ForumsWEPRDrugs: Why not legalize?

948 175968
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,675 posts
Jester

The topic says it all.

Why do governments feel the need to make drugs illegal? If anything, it causes a lot more problems than there were before. If they were legalized, there would not be nearly as many violent actions over getting them since the prices would not be nearly as high. There would not been as many people over doing it with drugs, since it would eventually just become a normal thing in day-to-day life.

  • 948 Replies
WeeMan147
offline
WeeMan147
199 posts
Nomad

Well thanks for the support, Crimsonblade55.

crimsonblade55
offline
crimsonblade55
5,420 posts
Shepherd

your welcome WeeMan.

necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Peasant

Have you an idea of the influence that these gangs can have? Back in the prime, the Italian Mafia had complete control over whole cities, businesses, and even the police force.

Yes, I know how powerful they were/are. But what created Al Capone and the Italian Mafia in the United States? Alcohol Prohibition! What created the Crips and the Bloods? Drug prohibition! If modern gangs have as much power as you say they do, why is drug abstinence still taught in schools?
The government doesn't run the major pharmaceutical companies, they do quality checks, but the market does a lot too. If everyone knew that Tylenol gives you cancer many people would stop buying it, the market also competes over what drugs are better, Viagra or Cialis? lol.

Besides, if they were legal, it would be the weakest drug out there. The drug dealers would still profit because they can sell the more potent product because they don't care if you live or die.


Thats an interesting idea, however, with free-market competition, 1) not that many people want to die and wouldn't purchase from the drug dealers, 2) people wouldn't want the trouble of breaking the law, 3) losing customers to death, certainly isn't very profitable when your market has bee restricted, 4) Cannabis isn't even that strong in comparison to other things.

The FDA can't just sit and examine drugs all day. Remember that money you saved from the cutting back of catching drug dealers? Well now you just invested 100% or more of that savings into the FDA to hire new people, make new plants, new buildings, and all the other things they need.


The FDA wouldn't need to do nearly as rigorous testing as you suggest, they only need to test a very small sample and as with food, only need to get tougher when there is a problem, which could be swiftly dealt with.

Every new president changes a few things from the previous president since most of the time we switch from Democrat to Republican every other election. But not everything gets changed. People have their own interests and change the things they say they will change when they run.


In recent history it seems as though every time a new president is elected they have been completely wiping the slate clean and putting forth programs that only follow their parties agenda, they also don't always do whats best for the people, they prefer to get corporate handouts. Also note, that in their own interest they often contradict themselves and do things that go against what they said they would do, like Bush Sr. raising taxes, when he said he would lower them.

You think the Libertarians wont change anything? You think they are made of out gold and are perfect? That is absolutely absurd and I think you need to reevaluate your train of thought.


No, Libertarians would change things, but not in the petty revenge game of the two larger parties. I don't think Libertarians are made of gold, they are just the lesser evil, their presidential candidate Bob Barr is, in my opinion, a scumbag who doesn't truly stand for the party's ideals.
necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Peasant

The problem is even if they found a reason to leagalize drugs millions of people would be against it, and no president wants to be looked down upon, by the people who actually vote for them


In general those people would be the ones who didn't vote for the president, also there is always dissent, if the president had a mandate, then it shouldn't really be a problem.

The thing is the government wants to control us as best they can without absolute power.


That is true and statist. However, it is wrong to control others, acts of coercion violate personal liberties which is clearly immoral.

It's just the way our country works.


Which is contrary to how our founding fathers designed it to work, allowing people the freedom they want.
SpartanWarrior3
offline
SpartanWarrior3
175 posts
Nomad

I think the reason they are not legal is cause some of the drugs can affect people in certain ways. Sometimes in bad ways. Plus, if people had such easy access to it, they would buy a lot and maybe over dose. The death rate would climb up the ladder like a rocket....

WeeMan147
offline
WeeMan147
199 posts
Nomad

So when Libertarians change things it's perfectly fine. But when a major party changes something it's a petty revenge game?

Look, we are getting off topic. I believe I have debunked most of your reasons for legalizing drugs. I know that you still believe in it, I didn't expect to change your mind. But, you have to see some sense in what I have been saying.

necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Peasant

So when Libertarians change things it's perfectly fine. But when a major party changes something it's a petty revenge game?

Well, we need to wait and see (that is if they are ever elected) to see how they go about change. Regardless, I'm actually opposed to the party system in and of itself and think candidates should be elected based off of their skills and positions, not based off of their party.

Anyways, you actually did avoid large portions of my arguments, like with my arguments graph of how prohibitions increase crime, and only responded with comparing to alcohol Prohibition doesn't work, so you avoided many reasons and only argued against some of my arguments. But obviously I have a bias towards myself. Yes, I see what you are saying, that is a huge part of being in debate, the ability to understand both sides of the argument. Anyways, even with differences in opinion at the end of the day we should all be friends.
KHROME
offline
KHROME
618 posts
Nomad

If drugs were legalized you'd see crackheads wondering everywhere asking for change.

crimsonblade55
offline
crimsonblade55
5,420 posts
Shepherd

you know this whole thread is become a pure back and forth areguement between WeeMan,and Necromancer, with a few people like me interrupting along the way.

WeeMan147
offline
WeeMan147
199 posts
Nomad

I agree, it would be nice to get rid of the two party system. But you have to understand the benefits of having the system. Research that a little bit and see if you can think of a way to redo it. I am sure there is a way, but I never really gave it all that much thought. I didn't ignore your graph, it was just that your argument didn't have a leg to stand on so it was disregarded. The rest of your reasons I responded to, maybe not a few minor ones, but for the most part I did. We can all be friends, and all be different.

MsterXantos
offline
MsterXantos
438 posts
Nomad

i think stoners shoudl be locked away no point in drugs they just kill your brain and waste you rmoney

shermzx
offline
shermzx
564 posts
Nomad

agreed. but some drugs are beneficial.

Ninjacube
offline
Ninjacube
584 posts
Nomad

The Drugs that are beneficial are legal to use and prescribe. The ones that aren't, id est marijuana, are illegal.

BASHA
offline
BASHA
660 posts
Nomad

but tobbaco is legal and that isn't bebefical

BASHA
offline
BASHA
660 posts
Nomad

oops beneficial not bebefical

Showing 196-210 of 948