Forums → WEPR → Drugs: Why not legalize?

meth is part of amphetamine family. And that is classified as a hard drug I believe.

plus perscription drugs are already legal.

the title should be changed to "Soft drugs: why not legalize" as drugs is such a broad topic

P drug

Yeah P and marijuana are not the same thing so maybe we can stop arguing about different things?

I can't seem to find the chemical makeup of drug P.
If someone can find me it I would appreciate it.

Drugs are not killing people, they are actually keeping most alive.

I am all for legalisation. When the prohibition argument comes up with something more than ''damn hippies'' and ''drugz mes u up yeh?'', I'll take note. All of the evidence accumulated since the beginning of prohibition (1909) points to the fact that legalisation is clearly, the least bad option.

Plus that means the government can tax it and increase revenue.

Plus that means the government can tax it and increase revenue.

Going to chime in on a few things.

I'm for the legalization of 'drugs'. Here's why:

Crime:
------
By making something illegal, you make people who deal in it, use the product, make the product, all criminals. You get smugglers, dealers, and organized crime typically are the ones that control it. I know that a significant amount of illegal drugs being trafficked in the lower mainland in British Columbia are done so by the Hell's Angels. If it's not illegal anymore, the people who use & make the product don't have to worry about it anymore, and the unsavory societal element (organized crime) will have to find something else do to; which means there won't be any gang wars, violence & the like over that particular product. Take a look back at prohibition for alcohol. Who sold it? Well, most famously - Al Capone. You will note that these days, with alcohol being a legal substance, it is sold in liquor stores, and no one gets murdered over its production, sale, or distribution.

Wasted revenue:
------
There's a whole lot of money that goes into the war on drugs. On top of that, once the offenders have been caught & thrown in jail, that's more money the government has to pay to put them up with food, housing, and activities.

Personal Freedom:
------
So, why is it that you can help yourself to a slew of legal substances like alcohol & caffeine, but the government says that you can't have these other substances like marijuana, speed, coke and the rest? It's your body, your responsibility, your choice. I also want to ask an important question here (and I'll answer it myself): If tomorrow all of these drugs were legalized, would you be out there having a go with them? I wouldn't. I don't have any interest in these substances. I don't drink much alcohol at all; my palette is very sensitive to the taste of it & I find it disgusting, and caffeine makes me all hyper. I could easily get my hands on some illegal drugs, but.. it's just not something that floats my boat. I get the feeling that people that are interested are going to do them whether it's legal or not, and people that are not interested are not going to do them whether it's legal or not. Tobacco & cigarettes are legal - and there's hardcore scientific data to show that they kill people are cause cancer. They haven't been pulled from the market - so it's not a good argument to say that long term use of any currently illegal drugs may be harmful.

Product control:
------
Well, it's the big thing in the media these days - increased revenue. Tax money from the product, given to the government is a nice chunk of change. While true, it's not one of the big points in my opinion. My last point is more about the lethality of certain products. The reason why people OD on drugs or have bad reactions to them is because there are no medical personnel involved. Everyone has a different weight, body chemistry, some people have allergic reactions to certain substances, and most of all - a lot of dealers cut nasty crap into their product. If the products are legal, they can be controlled in how people are ingesting or taking them to minimize any danger to the recipient, and they can also be screened for quality to ensure that there are no extra harmful chemicals being thrown into the mix.

Well, those are my thoughts.

I agree on all 4 counts. I made a thread about this a while ago, so I'll just throw some facts in to show the folly of prohibition.

Crime:

Wasted revenue:

Personal Freedom:

Product control:

People would get addicted to them and waste all of their money on it. they would od and die

the age old question

there used to be no laws against any drus, back in the day before globalisation began.. and there are many arguments as to why they were banned ultimately.. but i'm sure many have been covered in this debate already, so i'll just add what i'm thinking right now..

many strong drugs, and weak drugs taken with frequency, are both highly addictive and harmful to the body, mind, and (if you want) soul. for many people these days, taking drugs is not a hobby, it is a lifestyle, it is all consuming, all you could think about is when your next fix is, how you will pay for your next load, what to try next, cheaper better options, the list is endless but drug related.. it can be argued that these people would always exist, no matter whether drugs were legal or not, currently they are an underworld group of people, but if drugs were legal there would still be many people doing this, living for the drug.

it can conversely be argued that this type of lifestyle only exists thanks to these people being driven underground by need for drugs, leading to violent and illegal tendancies, as once you begin, what harm is there in breaking another law, eh? there's no legal way of getting them after all! it can be argued, that if drugs were legal, this would not happen, people would be more open about drugs, and would have freinds and colleagues to help restrict their use, or just guide them to the nearest legal market, no violence needed.. etc.. the argument is long...

but this population of heavy users in a drug-legal world would, i believe, be higher than it is now. it is largely extreme circumstances which lead to this kind of lifestyle. of course i know many drug users, they are just all around, but no dependants that i am aware of, me going to a fairly nice school in a quiet little town. But if drugs were legalised, people would obviously feel more at ease with experimenting with the harder drugs, and then getting hooked... and then their lives may too, revolve around drugs...

ultimately it's just a deterrant, and despite the underworld that spawns from it, i believe that there is less harm being done, obviously it hurts me to think about that proportion that still exists... but nothing is perfect, regrettably, though i'm all for striving towards perfection, don't give up the fight :P

good points, boydorn.

I'm not sure about this, so feel free to call me out on it, but is there a fine for possession of drugs?

Tobacco is the most addicting drug in the world, yet smoking remains legal.

America was essentially founded on tobacco,

My problem with legalizing drugs: Drugs would become cheap and government regulated. I personally believe that the sale (and, by extension, the use) of drugs should be illegal simply because it only allows poor criminals who need money to make money. I would much rather let drug-dealers from the street sell heroin than give the government and CEOs another way to become ludicrously rich.

The way such an equilibrium can be formed is by not enforcing drug laws as much, if at all. This way, drug-dealers keep a job, the police can take bribes to allow the sale of illegal drugs and we taxpayers don't have to fund the 'War on Drugs'. Everyone wins except you and me.