Legalize drugs?

[Betty]

As a Libertarian, I oppose laws that try to protect us from our own stupid selves. I have never tried illegal drugs and think that anyone who does must not think much of themselves. So why would I want drugs legalized?
BECAUSE
1.I am tired of the waste of my tax dollars and the lives of others: law enforcement officers, victims of crime and drive by shootings, trying to protect drug users from themselves.
2. I am tired of the crime and corruption that has come out of the illegal drug trade while we try to protect users from destroying their lives.
3. I am tired of wasting tax dollars supporting users who are sitting in our prisons and clogging the courts while we try IN VAIN to stop them from destroying their lives.
4. I am tired of being robbed so that the addict can buy the expensive drugs he "needs" to feel like a person when if drugs were legal the addict could obtain them cheapy and not destroy the lives of his neighbors while he destroys his own.
5. It is none of my business, legally, if my neighbor wants to destroy his life by taking illegal drugs, just as it is none of my business if he or she wants to eat, drink or smoke too much.

As most of us know PERSONALLY, no one ever stopped using or obtaining illegal drugs because of the laws. If someone stops, it is because of their conscious decision to do so. So why have we wasted billions of dollars and thousands. if not millions of lives trying to stop people from using drugs? Because it makes us feel good that's why! Rather than face the tough issues of what leads people to use drugs, what leads others to accept (approve) drug use in their friends and coworkers and what leads others to support users while they do drugs, we just want to try and pay others to stop our neighbors from hurting themselves. ANYTHING but grow up and face reality.

 

[Sharon]

Just like there are people who can drink alcohol and not become alcoholics, there will be people who use drugs that cause problems for others. Thinking that if we legalize them all of society's problems will disappear is nothing more than a fantasy. There are plenty of legal drugs on the black market that people will commit crimes for. But--if it was just marijuana, in small quantities for medicinal purposes, I agree that they should decriminalize it.

 

[SmallTown]

I'm not sure if I'm for or against legalizing drugs.. Both sides make pretty strong arguments..

One thing I do find odd is what is considered illegal drugs, and what is not. Back in college, I was around all kinds of different people who were doing all kinds of different things. One thing that I found interesting is that people who smoked marijuana were a lot different than those who drank alcohol. The ones who drank often got loud, destructive, threw up, etc. Some even wrapped their car around a tree and got into bar fights. The ones who smoked marijuana just hung out, smoked, got a nice buzz, played some pool or darts then went home without wrapping their tree around a car and woke up the next day without a nasty hangover. And that is considered illegal. Maybe they should switch the legalities of those two things. I'm tired of following the law only to have headaches and hangovers the next day

 

[Tonio]

I'm with Sharon and SmallTown on this. I don't see a reason for keeping marijuana illegal. (This from someone who has never tried an illegal drug.) What would you think of changing the cocaine laws to civil offenses, rather than criminal ones? IIRC, there are civil penalties for trafficking in prescription drugs such as antidepressants.

 

[vraiblonde]

Hi Betty!

Some things to think about:

1. Most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics. However, most people who use cocaine, heroin, crack DO become addicts. So trying to make a connection between hard drug use and drinking beer is comparing apples and oranges.

2. Social experiments in other countries have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that legalization or even "needle parks" are detrimental to society. In those countries, legalization created more junkies, more crime and more public nuisance. It also placed a huge financial burden on the taxpayers in terms of rehabilitation services, property destruction and increased law enforcement.

3. People who use drugs are social misfits - if they were happy, healthy people, they wouldn't need to alter their state in such a manner in order to make it through the day. Someone needs to make a case for why we should legalize drug use for these misfits instead of teaching them how to cope without chemicals.

I'm not talking about pot-smokers - marijuana is fairly harmless in the realm of things that cause physical or social harm. My vote goes to "legalize marijuana but give the death penalty to any hard drug users".

Drug Use = Slavery. And I'm against slavery. So there you have it.

 

[sgtsprout]

I think

Pot isn't all that bad. Yes I smoked. I've done coke. I've done acis. I've done X. I've shrooms. Ive done a few things.

I do not take drugs though. My expierence leads me to beleive the hard drugs. heroein. Crack and all should be illegal. Less they are proven different in time. Pot isn't all that bad. Will I smoke. NO. I'd get fired. But I would smoke like I drink from time to time if it were legal.

But the thing is alcohol is legal and thats pretty bad. And as a lesson learned. DUI! It's not a matter of whats legal illegal. You ought to be able to control your self. Just because OTHER people can't control them selves, doesn't mean we should change the law to suit stupid people like myself or worse. Those crack feins shooting kids for a small crack rock.

 

[Betty]

I didn't say drugs were harmless

I didn't say that drugs were harmless. I think that people who abuse drugs are idiots and are ruining their lives. I think that marijuana is a gateway drug. All of the hardcore users I know started with marijuana and the people that I know that smoke only marijuana regularly have jelly for brains. I am sure all of you know of an exeption to that one, but that is one exception to every 10,000 pot heads who have ruined their lives.
I HATE DRUGS AND DRUG USE!!!! The question is what does more damage? the use of drugs which is horrible and ruins families and costs society plenty OR the war against drugs which ruins the families of non-drug users because of the crime and war on drugs with the innocent neighbors and policemen being the victims instead of JUST the users and their families. The WAR has corrupted hundreds of little town police departments and governments and parts of EVERY police department and government. It has caused our inner city neighborhoods to be far more dangerous than they use to be. Illegal drug sales have funded organized crime, street gangs and international terrorists. SO I say let private enterprise sell the drugs and let government tax the heck out of it (like tobacco and alcohol) and lets minimize the damage to the users and their families not the rest of us.

 

[James D]

2 things

1. Betty why say you are a Libertarian and want to legalize drugs. You just need to say one or the other - they mean the same thing.

2. Tobacco - If the gov't research is correct - that there is a 4% drop in usage for a 10% price increase, and tobacco is the great evil, why not force the pack of cigs to be $50. Is it because the gov't doesn't think they are that bad after all, or is it the gov't doesn't want to give up the tax money?

 

[Tonio]

Betty's right about the damage caused by both drug abuse and the war on drugs. There has to be a better approach to the problem.

Someone needs to make a case for why we should legalize drug use for these misfits instead of teaching them how to cope without chemicals.

I'm saying that both ought to be considered, not one or the other. As someone whose grandfather was an alcoholic, I know that addicts are really trying to medicate away their emotional pain. Part of any plan to fight drugs has to include teaching addicts how to handle that pain in non-destructive ways. Only then can they learn to responsibility for their lives. I don't mean that this is necessarily the government's job, of course.

70 years ago, the U.S. learned the hard way that people who want a drug such as alcohol are going to get it, legally or illegally. And they were willing to pay a lot to get it. For the rum-runners, the profits far outweighed the risks. It's the same today with the drug trade.

Tobacco - If the gov't research is correct - that there is a 4% drop in usage for a 10% price increase, and tobacco is the great evil, why not force the pack of cigs to be $50. Is it because the gov't doesn't think they are that bad after all, or is it the gov't doesn't want to give up the tax money?

James, I'd attribute that to the historical power of the tobacco lobby, and the power of the states that grow tobacco. Whether or not you like tobacco (I have never smoked), you have to admit that banning tobacco would throw a lot of people out of work, and possibly set up the same type of illegal trade that exists for marijuana.

 

[Betty]

The gov. needs to MYOB

Ok, as a Libertarian (not liberal) I think that the government has no right to interfere in people's lives. If they want to drink, smoke or medicate themselves to death, it is their problem not OURS OR THE GOVERNMENT. THAT IS NUMBER ONE.
Number two, when some crack addict is robbing me, shooting some todler in the inner city while fighting for drugs or robbing some poor old person's home for drug money I DON'T GIVE A FLYING COW ABOUT HIS EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS.
We all have our crutches that we use to get through life, some are harmless, some are harmful. But is it NONE of the government's business what they are as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others.
THERE ARE TWO ISSUES HERE, please don't confuse them.
1. The government has no right to regulate drug use, alcohol use, cigarette use or food use (you know that is next)
2. We have a right to live in a fairly safe country, not one that is made extremely dangerous by the criminal activity related to illegal drugs. IF drugs were legal and cheap, this criminal activity would cease, check out prohibition and it's repeal.
FINALLY- These people are getting drugs anyway, so all our efforts which are making our world a VERY DANGEROUS PLACE are not protecting these idiots from destroying their lives. Destroying MY peace of mind and safety is NOT saving them and I am darned sick and tired of it.
Sadly, I know plenty of drug users, many of them are very dear to me, but other than help them when they are tyring to quit, there is NOTHING I CAN DO TO SAVE THEM. (I have helped them many times only to have them return to additiction, so I am not that cold hearted OK)
We cannot legislate people to do what is best for them. We can educate them, a good SERIOUS PR campaign would be great. IT is reducing tobacco use and drunk driving. Let's try it with drugs!

As for tobacco- My husband smoked for years, it ruined his health and will greatly shorten his life. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS STUPID DECISION! Not the government, not you or me and HE MUST PAY FOR IT. NOT THE TOBACCO companies. The warinings were on the label.
Because I am a member of his family, we also have to pay for it in lost career opportunities, deminished earning potential and increased medical bills that WE PAY. No one else is responsible, just US. Get it!
WHAT A NOVEL THOUGH! BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE'S SELF.

 

[Tonio]

You da woman, Betty! I certainly didn't mean to suggest that addicts should be absolved from responsibility for their actions. If you steal or kill to feed your addiction, then of course you should go to jail. And yes, it's not the government's job to cure the addicts. The courts can and do direct addicts to where they can get help (AA and NA come to mind). But some people will never be cured of their addiction. The saddest thing about my grandfather's drinking was that I never really got to know him as a person. Because of the alcohol, he was always lost in a faraway haze.

 

[vraiblonde]

Sorry, guys. When the government determines that a person's individual behavior is detrimental to society at-large, they have a responsiblity to curtail it. Junkies not only harm themselves, but they create a public nuisance as well. It's the same thing as a person being arrested for public intoxication: you can make the argument that the drunk is only hurting himself, but the reality is that he's causing a problem for those around him as well.

Ya'll might want to check your history - society's alcohol-related problems went waaaaay down during Prohibition. Why? Duh - because most people follow the law. When Prohibition was repealed, they started seeing a dramatic increase in public drunkenness, violence, etc. Why? Because more people were getting boozed up.

Other countries have tried legalizing drugs for the very same reasons Betty gave - reduce crime, free up prison space for REAL criminals, etc. The result was MORE crime, MORE addiction and MORE social problems. Not only that, but you couldn't even walk down the street without druggies hanging around. So most have gone back to outlawing drug use.

 

[SmallTown]

If things have gotten so much worse after the end of prohibition, why hasn't the government stepped up and brought back prohibition? Seems if the government were truly our for the well being of the citizens, then alcohol would need to be banned as well. Get the government to OK a tax on marijuana and you would see it legalized in a heart beat.

I think some people are concerned about the double standard between drugs and alcohol. Both, when abused, can cause trouble for the users as we all others around them. Though, one is legal and one is not.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Get the government to OK a tax on marijuana and you would see it legalized in a heart beat.

Not so simple, ever hear of the Marijuana Tax Act. Requires a tax stamp for legal possession. I think Arizona uses it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Again, SmallTown, there is a distinct difference between alcohol and hard drugs. Marijuana is one thing - heroin and crack are something else entirely.

If things have gotten so much worse after the end of prohibition, why hasn't the government stepped up and brought back prohibition?

You answered your own question later on in your post. Why do you suppose they tax cigarettes instead of outlawing them, seeing as they're supposedly so bad and kill so many people every year?

 

[SmallTown]

Oops, sorry.. I was talking about just marijuana, not the "hard drugs"

 

[Betty]

You missed the point

Ok, everyone is missing the point! It doesn't matter how bad the stuff is, it is ALL BAD if you abuse it! The point is that the cost in lives, lifestyle, money and safety of trying to stop people from using it is WORSE to the rest of us than the drugs are to the users. YES, the drugs will destroy the users (marijuana destroys the brain by making everyone TOO mellow), but the war on drugs is detroying EVERYONE. I say the users are responsible for what the drugs do to them. Yet we have to suffer for their bad choices.
PLUS it is NONE of the governments business if we decide to ruin our lives. We are supposed to be free! That is free to make bad choices as well as good.
Too many of you are trying to be the guardians of society because you don't trust people to do what is right. There will ALWAYS be people who will not do what is best for them and we have to accept that. We should encourage them to do better, but we have no right to try and FORCE them to do better.
As for cigarettes, if we are free we are free to smoke and NO the government would loose billions if we REALLY stopped smoking.
As for booze, there was less crime, actually there was virtually NO CRIME connected to booze once it was legalized and all the criminals that sold illegal booze had to go legal or find a job!!!!
GET IT!

 

[vraiblonde]

No, Betty dear, I think YOU miss the point. Booze is legal right now and there's a TON of crime that is connected with it. DID YOU KNOW that over 80% of people who assault someone have been drinking beforehand? S'truth - ask a cop how many times they get a call where a completely sober guy is beating his woman. Or how many sober guys they arrest for fighting each other. And that's just one example. We won't even go into drunk driving and stuff like that. Just because Al Capone is out of business doesn't mean there is no crime connected with alcohol anymore.

Again (since you don't seem to be reading), other countries have tried legalizing drugs and/or having designated drug use areas - it didn't work and created significantly more problems than it solved.

GET IT!

 

[Ken King]

Re: You missed the point

Originally posted by Betty
As for booze, there was less crime, actually there was virtually NO CRIME connected to booze once it was legalized and all the criminals that sold illegal booze had to go legal or find a job!!!!
GET IT!

Yeah, some of those that had stills never made wood alcohol blinding the consumer, or shot revenuers. This all didn't quit in the 30s either as many are still trying to get around the massive tax on the alcohol they make.

 

[romance]

I don't know where I stand on this issue. I see both sides to it. Just like in France, they are allowed to drink wine so alkie isn't big to teens. Both side have good points so I am still up in the sir over what I'd say.