything will be out of control..this can be done.prohibition is very important especially on drugs..
Please elaborate. How will "everything" be out of control? Why is drug prohibition important?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm curious as to why prohibitionists want drugs to be kept illegal.

For me, legalization is a no-brainer for the following reasons:
1) Prohibition clearly is a failed policy, was a failed policy, and always will be a failed policy. We are an individualistic country and prohibition laws of any kind will always fail to work.
1) It is? How so - provide documented proof, other than the cost. (You cannot - no one can - because this is pure opinion not based on facts)

2) It is not the government's place to tell me how my life ought to be lived. It's bad enough that state governments can tell us who we can't marry; it's even worse that they can control what I put into my body.
2) Certainly. However, you're lying to yourself when you said illicit drug use has no affects on those who are not users. All evidence supports this contrary fact. You do not live in a bubble.

3) There are much bigger problems on the government's budget than trying to stop people from ingesting things
3) Or injecting, inhaling, etc. See #2

4) Most of the drugs have unique medicinal properties that could be used if legalized (Which we already do with opium)
4) If it has a strong medicinal purpose, then odds are, it's legal but restricted. Most illicit drugs, however, do not fit this criteria.

I also understand these things that are possibilities to support prohibition:
1) Drugs are, for the most part, not healthy.
2) Many drugs have addictive properties

I just want some input from the opposition
Ah - well since you understand these two issues, I fail to see why you still insist they be legalized.


There is a compelling argument to legalize marijuana which appeals in a logical and reasonable manor. There is no related argument that would encourage the legalization of bath salts, methamphetamines, crank, and all other harsh, illicit drugs in a reasonable and logical manor. The only thing people present are based on one things: the want for the government to be less involved in their life choices even when those choices affect the welfare and safety of others.

And the list of things that the government regulates because they affect the welfare and safety of others is mighty long - and it's foolhardy to claim it's unacceptable. There are numerous nations in which they truly don't care and you're welcome to find one and try out such a 'freeing' lifestyle. Perhaps living in a hovel and drinking dirty water appeals to you.
 
Last edited:

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
1) It is? How so - provide documented proof, other than the cost. (You cannot - no one can - because this is pure opinion not based on facts)
Should I go buy drugs right now to prove why inhibition is failing? I am within minutes from illegal substances at any given time in my day. That isn't opinion
2) Certainly. However, you're lying to yourself when you said illicit drug use has no affects on those who are not users. All evidence supports this contrary fact. You do not live in a bubble.
I didn't ever say drugs don't affect us. Positive or negative. Meth mouth is not a myth. But it happens anyway (more proof drugs being illegal solves nothing)
3) Or injecting, inhaling, etc. See #2
4) If it has a strong medicinal purpose, then odds are, it's legal but restricted. Most illicit drugs, however, do not fit this criteria.
Cocaine. Name one medicine cocaine is used in.
Ah - well since you understand these two issues, I fail to see why you still insist they be legalized.


There is a compelling argument to legalize marijuana which appeals in a logical and reasonable manor. There is no related argument that would encourage the legalization of bath salts, methamphetamines, crank, and all other harsh, illicit drugs in a reasonable and logical manor. The only thing people present are based on one things: the want for the government to be less involved in their life choices even when those choices affect the welfare and safety of others.

And the list of things that the government regulates because they affect the welfare and safety of others is mighty long - and it's foolhardy to claim it's unacceptable. There are numerous nations in which they truly don't care and you're welcome to find one and try out such a 'freeing' lifestyle. Perhaps living in a hovel and drinking dirty water appeals to you.
I really wanna see all the studies that you must know about showing that not one of those drugs has any sort of usable medicinal property. Furthermore, drug use is definitely not a sign of poverty and that is a ridiculous claim. I really wanna see a poor person buy cocaine. That will never happen. Furthermore, drug users would not lose their jobs because of drug use if it were legal.

And yes, I want the government less involved in my life. I do not believe it is their place.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The way things go now: is that when something has a medicinal purpose (a benefit) and a negative (side effects, adverse effects) - they weigh it out. If a drug's risks tend to outweigh the benefits, they will make it illegal.

If you just don't want the government in your life, you won't care no matter what - and there's no reason in discussing it with someone whose close minded and holed up in an anti-government box.
 

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The way things go now: is that when something has a medicinal purpose (a benefit) and a negative (side effects, adverse effects) - they weigh it out. If a drug's risks tend to outweigh the benefits, they will make it illegal.

If you just don't want the government in your life, you won't care no matter what - and there's no reason in discussing it with someone whose close minded and holed up in an anti-government box.
I am very open-minded and listen to both sides of the issue. Furthermore, I am definitely not anti-government.

You came into this discussion in a combative manner. If you don't want to be civilized (you know and refrain from pointing attention to third world countries which is very immature) then why even join?

As for the medicines, how many people OD on painkillers yearly? How many people get addicted to them? Your argument has a hole right there.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I'll try.

We are signatory to multiple international treaties that forbid legalization. We are the ones who shoved these treaties down the throats of every other nation. Thus, a bit awkward for us to suddenly legalize.
We change our policy? We are allowed to govern ourselves, or change our minds on ineffective and stupid laws. Just because we did something stupid does not mean we should follow it because it is hard to admit to being stupid. Certain of those policies would still be in effect like it would remain illegal to trade in drugs to a country where drugs remained illegal. Most of those policies were created for the purpose of weakening criminal cartels, which does very little good because they do not give a damn about international law. Still, the effect would be the same for legalizing as we would put the profits into the hands of legal commerce which would remove the funding for organizations which operate outside of the law.
What would happen to all the prisoners we have now if we legalized. Let them go? Keep them anyway?
As for the people who are incarcerated we could either decide to keep them because they did violate a law at the time which still shows a disrespect for societal rules. We could also release them and overturn their convictions if we chose to. We would still need prisons as there are other laws, and I would assume we would have a purpose to imprison people who act irresponsibly on drugs. We could save ourselves the tax money of keeping the prisons open. We can offset an immediate costs of alteration of our present system with the tax revenue from the sales of drugs.

What would happen to all those prisons we built?
We could do the same thing we did with all the extra booby hatches when we went to outpatient programs instead. We could swap them out to section 8 housing and convert them. We could use them to help the poor and homeless get back on their feet or get off the street. We could demolish them and do something else with the land.
What would happen to all the guards, administrators, suppliers and contractors for those prisons?
Some would remain as we would still need to incarcerate criminals. Others would have to find new lines of work. We would have tax revenue for the change, and we would also have a brand new and well used legitimate industry to employ people. We would have a ton of new businesses opening in many towns. We would have distribution and manufactureing jobs opening. those areas would need administration. We would also have an increase in the need for a regulating force to ensure that sales laws are followed like we have now with alcohol and tobacco. We would also be able to address rehabilitation for people with addiction problems and have to employ people in those areas. where some jobs would fall away, other jobs would form. Plus, do you know how much money we piss away on prison administration and programs? Some of those people are useless overpaid morons anyway.
Everything you eat is approved by the FDA. So obviously it must be the governments place to tell you what you can put in your body.
It is not approved as much as it is inspected for quality in many cases. This would be an area we would need more jobs in as QC would become an issue.
If you legalized opiates, what would happen to the business of all those Pain Management Clinics?
Prescription pain killers that are covered by insurance or prescription plans would still be around. Yes, you could get them legally and pay out of pocket for them, but there would be a purpose for evaluating medical necessity and mitigating problems like addiction for people who take powerful pain killers for medicinal purposes.
OK, I hope this helped you on your path of exploration.

BTW, I bet you can't name a drug that I can't locate on Craig's List within 24 hours.....
Slo-mo? Is it cheating to name a drug from a futuristic fantasy movie?
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,377
Reaction score
2,738
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1) Prohibition clearly is a failed policy, was a failed policy, and always will be a failed policy. We are an individualistic country and prohibition laws of any kind will always fail to work.
Is that a failure of prohibition in principal or the manner in which it has been implemented? Also, would you consider the situation with the drugs we've not prohibited (notably alcohol and tobacco) a roaring success?

2) It is not the government's place to tell me how my life ought to be lived. It's bad enough that state governments can tell us who we can't marry; it's even worse that they can control what I put into my body.
It is where your actions could have direct or indirect impact on other people or wider society. The idea that government has no right (or indeed responsibility) to regulate is ridiculous. The question is where the lines are drawn.

3) There are much bigger problems on the government's budget than trying to stop people from ingesting things
This is a fallacy. It implies that the entirety of government should focus exclusively on a the single "biggest" issue and ignore everything else. It is perfectly legitimate for government to spend some effort on comparatively smaller issues.

4) Most of the drugs have unique medicinal properties that could be used if legalized (Which we already do with opium)
The opium example disproves your point though. It is indeed used medically yet is still illegal for recreational use. Frankly I find the use of arguments for medical benefits being used to support recreational use grossly dishonest. That's like using the benefits of guide dogs to support dog fighting.

I just want some input from the opposition
I'm not opposition in as much as I don't have a strong feeling against legalisation of at least the softer drugs (cannabis being the obvious example). I don't think legalisation would make things any different though - it would remove one set of problems but replace them with a whole new set.

I could see some form of decriminalisation as a viable improvement but I'm not convinced the proponents of drug use honestly see that as anything other than a step towards full legalisation. There is a fundamental conflict in that the former seeks to reduce drug use while the latter inevitably seeks to increase it.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The way things go now: is that when something has a medicinal purpose (a benefit) and a negative (side effects, adverse effects) - they weigh it out. If a drug's risks tend to outweigh the benefits, they will make it illegal.

If you just don't want the government in your life, you won't care no matter what - and there's no reason in discussing it with someone whose close minded and holed up in an anti-government box.
Before the prohibition of drugs, we did not have kids selling the stuff on street corners, and now I guess Craig's List too. Before prohibition we did not have drive-by shootings. We did not have branches of the government in the drug business, and trading drugs for weapons and such, as is the case in this country today.

There are SO MANY things, bad things, that have been caused by the prohibition that organizations such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition have come into existence.

Many innocent people, innocent dogs, and a host of others are killed because of this prohibition, even though those dead were not drug users.

And you sit here with a straight face and claim the prohibition works? Do you expect to be taken seriously? :lamo
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I'm actually impressed by these ardent defenses and offer up my congratulations before I destroy your theories.

TheLastIndependent;1062118154]I know the prison system is a cash cow and it kinda saddens me.
•••Cash is King.

They CAN stop the production of sausage, but they don't. And to take it a little further, if someone really wants sausage they will still make, sell, and eat it illegally.
•••I have a vision of a sausage dealer opening his trench coat and showing me a selection of illegal sausages.

There is no reasonable want to take heroin instead of a painkiller. Painkillers are much more effective and would be least expensive in the long run.
•••Spoken as if you never took heroin and never filled a scrip for Oxy at retail. Heroin is much less expensive and once legalized, would probably be even less expensive. The buzz is actually quite similar.

To answer the prescription question, not directly. There should be regulated sale of recreational drugs like tobacco and alcohol. However, like alcohol, there are some medicinal properties that drugs have. I could't tell you exactly what they are, but I know Sigmund Freud did extensive studies on cocaine and found several. Like alcohol, they can be used in different medicines and sold for recreation.
•••Your dentist uses Novocain which is, yup, a form of cocaine. Almost any drug has a medical benefit.

We change our policy? We are allowed to govern ourselves, or change our minds on ineffective and stupid laws. Just because we did something stupid does not mean we should follow it because it is hard to admit to being stupid. Certain of those policies would still be in effect like it would remain illegal to trade in drugs to a country where drugs remained illegal. Most of those policies were created for the purpose of weakening criminal cartels, which does very little good because they do not give a damn about international law. Still, the effect would be the same for legalizing as we would put the profits into the hands of legal commerce which would remove the funding for organizations which operate outside of the law.
•••While the US has a tendency to overlook treaties when convenient, they really aren't that easy to dismiss. Sure, we tortured prisoners which flies in the face of the Geneva Convention but you see how much flak we took for that? You're advocating that we defy the very treaties that we initiated. Sounds simple, but really it isn't.

As for the people who are incarcerated we could either decide to keep them because they did violate a law at the time which still shows a disrespect for societal rules. We could also release them and overturn their convictions if we chose to. We would still need prisons as there are other laws, and I would assume we would have a purpose to imprison people who act irresponsibly on drugs. We could save ourselves the tax money of keeping the prisons open. We can offset an immediate costs of alteration of our present system with the tax revenue from the sales of drugs.
•••So, which one are you advocating? Keep the prisoners or lt them go? Clear their records or leave them felons?

We could do the same thing we did with all the extra booby hatches when we went to outpatient programs instead. We could swap them out to section 8 housing and convert them. We could use them to help the poor and homeless get back on their feet or get off the street. We could demolish them and do something else with the land.
•••I don't think prisons are well set up for Section 8 housing. That will be a major remodel. But sure, we could tear them down.

Some would remain as we would still need to incarcerate criminals. Others would have to find new lines of work. We would have tax revenue for the change, and we would also have a brand new and well used legitimate industry to employ people. We would have a ton of new businesses opening in many towns. We would have distribution and manufactureing jobs opening. those areas would need administration. We would also have an increase in the need for a regulating force to ensure that sales laws are followed like we have now with alcohol and tobacco. We would also be able to address rehabilitation for people with addiction problems and have to employ people in those areas. where some jobs would fall away, other jobs would form. Plus, do you know how much money we piss away on prison administration and programs? Some of those people are useless overpaid morons anyway.
••What are all these new businesses opening up? The new drugstores? Of course, once we sort out how these drugs are sold, prescription or non, anything is possible. If prescription, then we already have Walgreens. If non-prescription, I assume head shops will add this to their line along with bongs and scales.

It is not approved as much as it is inspected for quality in many cases. This would be an area we would need more jobs in as QC would become an issue.
•••Good point.

Prescription pain killers that are covered by insurance or prescription plans would still be around. Yes, you could get them legally and pay out of pocket for them, but there would be a purpose for evaluating medical necessity and mitigating problems like addiction for people who take powerful pain killers for medicinal purposes.
•••Let me make sure I understand. If you get a prescription, you get insurance to pay part of the price. If you don't want to get a prescription, you pay retail price. Is thart correct?

Slo-mo? Is it cheating to name a drug from a futuristic fantasy movie?
•••Uh, I'm not sure where this came from. Did I mention a drug called slo-mo?














I know the prison system is a cash cow and it kinda saddens me.

They CAN stop the production of sausage, but they don't. And to take it a little further, if someone really wants sausage they will still make, sell, and eat it illegally.

There is no reasonable want to take heroin instead of a painkiller. Painkillers are much more effective and would be least expensive in the long run.

To answer the prescription question, not directly. There should be regulated sale of recreational drugs like tobacco and alcohol. However, like alcohol, there are some medicinal properties that drugs have. I could't tell you exactly what they are, but I know Sigmund Freud did extensive studies on cocaine and found several. Like alcohol, they can be used in different medicines and sold for recreation.
We change our policy? We are allowed to govern ourselves, or change our minds on ineffective and stupid laws. Just because we did something stupid does not mean we should follow it because it is hard to admit to being stupid. Certain of those policies would still be in effect like it would remain illegal to trade in drugs to a country where drugs remained illegal. Most of those policies were created for the purpose of weakening criminal cartels, which does very little good because they do not give a damn about international law. Still, the effect would be the same for legalizing as we would put the profits into the hands of legal commerce which would remove the funding for organizations which operate outside of the law.


As for the people who are incarcerated we could either decide to keep them because they did violate a law at the time which still shows a disrespect for societal rules. We could also release them and overturn their convictions if we chose to. We would still need prisons as there are other laws, and I would assume we would have a purpose to imprison people who act irresponsibly on drugs. We could save ourselves the tax money of keeping the prisons open. We can offset an immediate costs of alteration of our present system with the tax revenue from the sales of drugs.



We could do the same thing we did with all the extra booby hatches when we went to outpatient programs instead. We could swap them out to section 8 housing and convert them. We could use them to help the poor and homeless get back on their feet or get off the street. We could demolish them and do something else with the land.


Some would remain as we would still need to incarcerate criminals. Others would have to find new lines of work. We would have tax revenue for the change, and we would also have a brand new and well used legitimate industry to employ people. We would have a ton of new businesses opening in many towns. We would have distribution and manufactureing jobs opening. those areas would need administration. We would also have an increase in the need for a regulating force to ensure that sales laws are followed like we have now with alcohol and tobacco. We would also be able to address rehabilitation for people with addiction problems and have to employ people in those areas. where some jobs would fall away, other jobs would form. Plus, do you know how much money we piss away on prison administration and programs? Some of those people are useless overpaid morons anyway.


It is not approved as much as it is inspected for quality in many cases. This would be an area we would need more jobs in as QC would become an issue.


Prescription pain killers that are covered by insurance or prescription plans would still be around. Yes, you could get them legally and pay out of pocket for them, but there would be a purpose for evaluating medical necessity and mitigating problems like addiction for people who take powerful pain killers for medicinal purposes.


Slo-mo? Is it cheating to name a drug from a futuristic fantasy movie?
 

polisciguy

Active member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
396
Reaction score
133
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In theory, legalization of all drugs = natural selection speeding up. Which makes me smile. Rather largely. :lol:
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Before the prohibition of drugs, we did not have kids selling the stuff on street corners, and now I guess Craig's List too. Before prohibition we did not have drive-by shootings. We did not have branches of the government in the drug business, and trading drugs for weapons and such, as is the case in this country today.

There are SO MANY things, bad things, that have been caused by the prohibition that organizations such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition have come into existence.

Many innocent people, innocent dogs, and a host of others are killed because of this prohibition, even though those dead were not drug users.

And you sit here with a straight face and claim the prohibition works? Do you expect to be taken seriously? :lamo
Trying to ignore the dangers of them being readily available, are we? Ho hum. it hardly makes sense for you to try to claim that prohibition of them is dangerous when permitting them is dangerous as well.

There are far more dangers than there are positives - and again, we repeat.
 
Last edited:

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
•••Spoken as if you never took heroin and never filled a scrip for Oxy at retail. Heroin is much less expensive and once legalized, would probably be even less expensive. The buzz is actually quite similar.
Actually many drugs are cheap to make. The thing that keeps drug costs high for things like oxy is development protections for pharmaceuticals to recoup their research costs. Morphine is quite the inexpensive prescription, though even it's costs get inflated by the security surrounding it. There are still going to be those people who will defer to a doctor's prescription when they need pain killers for medical reasons. Why don't they go out and take heroin? because their doctor is going to prescribe something safer. Even on a recreational stance heroin can be annoying to take. It is a hell of a lot easier to pop a couple morphine than snorting or injecting. Plus most people are not going to jump the heroin train because it is legal. OTOH pot will become a rather easy to get alternative for certain pains. Yes, it is not going to give you the effect of the above mentioned, but it is non addictive, cheap, and far more healthy.
•••Your dentist uses Novocain which is, yup, a form of cocaine. Almost any drug has a medical benefit.
Novocain is not quite the same as cocaine. Though cocain can be applied for a numbing effect in a concentrated area, it's recreational uses are far different. frankly gummers are just a waste if you ask me.
•••While the US has a tendency to overlook treaties when convenient, they really aren't that easy to dismiss. Sure, we tortured prisoners which flies in the face of the Geneva Convention but you see how much flak we took for that? You're advocating that we defy the very treaties that we initiated. Sounds simple, but really it isn't.
Yeah, we should just keep on going the hard destructive way because change is hard. Sorry, but i just do not buy that excuse for things that would improve our country and perhaps the world.
•••So, which one are you advocating? Keep the prisoners or lt them go? Clear their records or leave them felons?
it depends on the crime. if they are in jail for possession i would say let them out. If they were in jail for other reasons on top of possession like violent actions, the damage of property, accidents, or things like contributing to criminal cartels through sales i would say leave them in.
•••I don't think prisons are well set up for Section 8 housing. That will be a major remodel. But sure, we could tear them down.
It depends on the facility. Low security prisons could easily be changed into places to give a homeless person a physical location to start recovering their life. The fact it would be uncomfortable and crowded would lead them to get out and find a better place once they have gotten a job and can afford it. I used section 8 as more of an example as it would certainly be a step down from that, but still something that could offer stability and facilities to a person trying to get off the streets.
••What are all these new businesses opening up? The new drugstores? Of course, once we sort out how these drugs are sold, prescription or non, anything is possible. If prescription, then we already have Walgreens. If non-prescription, I assume head shops will add this to their line along with bongs and scales.
First off, legalizing things like pot and putting them into the same places as tobacco would allow for sales in established fronts like pharmacies, walmart type chains, and gas stations would allow for an increase in profit and sales for them. When we look at things like alcohol and tobacco sales we see that there are also specialized stores for those products which would also be in demand despite massive sales in the places i mentioned above. Our present selection of head shops would certainly need to be expanded, and new types of specialty stores like tobacco stores and liquor stores would also find a market ins sales of pot. heavier drugs are a different question, but even just putting them into pharmacies would drive up employment, manufacture, distribution, and tax revenue.
•••Let me make sure I understand. If you get a prescription, you get insurance to pay part of the price. If you don't want to get a prescription, you pay retail price. Is thart correct?
That would be the way i would do it. If it is a necessary part of medicine it should be covered by whatever insurance or prescription plans you may happen to have. If you do not have them then they will not cover it. If you are doing it for the fun of it that is on you to pay for it. This way we also keep the medical community in the loop for finding medications or processes that would avoid the detrimental effects of abuse and addiction for people who only want to take drugs when there is a true medical need. Not everyone wants to get high, and I know many people who try to keep the meds they take at a minimum. If someone is worried about addictions to things like powerful pain killers the doctors and pain medication specialists can help monitor them for those times when you may happen to need it.
•••Uh, I'm not sure where this came from. Did I mention a drug called slo-mo?
you asked for a drug that you could not find on craigs list and i had just watched Dredd a day or two ago so the imaginary drug from the movie popped into my head.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Thank you for this conversation which exemplifies "civil discourse". I wish everyone could learn how to argue their case without anger or insult.

Lets address the single most important thing about this entire discussion. There is absolutely no interest in Washington DC to legalize recreational drugs. Three wealthy and powerful groups have insured their positions by donating millions of dollars to our leaders. Our politicians are bought and paid for and anyone who thinks otherwise is admirable naive.

The alcohol industry - will do whatever it takes to keep their destructive product legal and dampen its competition.

The prison industry - will do whatever it takes to continue expanding their business. Think of the judges who have been caught sentencing innocents just to fill the rooms.

The DEA industry - will do whatever it takes to remain relevant. How do you think these cartels operate with near impunity? Bundles of cash, bundles of cas.

The Medical industry - right now, MDs are the drug dealers. Have you ever gone to a Pain Management clinic? Watched the anxious customers waiting for the fix? This is BIG business.

Then there is the simple fact that anyone who doesn't use/take drugs, tends to view drug use as not just illegal, but immoral. So, politically speaking, it is suicidal to advocate legalization.

Now, add to that the laws and treaties. Sure, we (the intelligentsia of DP) feel that these laws should be changed and these treaties abrogated. But this is much easier said than done. We are a member of the UN, no matter how little regard we may hold for it. We threatened other countries into these agreements and there is no legal, practical way of exiting these agreements. Again, we think we could just sy "go **** yourself" to any other country but really, it doesn't work that way. When we went into the torture business, we did so illegally and we caused ourselves much embarrassment. And this was small scale - we tortured only a few hundred people and we did it "behind closed doors". Legalizing drugs is far more visible and I doubt we are prepared to defy the world.

Now, its time for drug chat:)

Heroin is as good as Oxycontin. It does the same thing and affects the MU receptors in the same way. Both make you "high" in the sense that they make your aches and pains disappear which gives you euphoria.

Cocaine is a member of the Caine family and thus is just a variant of cocaine. Personally, I thik cocaine is a silly drug but it certainly has its aficionados.

The arguments against marijuana are much weaker. Even this euphoric (as opposed to narcotic or stimulant) will never be legalized at the Federal level.

So, you see, this is a lost cause. I just cooked some Slo-Mo and I'm about to fix. Ooooh, ah, that feels really, realllly gooooooooooooooood.





Actually many drugs are cheap to make. The thing that keeps drug costs high for things like oxy is development protections for pharmaceuticals to recoup their research costs. Morphine is quite the inexpensive prescription, though even it's costs get inflated by the security surrounding it. There are still going to be those people who will defer to a doctor's prescription when they need pain killers for medical reasons. Why don't they go out and take heroin? because their doctor is going to prescribe something safer. Even on a recreational stance heroin can be annoying to take. It is a hell of a lot easier to pop a couple morphine than snorting or injecting. Plus most people are not going to jump the heroin train because it is legal. OTOH pot will become a rather easy to get alternative for certain pains. Yes, it is not going to give you the effect of the above mentioned, but it is non addictive, cheap, and far more healthy.


Novocain is not quite the same as cocaine. Though cocain can be applied for a numbing effect in a concentrated area, it's recreational uses are far different. frankly gummers are just a waste if you ask me.


Yeah, we should just keep on going the hard destructive way because change is hard. Sorry, but i just do not buy that excuse for things that would improve our country and perhaps the world.


it depends on the crime. if they are in jail for possession i would say let them out. If they were in jail for other reasons on top of possession like violent actions, the damage of property, accidents, or things like contributing to criminal cartels through sales i would say leave them in.


It depends on the facility. Low security prisons could easily be changed into places to give a homeless person a physical location to start recovering their life. The fact it would be uncomfortable and crowded would lead them to get out and find a better place once they have gotten a job and can afford it. I used section 8 as more of an example as it would certainly be a step down from that, but still something that could offer stability and facilities to a person trying to get off the streets.


First off, legalizing things like pot and putting them into the same places as tobacco would allow for sales in established fronts like pharmacies, walmart type chains, and gas stations would allow for an increase in profit and sales for them. When we look at things like alcohol and tobacco sales we see that there are also specialized stores for those products which would also be in demand despite massive sales in the places i mentioned above. Our present selection of head shops would certainly need to be expanded, and new types of specialty stores like tobacco stores and liquor stores would also find a market ins sales of pot. heavier drugs are a different question, but even just putting them into pharmacies would drive up employment, manufacture, distribution, and tax revenue.


That would be the way i would do it. If it is a necessary part of medicine it should be covered by whatever insurance or prescription plans you may happen to have. If you do not have them then they will not cover it. If you are doing it for the fun of it that is on you to pay for it. This way we also keep the medical community in the loop for finding medications or processes that would avoid the detrimental effects of abuse and addiction for people who only want to take drugs when there is a true medical need. Not everyone wants to get high, and I know many people who try to keep the meds they take at a minimum. If someone is worried about addictions to things like powerful pain killers the doctors and pain medication specialists can help monitor them for those times when you may happen to need it.


you asked for a drug that you could not find on craigs list and i had just watched Dredd a day or two ago so the imaginary drug from the movie popped into my head.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In theory, legalization of all drugs = natural selection speeding up. Which makes me smile. Rather largely. :lol:
In that regard, isn't it interesting that we had legalized drugs in this country from its inception until some point after 1914 when the Harrison Narcotic Act was passed.

Natural selection working big time, eh? ;)
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Trying to ignore the dangers of them being readily available, are we? Ho hum. it hardly makes sense for you to try to claim that prohibition of them is dangerous when permitting them is dangerous as well.

There are far more dangers than there are positives - and again, we repeat.
No, I am trying NOT to ignore the harms of prohibition. I'm trying NOT to sweep the long list of social pathologies caused by prohibition under the proverbial rug.

In that regard, I'm following the lead of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and the ACLU which notes the constitutional questions regarding the drug prohibition.

YOU may ignore the harms caused by prohibition, and YOU may kid yourself into thinking that the drugs are more dangerous than the prohibition, but that's YOU. :peace
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,465
Reaction score
20,322
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Trying to ignore the dangers of them being readily available, are we? Ho hum. it hardly makes sense for you to try to claim that prohibition of them is dangerous when permitting them is dangerous as well.

There are far more dangers than there are positives - and again, we repeat.
Please name the dangers that are not currently present under prohibition, but would suddenly appear without it?

After you do that, please explain why you would add to those dangers by keeping prohibition which only leads to further destruction of the lives of people who use drugs?
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Trying to ignore the dangers of them being readily available, are we? Ho hum. it hardly makes sense for you to try to claim that prohibition of them is dangerous when permitting them is dangerous as well.

There are far more dangers than there are positives - and again, we repeat.
They are readily available now, only since they are illegal the cartels are well funded. Congratulations.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I disagree. We've never actually tried prohibition. We don't go anywhere near far enough in punishing drug users and their suppliers. We do not hold dry users (including drunks) responsible for their actions while under the influence. We need to hold people to a higher mor standard if we ever want this nation to become great again.
 
Top Bottom