Legalize All Drugs...

[Billy the Great Khan]

prohibition was awesome. it was so awesome it required a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to change it.

think about. and that was for alcohol.

It also required a constitutional amendment to enact it.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It isn't like we don't have an end to Prohibition to look back on in history to be able to figure out what the cartels might do. It's like we're incapable to look back at failed policy, and the end of it, in the past. Even policy with direct links.

Try to focus. We're not discussing alcohol.

 

[Damocles]

Try to focus. We're not discussing alcohol.

Try to focus, we are discussing prohibition.

 

[Liberty]

It isn't like we don't have an end to Prohibition to look back on in history to be able to figure out what the cartels might do. It's like we're incapable to look back at failed policy, and the end of it, in the past. Even policy with direct links.

When the prohibition of alcohol ended, the big players had to find a new way of making money. Many of them went to Vages.

Prohibition is the only reason drug cartels exist.

So when someone says they don't want to end prohibition, they're actually saying yes to drug cartels.

 

[Zombie Jesus]

It isn't like we don't have an end to Prohibition to look back on in history to be able to figure out what the cartels might do. It's like we're incapable to look back at failed policy, and the end of it, in the past. Even policy with direct links.

Well, the last time they took over Vegas' underworld and or got into politics...besides, it's not the same if the premises is "ALL DRUGS," alcohol, pot, shrooms, maybe some microdots or a few other hallucinogenics aren't at the opium, heroin, crystal meth, or free basing cocaine levels. Happy lucky go kinds of rec drugs that aren't gonna cause a user to go and sell granny's hair dryer and curling iron set for that next fix more or less. I've said it twice already, I suppose a third time won't hurt, what a society can and would turn into if a large swath of that same said society became addicts would be China leading up to the Opium Wars...the estimates were near ten percent of the population (which was just still more than our population today)...which ends up being just under forty million addicts.

I don't think Prohibition, even the events that led to it's creation or demise or the aftermath are relevant...apple and oranges.

 

[Damocles]

The idea that huge portions of people would suddenly start using Crystal Meth because it is regulated is just bad assumption.

One thing it would do is put it behind a counter, where people with licenses check IDs. It will be more difficult for children to get hold of marijuana, currently some kid at school sells it to them. Same with Meth, etc. If you want less people to use, put the product behind a counter and stop kids from getting it. Most people aren't going to start into Meth just as their lives are getting good.

 

[Zombie Jesus]

The idea that huge portions of people would suddenly start using Crystal Meth because it is regulated is just bad assumption.

I don't think crystal meth addiction would get out of hand, however I do think hardcore drug usage would get out of hand, possibly at rates that we won't be able to control.

One thing it would do is put it behind a counter, where people with licenses check IDs.

If that doesn't work for cigarettes what makes you think it'll work for cocaine?

It will be more difficult for children to get hold of marijuana, currently some kid at school sells it to them.

How difficult was it for you to score a bottle of Maker's Mark or Black Velvet when you were in your early teens? For me it was just a matter of asking my buddy's older brother - he flies, I'll buy so's to speak.

Same with Meth, etc. If you want less people to use, put the product behind a counter and stop kids from getting it.

That's a bit naive, I'm of the opinion that kids today are more savvy when it comes to getting what they want than I was back in my day by a great margin.

Most people aren't going to start into Meth just as their lives are getting good.

Meth addiction rates have already been out of control for some time now, that the rate for kicking the habit is in the single digits only adds to just how destructive a drug it can be...starting a drug like crystal meth I can only imagine that most people don't start out with the intention of becoming a Meth head, I'm sure most of them had better lives going into a life of a yuck mouth than they were at being a full on addict.

Legalizing it would be detrimental to most urban areas much less the rural areas where it's more prevalent, where there's less resources countering the effects of that same addiction rate that's been increasing year after year.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

we should give large quantities of dangerous drugs to addicts free of charge......and free funeral services......it would save us billions......

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Try to focus, we are discussing prohibition.

No, we aren't.

Not all drugs are "prohibited".

But some Libertarians want "all" drugs legalized.

Try to focus on that.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The idea that huge portions of people would suddenly start using Crystal Meth because it is regulated is just bad assumption. One thing it would do is put it behind a counter, where people with licenses check IDs. It will be more difficult for children to get hold of marijuana, currently some kid at school sells it to them. Same with Meth, etc. If you want less people to use, put the product behind a counter and stop kids from getting it. Most people aren't going to start into Meth just as their lives are getting good.

Like guns are behind a counter where people with licenses check ID, so that nobody ever has to steal 'em?

Like that?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The idea that huge portions of people would suddenly start using Crystal Meth because it is regulated is just bad assumption.

One thing it would do is put it behind a counter, where people with licenses check IDs. It will be more difficult for children to get hold of marijuana, currently some kid at school sells it to them. Same with Meth, etc. If you want less people to use, put the product behind a counter and stop kids from getting it. Most people aren't going to start into Meth just as their lives are getting good.

Do you really think that's going to stop them?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Do you really think that's going to stop them?

Maybe this just might?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10014847.html

 

[Damocles]

I don't think crystal meth addiction would get out of hand, however I do think hardcore drug usage would get out of hand, possibly at rates that we won't be able to control.



If that doesn't work for cigarettes what makes you think it'll work for cocaine?

It works better than my best pal selling MJ at the school. And I think it'll work a bit more like alcohol, but with greater penalties so the licensed purveyors have more incentive to actually ID. Currently, there is a kid at school that every child knows who can get them some cocaine.

How difficult was it for you to score a bottle of Maker's Mark or Black Velvet when you were in your early teens? For me it was just a matter of asking my buddy's older brother - he flies, I'll buy so's to speak.

A heck of a lot harder than asking my friend to sell me a dime bag.

That's a bit naive, I'm of the opinion that kids today are more savvy when it comes to getting what they want than I was back in my day by a great margin.

Naive is assuming that because you were ignorant, so were the rest of us.

Meth addiction rates have already been out of control for some time now, that the rate for kicking the habit is in the single digits only adds to just how destructive a drug it can be...starting a drug like crystal meth I can only imagine that most people don't start out with the intention of becoming a Meth head, I'm sure most of them had better lives going into a life of a yuck mouth than they were at being a full on addict.

Rubbish. Less than 3% of the population have even tried it, let alone are addicted to it. You and I have a totally different idea of what "out of control" means.

Legalizing it would be detrimental to most urban areas much less the rural areas where it's more prevalent, where there's less resources countering the effects of that same addiction rate that's been increasing year after year.

Utter nonsense. Legalizing it would ensure that the guy at the corner with no morals or compunction against selling it to 8 year old kids no longer would be the source any more than speak easy bars where they checked no ids or your bathtub.

Prohibition causes most of the problems you list, it is no resolution to any of them, and it makes it far easier to get for children and ensures that only the worst of society are selling it, and they ain't checking ids. It creates an environment where really bad people are protecting "territory" by shooting people in the streets, and generates the violent crime that we would like to avoid. It ensures that if you buy bad stuff that is poisoned or if you are defrauded by a "dealer" you have no way to seek retribution other than to kill...

Prohibition itself is a bane on our society, it causes so many more problems than it will ever solve, it was a bane in the past, it is again, and we are too stupid to pay attention and now fools use some of the same danged arguments to keep it that they made near the end of constitutional prohibition.

 

[Zombie Jesus]

It works better than my best pal selling MJ at the school. And I think it'll work a bit more like alcohol, but with greater penalties so the licensed purveyors have more incentive to actually ID. Currently, there is a kid at school that every child knows who can get them some cocaine.

I don't think it'll ever happen (hardcore drugs like meth, heroin, or crack) so it won't matter none anyways but for argument's sake...grabbing a bottle of booze is not the same as grabbing a couple of cooked meth syringes.

That's everywhere you go (kid that every kid knows that could get 'em some coke), imagine the horror if that kid were a hundred or two hundred kids...

A heck of a lot harder than asking my friend to sell me a dime bag.

It was easier to score booze than weed and almost near impossible to score smack or meth growing up.

Naive is assuming that because you were ignorant, so were the rest of us.

Naive is assuming that because meth were legalized less kids will use it.

Rubbish. Less than 3% of the population have even tried it, let alone are addicted to it. You and I have a totally different idea of what "out of control" means.

I would think percentage wise it was even less than three percent right now, nonetheless - if it is three percent that's quite extraordinary in and of itself.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, over 12.3 million Americans age 12 and older have tried meth at least once.
Statistically speaking, women are more inclined to pick up meth than they are to pick up cocaine.
The top two reasons reported for using meth are (1) accessibility and (2) the fact that it is relatively inexpensive.
Adolescents between 12 and 17 years old admitted to meth addiction treatment increased by 100 percent between the years of 1994 and 2004.
http://rehab-international.org/crystal-meth/addiction-statistics/

That and a friend of mine who works for the state of NY prison system had told me a few years ago that on average they'll spend about fifty thousand dollars for each meth addicted teen (he runs a prison that's similar to basic training for the military but for wayward teens) before he even gets them, they have to get cleaned up...and most of them revert right back to it like a horse to water within a few weeks of their return home.

I'm pretty sure we've got a totaly different idea of what "out of control" means as well...

Utter nonsense. Legalizing it would ensure that the guy at the corner with no morals or compunction against selling it to 8 year old kids no longer would be the source any more than speak easy bars where they checked no ids or your bathtub

That guy on the corner is small time, what's changed if he (scumbag dealer) was willing to sell to an eight year old kid in the first place? The only thing I could tell is that it's gonna be easier for the scumbag dealer to get his hands on some product at the end of the day...not for nothing but your reasoning with this makes absolutely no sense...

Prohibition causes most of the problems you list, it is no resolution to any of them, and it makes it far easier to get for children and ensures that only the worst of society are selling it, and they ain't checking ids. It creates an environment where really bad people are protecting "territory" by shooting people in the streets, and generates the violent crime that we would like to avoid. It ensures that if you buy bad stuff that is poisoned or if you are defrauded by a "dealer" you have no way to seek retribution other than to kill...

Alcohol Prohibition and billy badass ruin your life after a few hits types of drugs are two separate things, it's silly comparing the two because the consequences for using each are starkly different.

Prohibition itself is a bane on our society, it causes so many more problems than it will ever solve, it was a bane in the past, it is again, and we are too stupid to pay attention and now fools use some of the same danged arguments to keep it that they made near the end of constitutional prohibition.

Not controlling or attempting to control what could otherwise be an epidemic of ungodly proportions would be far more detrimental to our society as a whole, in no way should meth or crack or those drugs that're on that level be legalized...we can change how we deal with those who're caught using (not so much dealing) them...something similar to a minimum or low security gig with all the treatment levels one could shake a stick at if they're ready to quit...but not legalizing them...

You fellas keep bringing up Prohibition as if it's relevant but have discarded the Opium War's stats that I've posted - which I would think are more relevant than alcohol prohibition because that's what a society would turn into left unchecked, by that standard we'd end up with thirty million plus addicts...nay, thirty million plus brain damaged addicts would be more like it, toss in the costs for cleaning up each addict (if push came to shove) and we'd be in a constant influx recession wise.

 

[Damocles]

I don't think it'll ever happen (hardcore drugs like meth, heroin, or crack) so it won't matter none anyways but for argument's sake...grabbing a bottle of booze is not the same as grabbing a couple of cooked meth syringes.

That's everywhere you go (kid that every kid knows that could get 'em some coke), imagine the horror if that kid were a hundred or two hundred kids...

However, there is no kid at their school selling them alcohol out of his jacket.

It was easier to score booze than weed and almost near impossible to score smack or meth growing up.

Nonsense. I never had to find somebody over 18 (then later over 21) that was willing to get a child MJ. I just asked a dude that went to my school to sell it and got it. That easy. Waaaaaaaaaay easier to get drugs than it is to get alcohol. You don't even have to go to a store, you just go to the place that the government tells you that you must attend.

Naive is assuming that because meth were legalized less kids will use it.

Naive is assuming that because it is illegal that it will cause less kids to use it. My point is that this is a step most won't take on their first stop... Make the drugs harder to obtain by taking them away from the kids who deal and put them behind a counter where they'll check ID.

I would think percentage wise it was even less than three percent right now, nonetheless - if it is three percent that's quite extraordinary in and of itself.

You mistake "even tried" with "regular use". The idea that this is a massive epidemic because very few people by number ever do it at all let alone become addicted and do it regularly is just emotive tactics. You said it was "out of control"... It really isn't.

That and a friend of mine who works for the state of NY prison system had told me a few years ago that on average they'll spend about fifty thousand dollars for each meth addicted teen (he runs a prison that's similar to basic training for the military but for wayward teens) before he even gets them, they have to get cleaned up...and most of them revert right back to it like a horse to water within a few weeks of their return home.

Yet you still believe that locking up users is the way to go rather than working on helping them. Make sure it is more difficult to obtain quit relying on the dealers to regulate it for you.

I'm pretty sure we've got a totaly different idea of what "out of control" means as well...

It is very clear that we do.

That guy on the corner is small time, what's changed if he (scumbag dealer) was willing to sell to an eight year old kid in the first place? The only thing I could tell is that it's gonna be easier for the scumbag dealer to get his hands on some product at the end of the day...not for nothing but your reasoning with this makes absolutely no sense...

The scumbag dealer won't be there because there will be no need for him. Adults will go to the store, where somebody will check their ID, kids will have a much more difficult time getting the drugs as there simply will not be an effective cost ratio for the guy to keep standing on that corner.

Your last sentence doesn't make sense. Care to reorganize the words into some semblance of grammatically correct English so it will be understandable?

Alcohol Prohibition and billy badass ruin your life after a few hits types of drugs are two separate things, it's silly comparing the two because the consequences for using each are starkly different.

Rubbish, this ignores the heavy consequences of alcohol addiction and the fact that far more people had access to it, it was more dangerous and likely to be poisoned, and there were less programs to deal with an addict back during Prohibition.

Not controlling or attempting to control what could otherwise be an epidemic of ungodly proportions would be far more detrimental to our society as a whole, in no way should meth or crack or those drugs that're on that level be legalized...we can change how we deal with those who're caught using (not so much dealing) them...something similar to a minimum or low security gig with all the treatment levels one could shake a stick at if they're ready to quit...but not legalizing them...

Again, the idea that there would be an "epidemic of ungodly proportions" is the same type of hyperbole and circular logic as saying "out of control" when barely anybody is addicted to this drug that is "out of control"... Just saying it is "out of control" isn't an argument, and you haven't even suggested a subjective measure by which you could claim this. You just repeat it.

You fellas keep bringing up Prohibition as if it's relevant but have discarded the Opium War's stats that I've posted - which I would think are more relevant than alcohol prohibition because that's what a society would turn into left unchecked, by that standard we'd end up with thirty million plus addicts...nay, thirty million plus brain damaged addicts would be more like it, toss in the costs for cleaning up each addict (if push came to shove) and we'd be in a constant influx recession wise.

We keep bringing up prohibition because that is what this is, it is certainly relevant to the conversation, and the result is the same. The creation of an unregulated black market and the driving force behind violent crime. The idea that because Oranges and Apples are different means we can't talk about fruit is a foolish idea. Your insistence that it isn't relative because you say so is just circular reasoning. Prohibition is relevant because we are talking about Prohibition.

Drive by shootings were common in the "mob" day, nowadays we call them "gangs" but it doesn't mean one bit of difference to the kid shot while trying to walk to the 7 Eleven...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Libertarians want to legalize meth, and claim it won't be a big deal?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Maybe this just might?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10014847.html

So you're of the belief that teenagers stop and think about the long term affects.

Gee; thqt must be why teenagers are listed as the least likely to have motor vehicle accidents.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So, lets' play the game.

Mj has been legalized; but regulated.
What price is it selling at, after taxes and all, and what is the amount bought, at that price?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So, lets' play the game. Mj has been legalized; but regulated.
What price is it selling at, after taxes and all, and what is the amount bought, at that price?

Is it ironic that Libertarians want the government to take over the drug business and impose taxes?

 

[Zombie Jesus]

However, there is no kid at their school selling them alcohol out of his jacket.


Nonsense. I never had to find somebody over 18 (then later over 21) that was willing to get a child MJ. I just asked a dude that went to my school to sell it and got it. That easy. Waaaaaaaaaay easier to get drugs than it is to get alcohol. You don't even have to go to a store, you just go to the place that the government tells you that you must attend.


Naive is assuming that because it is illegal that it will cause less kids to use it. My point is that this is a step most won't take on their first stop... Make the drugs harder to obtain by taking them away from the kids who deal and put them behind a counter where they'll check ID.


You mistake "even tried" with "regular use". The idea that this is a massive epidemic because very few people by number ever do it at all let alone become addicted and do it regularly is just emotive tactics. You said it was "out of control"... It really isn't.

- There isn't a kid selling them out of his or her jacket because all they'd have to do is hit up the booze at home, just right there - laying in the wait...

- Growing up there were a lot of dry spells, we got into the habit of obtaining booze as it was far more easier to get a hold of some most of the time...unless someone was willing to make that trip to Oregon, which wasn't all too often.

Yet you still believe that locking up users is the way to go rather than working on helping them. Make sure it is more difficult to obtain quit relying on the dealers to regulate it for you.

Take them the fuck out of circulation, yes - absolutely. Then help 'em if they want it after they're tucked away, not able to harm others or themselves. Legalizing meth ain't gonna make it harder to obtain.

It is very clear that we do.

Yep, that's why I concurred with you.

The scumbag dealer won't be there because there will be no need for him. Adults will go to the store, where somebody will check their ID, kids will have a much more difficult time getting the drugs as there simply will not be an effective cost ratio for the guy to keep standing on that corner.

All up until that scumbag dealer needs to make a few ends to pay for more meth or make the rent, whatever - if there's a market, he's already fucked up enough that he'd sell to eight year old kids to begin with.

Your last sentence doesn't make sense. Care to reorganize the words into some semblance of grammatically correct English so it will be understandable?

No, it's pretty straight forward - YOUR reasoning (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reasoning?s=t) did not make sense. By all means if wanna turn this into a debate about grammar I'm sure that'll make it all better.

Rubbish, this ignores the heavy consequences of alcohol addiction and the fact that far more people had access to it, it was more dangerous and likely to be poisoned, and there were less programs to deal with an addict back during Prohibition.

Not nearly as significant as ten percent of the population addicted to bad ass opiates.

Again, the idea that there would be an "epidemic of ungodly proportions" is the same type of hyperbole and circular logic as saying "out of control" when barely anybody is addicted to this drug that is "out of control"... Just saying it is "out of control" isn't an argument, and you haven't even suggested a subjective measure by which you could claim this. You just repeat it.

What's so hard to understand, this has already happened in the past prior to alcohol prohibition in the U.S.? Ten percent of a population of just under four hundred million is on a different level (ungodly proportions).

There were more deaths attributed to alcoholism prior to Prohibition and right after Prohibition percentage rate wise than during Prohibition - the rates did climb during Prohibition but only because access to alcohol became easier due to their being more and more speakeasys. I suppose that would be a relevant Prohibition point to the discussion.

You posted 3%, out of a population of three hundred plus million that's "hardly" nobody, addiction rate wise it's probably closer to 1%, which is still pretty significant considering the demographics.
http://rehab-international.org/crystal-meth-rehab-guide/crystal-meth-rehab-statistics/

We keep bringing up prohibition because that is what this is, it is certainly relevant to the conversation, and the result is the same.

I disagree, it's not the same because the product isn't the same...booze doesn't compare to hardcore methamphetamines, crack, or heroin.

The creation of an unregulated black market and the driving force behind violent crime.

What's next? Lift all the bans on the Ivory trade?

The idea that because Oranges and Apples are different means we can't talk about fruit is a foolish idea. Your insistence that it isn't relative because you say so is just circular reasoning. Prohibition is relevant because we are talking about Prohibition.

Lessons learned from large swaths of populations being addicted to opiates because they were either legal or unchecked vs a decade plus of alcohol Prohibition...my point is that one is more relevant to the other.

Drive by shootings were common in the "mob" day, nowadays we call them "gangs" but it doesn't mean one bit of difference to the kid shot while trying to walk to the 7 Eleven...

Are you comparing the mafia to the street gangs of today in the middle of a discussion of "legalizing ALL drugs?" Whatever...I just went with the Ivory Trade so I suppose it's alright, I'm not gonna judge.

The end results of the Opium Wars (war then shoddy one sided treatises which subsequently led to the decline of the Qing Empire as well as millions of dead Chinese) contrasted with the end of Prohibition (the mob didn't skip a beat, they moved on to the next racket and deaths attributed to alcoholism bounced back near their former glory day rates) aren't the same, which is different from your little scenario here.