View Topic

What is your stance on drug laws? If you were in charge, what would be allowed and what would be banned?

I have always been a supporter of harsh drug laws, mainly because the country I reside in has draconian laws when it comes to drug trafficking while having one of the lowest prevalence of drug abuse.

So out of curiosity, you see no benefit to certain drugs? I mean, considering the right for medical marijuana here in the US and all.

Considering the negative impacts, I rather not take the risk of even having marijuana within the country.

Negative impacts? I wasn't aware that weed had many if any negative impacts...and I speak as someone who has never done it.

Here are some links.
Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5

Hmm...interesting. I hope Jonewest stops by this particular debate.

  First off Sapphiron those links do show some bias, so I'm inclined to lean away from some of their information(especially since in the US there is a hell of a lot of mis-information on drugs). Also the only negative side effect that I know of whom do use Marijuana have had little to no adverse effects, then again if you are a hard user it will damage you more(although the only negative effect I can see is a damaging of THC receptors and Dopamine Receptors).

  To be honest I'm for the legalization and regulation of drugs, or at least weed. The reason for this is due to the fact that:
1) Regulation would allow a lot of money to be collected on it, thus helping the economy.
2) Legalization would allow for people to do it safely(when tied to regulation). Also Legalization will be necessary for Regulation. Not to mention that it will take power away from the people on the streets selling it. Legalizing it will also cut down on drug related violence(in some sense).

  I would also like to state that if Alcohol is legal then why isn't weed legal? Alcohol, and drunk driving, can cause violent behaviors and end in the death of someone. Most of the time if you get High(at least from weed),  you won't really do violent things. So why is Alcohol legal but weed illegal.

  Finally as long as the drug only affects the user and will affect no one else then I see no reason, although should we go by the standard that alcohol sets, if the person commits a crime at the time of being under the influence, then they are tried for that crime(excluding activities prohibited while under the influence such as driving or boating.). So why should I not be allowed to sit in my room and (assuming I was over 21(the legal age for drinking in the US)), drink, smoke, take LSD, do crack, or smoke weed, or anything of that nature, as long I was alone or with someone who consented and was the same age, or older(again assuming I am 21 when doing this.)?

(1) Philosophically: I do not believe in the legitimacy of any victimless crime, and I believe in the total self-ownership of the individual.  Ergo, I oppose all drug laws.

Putting my Economist's hat on (yes, that's what I am...)

(2) Economically: Prohibiting Alcohol, Pot, Drugs, Prostitution, Sodomy, Birth Control, Abortion, speaking Native American languages, and Firearms never made ANY of them go away.  They simply make them go Underground.  The question is NEVER "should we get rid of something;" it is always, "should the market for the thing be transparent or underground."

(3) Morally: It seems to me that when the punishment for the crime is more debilitating than the effects of the "crime," then the State has become the perpetrator of Moral Wrong.

In my humble opinion, I think that drugs law should be legislated and implemented according to the social , economical and cultural characteristics of the Nation. It's not the same a federal republic, where each state can implement it's own laws, than a united big-goberment for the whole country. It's not the same a city in the middle of Germany than a city on the middle of the great argentinias plaines ...

There are places where the legalization of certain drugs can be perfectly implemented, because the people of that places, and the authorities are ready to allow that.

I agree with Sachem to an extent, but removing all drug laws entirely is not a good idea. That just opens the door to reckless abuse and serious damage to a nation's health.

Drugs aren't entirely victimless either - even if all the awful practices that occur in the black market are eliminated when the market is made legal, people will still suffer. Even with alcohol, there are a startlingly high number of people killed by intoxicated drivers when they were completely sober themselves.

I think the legalization of weed is coming in the United States, it's just a matter of when. The problem we face at the moment is how to regulate it. It's one thing to say that "it's not much different than alcohol, and that's legal, so why should weed regulations be any different", and I don't disagree. But there is a small difference between the two that is causing a big problem. The problem law enforcement is having is that there is no way to measure marijuana intoxication. It's easy to measure alcohol intoxication at any given moment, since alcohol is metabolized out of your blood fairly quickly, so when you blow a .08 on a breathalyzer, it's obvious that you have had a few drinks very recently, and you can be busted for drunk driving, etc. You can't do that with weed. After you smoke weed, THC can be detected in your blood for several days, well after you sober up. At present, all law enforcement needs to know is if THC is present. That is all they need to bust you (barring probable cause for search and seizure). For that reason, it is very difficult to actually measure intoxication at any given moment. Once we can figure that out, then Bob's your uncle. But this is just one of many reasons why many states, as well as the federal government, are hesitant to give it the OK.

As for the harder drugs (meth, heroin, cocaine, etc.), I cannot support legalizing those in any way.