The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs

[Felix_Nietsche]

I use be in a Toastmaster Public Speaking Club and one of our annual events was to have a formal debate. The topic was “Should Drugs Be Decriminalized?”. I acted as the moderator and assigned the teams randomly. I remember one mother in her 40’s said she wasn’t comfortable being assigned to the decriminalize side. I told her that often attorneys had to defend people they did not agree with and besides the purpose of this club was to improve our public speaking. She went way half satisfied. A few weeks went by and we had our debate. After the debate this same woman came up to me and said that she had changed her position. I was shocked. Usually people’s beliefs are set in steel by the time they are 35… Why did she change her mind? Because there are a lot of advantages to decriminalizing certain drugs and these advantages out number the disadvantages.

Advantages to Decriminalizing Drugs
1. Less theft.
Have you ever been a victim of a theft or know someone who has? Consider this. A person who has a $200 a day cocaine habit can’t work at a Burger King and support their habit. The usual tactic is to turn to crime to finance their habits. They break into houses, cars, and businesses. The robbery victims are sometimes murdered. When drugs are decriminalized, the price goes down. The $200 a day cocaine habit now becomes a $20 a day cocaine habit. Now, the addict can work at Burger King and not go around hurting people.

2. Less murders.
Today’s drug business occurs in the black market. In a black market you can’t go to the police, you can’t sue, and you can’t complain to the Better Business Bureau. Their only choice is “black market justice” which usually involves guns and killing people. If drugs are decriminalized, then drug related murders virtual disappear. Ask yourself this, does the president of Coors send hit man to kill the president of Budweiser? No? When alcohol prohibition was law, this was a common occurrence.

3. Police resources can be concentrated on more important activities (such as murders, robberies, and writing speeding tickets). Half of our crowed jails would be empty. Courts could now concentrate cases which have been been delayed for years.

4. Less Terrorism.
Drug profits finance terrorism in many countries. Since decriminalization results in lower prices, there will be less money for terrorist groups who use drug money to finance their activities.

5. Less Corruption
Lets face it. There are government officials on the drug payroll. Some are cops, some are judges, and some fall into other categories.

Disadvantages to Decriminalizing Drugs:
A. Cheaper drugs will result in more addicts.
Maybe. No one really knows. A few years ago I was in Amsterdam for their Queen’s day celebration. Thousands of people were in the streets. There was the smell of marijuana in the air. What I found amazing was almost all the marijuana smokers were the foreign tourists. All the Dutch I saw seemed to prefer Heineken. Ask yourself this, if the price of whiskey goes down 90%, will you go out and become an alcoholic? Whether more addicts will result or not, the difference is that addicts in a decriminalize America can get help rather than turning to crime, hurting people, and going to jail.

Sometimes people will say to me, "would you want airline pilots to fly planes high on pot?". My answer is, of course not. BUT....alcohol is legal, does this means our airline pilots are flying drunk? Ask yourself this. Do you REALLY believe there are thousands of airline pilots saying, "I'd ***NEVER*** fly drunk but BOY if they legalized weed I'll be smoking up that cockpit!".

Look no one says nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, etc are good for you. None of these substances will make someone happy. But the decision of decriminalization is a matter of adding up the advantages and subtracting the disadvantages. I say they are more advantages. I do have reservations about legalizing Crystal Meth. BUT...on the whole, it might be best to legalize this as well.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Look no one says nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, etc are good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do! Well, atleast for alcohol.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/09/15/629552.html

BTW, according to Curtis Ellison of the Boston School of epidemiology. Alcohol, not just beer and wine is good for you!


About legalization, I agree. Statistically, abuse of marijuana actually goes down in countries that have it legalized. About crack.... Well, if your dumb enough to do crack, then maybe you shouldn't be reproducing anyway. :-)

Ok, somebody flame me for the crack comment. I dare you.

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
all the marijuana smokers were the foreign tourists

[/ QUOTE ]
Good post, but I find this very hard to believe.

[ QUOTE ]
Look no one says nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, etc are good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither are Big Macs or milk shakes, but those are and will always be legal. Obesity is now considered a disease in the USA - tough problem to have, too much food. Yet some of the fat asses b*tch about their lack of self control and now insurance companies (read "all of us") have to deal with it and pay for their lack of self control.

Of course "soft" drugs should be legalized (crank, heroin…no). It's a shame that politics intrudes into these "health" issues. Read "The Emporer Wears No Clothes" for a pretty good (albeit slanted) history on the criminalization of marijuana.

Time to pack one up. /images/graemlins/grin.gif (yes, a Consevative who smot pokes)

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
What I found amazing was almost all the marijuana smokers were the foreign tourists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just got back from Amsterdam last Friday, and in the hashbars I went into (smart shops they call them /images/graemlins/smile.gif) most of the customers were tourists. I suspect that this had something to do with the fact that it was midday during the week when all the locals were at work. Also, it was a touristy part of town.

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself this, if the price of whiskey goes down 90%, will you go out and become an alcoholic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im all for decriminalization, but this argument doesnt make sense. The price of crack makes no difference to me, as I dont have a clue what it is. If one day it was in a 90% off bin, I wouldnt smoke anymore than I do today. If Glenmorangie was 90% off, however, I would likely consume considerably more than I do today.

Tuco.

[Bob Moss]

[ QUOTE ]
(yes, a Consevative who smot pokes)

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean pokes smot?

Bob

[wacki]

Why let the price drop? Why not tax it and use the money to pay off the debt, or health care. We save hundreds of billions from not being at war, and make hundreds of billions in taxes.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/drugwar/a/DW072503.htm

[1111]

And the same applies, in terms of earning tax money, to online gambling.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask yourself this, if the price of whiskey goes down 90%, will you go out and become an alcoholic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im all for decriminalization, but this argument doesnt make sense. The price of crack makes no difference to me, as I dont have a clue what it is. If one day it was in a 90% off bin, I wouldnt smoke anymore than I do today. If Glenmorangie was 90% off, however, I would likely consume considerably more than I do today.

*****It was more of a retorical question than an argument. Let me rephrase.
*If beer becomes 50% cheaper will you drink TWICE as much beer in a year?
*If beer becomes 90% cheaper, will you drink TEN times the amount in a year.
*If beer becomes 99% cheaper, will you drink 100 times the amount you normally do?

Now, have I made my point?

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, have I made my point?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but i'll try and make mine again for you as you seem to have missed it the first time.

I dont smoke crack, so how much it costs makes no difference to me. I do drink scotch, so the price does matter.

You cannot use an illicit drug that 99% of the population dont use (at any price), and compare it to something that a MUCH greater percentage do use. It's a little like saying if lighter fluid was 90% off, would you drink more of it?

Tuco.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a little like saying if lighter fluid was 90% off, would you drink more of it?


[/ QUOTE ]

I know I would! At least 5000% more!

[arabie]

good post and good points. A few more to add to your list:
-Governmentallly controlled drugs will benificially allow:
-control of all drug logistics
-limits to drug potencies
-clean, medically produced drugs (solves problems with tainted drugs)

-They can increase a nations tourism. (however, this can be a downfall for trade with surrounding countries who oppose these laws, i.e. Canada's decriminilization attemps and the U.S.'s involvement)

-The law would also spare the drug-users who serve retributional sentences for drug trafficing and possesion and focus more on rehabilitation (i.e. trafficers are helped by getting trained to serve in other fields, and user's are given the proper medical attention)

-Another important pro is that if drugs wered accepted in the mainstream, one could learn about the true dangers and benefits of drugs. I personally find people's knowledge of drugs to be more culturally based than scientifically, and is even more often comprised of merely rumors.
A suggestion would be to make a drug liscensing program. If one wants to scuba-dive they must educate themselves and understand the risks before entering a potentially dangerous situation. Similarily, one would need a drug liscense to willfully choose the drug based on an educated decision rather than choose by the result of peer pressure for example.

[ThaSaltCracka]

everything looks good except: A suggestion would be to make a drug liscensing program. If one wants to scuba-dive they must educate themselves and understand the risks before entering a potentially dangerous situation. Similarily, one would need a drug liscense to willfully choose the drug based on an educated decision rather than choose by the result of peer pressure for example.

This is plain silly. Should people need to do this before drinking or smoking?

[Non_Comformist]

If drugs were legalized (and i am on the fence, or perhaps I just don't care) it would be incredibly stupid to have the government invloved any more than they are in the distribution of beer.

#2 If they were legalized then I personsally would not be willing to spend 1 dime on rehabilitation, you made your choice now live with it.

[arabie]

rehab, i believe, can be self-financed by the industry. I mean, the government's going to take over a huge multibillion dollar industry and this is not even including tourism. I don't believe tax dollars will be necessary. Regardless, i do disagree with your point on not helping others, i believe people often can't take responsiblity for their actions because they know no better, despite your existentialist views which i do respect, however, refute.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
everything looks good except: A suggestion would be to make a drug liscensing program. If one wants to scuba-dive they must educate themselves and understand the risks before entering a potentially dangerous situation. Similarily, one would need a drug liscense to willfully choose the drug based on an educated decision rather than choose by the result of peer pressure for example.

This is plain silly. Should people need to do this before drinking or smoking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Arabie has a point. Alcohol and smoking kill you slowly, and the intoxication to kill ratio is rather high. Scuba diving and driving are both situations that you can get into trouble very quickly and if you aren't educated in the basics, the you might not be able to get out of trouble. I kindof agree with arabie, atleast with the hard drugs (the drugs that can get you into trouble quickly). I can see many benifits for have licenses for drug use. I can see abuse posibilities as well, it would be interesting to see how licenses would out.

But most people are so uneducated when it comes to drugs. I doubt anyone in this thread knows how ecstasy works, how many brain cells it kills with each use (The answer will suprise you!), or that psychiatrists actually used to prescribe it, etc.

[wacki]

How about this....

Fight terrorism! Legalize Drugs!

[PITTM]

because if they taxed it to the price it was at now people would go back to growing plants in their back yard and selling it for cheaper...

rj

[PITTM]

that was literally the single worst counter-argument ive ever seen in my life...comparing smoking crack to drinking lighter fluid in this discussion is just nonsensical.

rj

[Non_Comformist]

It's not that I don't believe in helping, that's one of the reasons I am hesitant to vote libertarian. However I guess I have a problem with legalizing a substance that if someone chooses to use that person should expect to become addicted (ie Cocaine, Meth, Crack) and then having that person turn to the government for help. I would say that either we believe that people are able to choose for themselves what they put in thier body, thereby accepting whatever ramifications comes from that, or we decide that certain substances are so dangerous that they should be illegal.

[arabie]

I believe its a worthwhile possibility. I think liscensing to legitimize use is much more valuable than using age. At least one can be academically justified, while the other has no real evidential basis. After 18, 19, 21 years (depending where you live), everyone together reaches a certain maturity that enables them to responsibily use these items? I think not. I think you will find much more accurate results in terms of responsibile use if you use backround checks and examinations to authorize liscensing.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt anyone in this thread knows how ecstasy works, how many brain cells it kills with each use (The answer will suprise you!), or that psychiatrists actually used to prescribe it, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give this a try....
Ectasy(MDMA) releases seratonin into the brain which causes a sustained sense of eupohria. How many brain cells? I don't know, but I would suspect as much as when you get drunk or stoned. If I am not mistaken ectasy also puts pin size holes in your brain if it is used for long periods of time. It has also been around a while, probably as long as LSD as well. Both were developed by the government as well.


Well how far off am I? This was all off the top of da brain.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think you and wacki have convinced me. If they ever do this though I better pass the damn pot test! /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt anyone in this thread knows how ecstasy works, how many brain cells it kills with each use (The answer will suprise you!), or that psychiatrists actually used to prescribe it, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give this a try....
Ectasy(MDMA) releases seratonin into the brain which causes a sustained sense of eupohria. How many brain cells? I don't know, but I would suspect as much as when you get drunk or stoned. If I am not mistaken ectasy also puts pin size holes in your brain if it is used for long periods of time. It has also been around a while, probably as long as LSD as well. Both were developed by the government as well.


Well how far off am I? This was all off the top of da brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not bad, better than most.

Here is a slideshow about ectasy:
http://www.dancesafe.org/slideshow/

It's very easy to follow and will teach you exactly how it works. Ecstasy, from what I've read, actually doesn't kill any brain cells at all. The problem that occurs is when your body runs out of serotonin because of overuse. The serotonin reuptake mechanisms don't have any serotonin to grab. So they grab dopamine instead and dump that into the serotonin reservoir(which is inside a brain cell). The dopamine is unstable in that environment and breaks down. As the dopamine breaks down it create hydrogen peroxide and literally bleaches the brain(color safe of course /images/graemlins/smirk.gif). This doesn't kill the brain cell, but causes it to disconnect. The cell eventually reconnects but may not do so in the correct fashion. Of course, the whole process can be stopped via regulating use based off of body weight, diet, or with fluoxetine (prozac).

There is more too it than that, but my point is: There are many drugs that are dangerous if abused, but very safe if used correctly.

Ecstasy is one such drug. It really is less harmfull than beer if used properly. The problem is that the vast majority of the X pills on the market aren't even X. Goto http://www.dancesafe.org/labtesting/ for lab testing results. See how many pills are 100% MDMA. It's scary. Go back to 1999-2000 and see how many pills contained MDMA. That is even more scary! The funny thing about ecstasy is that people who abuse it really don't get any higher (intensity wise) than people who use it correctly. If you watch the animation of the brain you will understand why. Your not getting high off of MDMA, your getting high off of serotonin reuptake reversal.


As for weed, I don't think a license is necessary. THC has an intoxication to kill ratio of 1:20,000. If you smoke 20,000 joints in a day, you deserve to die. I don't see a need for a weed license anymore than alcohol.

My favorite adage is:
"You can't tell a kid not to do something. All you can do is to tell him how to do it right and hope he's not stupid about it."

That is my main motivation for licenses. Make the kid pass an education test. If he doesn't pass, make him take the test over until he knows the material. His knowledge, combined with his friends, should stop many many problems.

Legal disclamer:
There is much more to learn about any drug. So if you are going to use drugs please do tons of research and talk to physicians.

This is a nice place to start. It's underground, but last I checked (several years ago) the material seemed accurate enough.
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/psychoactives.shtml

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
How about this.... Fight terrorism! Legalize Drugs!

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you should say that. Here's a great editorial that ends with a similar refrain: "Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home or because it finances terrorists abroad? "



http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n2064/a01.html

natedogg

[wacki]

12trillion

For fiscal year 2005, the ONDCP is scheduled to distribute over $12,000,000,000 to a variety of federal agencies—above and beyond the agencies’ own budgets—for the drug war, including the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, both the Justice and State Departments.


“When police seize money, they call a federal agency instead of going to state court to confiscate it. An agency such as the Drug Enforcement Administration accepts the seizure, making it a federal case. The DEA keeps a cut of the money and returns the rest to police. State courts—and their and their generally more restrictive forfeiture laws—are bypassed altogether”.

In theory, the drug war induced expansion of asset forfeiture was
meant to be used as a tool against drug lords and traffickers. In reality it
has often been used as a form of legalized theft, encouraging police to
seize people’s money and property on the flimsiest of pretexts. For
example:
• “When Willie Jones, a Nashville landscaper, paid cash for an airline ticket, city police suspected him of being a drug dealer. They searched him, found no drugs, but seized the $9,000 he was planning to bring on his flight to Houston to buy shrubs for his business. It took Jones two years and a federal lawsuit to get his money back”.

28 pages of lovely news. Drug war vs. Human rights. http://davidkopel.com/CJ/The-Drug-War-on-Human-Rights.pdf

[Il_Mostro]

Legalized drugs will never happen. There is simply to much money being laundered in the US because of drug trade. The Department of Justice estimates it to 100 billion dollars anually, others say it's more likely 200-300 billion dollars. Most of that money goes into US banks and stock market, basically meaning the US economy would be hurt very badly if drug trade would stop.

Read up on it, form your own opinion
http://solari.com/articles/scoop_narco_dummies.htm
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/dontblink.html

[adios]

Online gambling winnings are exempt from taxes in the U.S.? That's news to me.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
because if they taxed it to the price it was at now people would go back to growing plants in their back yard and selling it for cheaper...

[/ QUOTE ]

The government can tax you on this as well.

[PITTM]

if you grew illegal drugs in your backyard, would you declare them on your taxes?

rj

[1111]

Point taken, but you understood what I meant, I'm sure. /images/graemlins/smile.gif