Hello everybody. I'd like to have a discussion on the arguments for or against drug legalization. The drug war has been pissing me off lately and I'd like to channel that irritation productively.

I'll start by stating my opinion. I think pretty much all drugs should be legally available to an adult who wants to consume them. When I say pretty much I mean pretty much everything even cocaine and heroin, psychedelics the whole lot. The only exception’s should be substances that are just straight poisons or otherwise intrinsically chemically hazardous for the general public. I do think people should have to get some basic information about drug use and addiction prior to being able to obtain drugs, especially if the substance is significantly dangerous. Maybe some kind of basic course and a license would be appropriate? I also think the drugs should be sold from specialized licensed shops and their sources regulated. If you are addicted mentally or physically to a substance some special precautions should be taken by the agency supplying the substance but I am not entirely sure what those should be.

Most people however don't view things that way. They either think all drugs should remain illegal or only some drugs should be legal. Fortunately more and more people these days do seem to agree that certain drugs should probably be legal like marijuana or that medical use is acceptable. Religious use is also sometimes tolerated. But I don't think this is good enough. It still criminalizes non violent drug users which I find morally objectionable under any circumstances. It’s also incompatible with the fundamental concept of individual liberty which many modern societies claim to desire.

So when discussing the drug war either with public officials or the general public what are the best arguments for drug legalization and can they be backed up?

Arguments for legalization:

1- Crime reduction. If drug distribution were legal gangs would lose a massive source of revenue and stop fighting over things like drug turf. Users of drugs would commit less crime to obtain drugs. Also a freed up legal system would be more capable of dealing with more serious crimes.

2- Less tax burden to society. Drug enforcement is expensive and it doesn't really stop drug use.

3- Less danger to the user. Users would be less likely to overdose or otherwise engage in unhealthy behavior if drugs were available for fair prices, purity was known, and basic information about health risks was given. This idea is typically called 'harm reduction'.

4- Increased benefits for those who use drugs responsibly. This one is never discussed by legalization groups but I feel it’s important. Drug use can benefit an individual. There are many examples where drugs have inspired artists, scientists, musicians, and other professionals. Many people have had positive life experiences from certain kinds of drug use. Some individual’s quality of life is improved by drug use.

Those are some of the main arguments I can come up with. But can we really prove any of those statements in a way that policy makers or the general public would understand? Where are good place to find examples where any of those 4 issues have been tested or observed? What were the outcomes? These are big questions but worth discussing.

Some counter arguments:

1- Drug use is inherently dangerous and generates risk to user and society. Therefore it must be illegal except in cases where the substance is administered by a doctor.

2- This one comes often from drug users. If harder drugs were available they would never quit or kill themselves by taking too many drugs. I've heard this from quite a few friends who had to serious addiction problems.

3- The children. The DEA routinely uses this argument. "Think of the children".

4- Who needs drugs anyway? Many people who don’t use drugs make this argument. Life is better without drugs or something similar.

Input expanding or commenting on any of these statements would be appreciated. Also additional arguments for or against would be welcome.

My goal here is ultimately is to find the best arguments for drug legalization. Responses to counter arguments are also desired. Also perhaps I am wrong about some issues. Perhaps something dangerous like cocaine should stay illegal. Maybe someone could try and convince me of that. Especially those who agree with counter argument 2. Finally I would like to back up these arguments with statistical, scientific, public health, or historical data.

Thanks to anyone who wants to contribute.

who benefits from prohibition?

you've already said it...the prison-industrial complex.
also, it's a perpetual money machine for the legal system; a revolving door for mostly prisoners
with petty drug possession charges....and who really flips the bill? taxpayers.

the cost to society is much higher from prohibition; drugs cost more, therefore the stakes are higher. since the stakes are higher, violence to control the market is also high.
children can get drugs whether they're legal or not. at least with legalization, you can regulate them like prescription meds, alcohol, and cigarettes.
but with the high cost of illicit drugs, it is also a very lucrative business for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. legalization would leave many of them without jobs.

so again I ask...who really benefits from prohibition?

Of course we all know where the powers that be get off, but don't forget that growers, traffickers and dealers are equally vested in supporting the status quo.

For example in many places pot is more valuable, ounce for ounce, than gold, meaning even a modest basement grow op can generate in the high five-figures annually. Without prohibition this profit margin would vanish overnight.

Thus the interests of the drug suppliers are exactly the same as the authorities who are supposedly against them: keep the product illegal, keep it profitable.

pretty much

and absolute power corrupts absolutely
undoubtedly, lawmakers are in bed with cartel kingpins.

But how to convince the tax payer they are getting the shit end of the stick? Many people think we need law enforcement to control drugs. So they don't see a problem with money being spent on it. If they knew how ineffective the laws are and how expensive maybe they would change mind?

For:

The government/tax payer could benefit from legalising drugs by placing a tax on them, as they do with alcohol and tobacco.

Against:

More people would start doing drugs (and mixing them with alcohol and other drugs), more than likely leading to higher burdens on national health services.
More risk of people using confidence enhancing drugs such as cocaine which, like alcohol, could be a very dangerous combination with driving and lead to more traffic incidents.

It'd be nice if you just knew you could use psychedelics responsibly if it doesn't hurt anyone else. For all I know, the majority of people who would start using drugs if they were legalised would be responsible, the way a lot of people drink responsibly. However, in the UK there is a bad enough problem with anti-social behaviour and underage drinking, so making drugs easier to access might not help the situation. However, this is more of a social problem than a substance problem I believe.

If we can bring up our children better, then when our children grow up, they can use substances responsibly with respect.

(That was a lot of responsiblies!)

My issue with it is very simple.

Who is the government to tell a person what they can or can not put in their body?

I'm not sure drug legalization would make less addicts.. but I do not believe the government has any right to restrict choices in what a person ingests.

C .I. A.in't kidding.

former presidential candidate ron paul talking about the failed drug war:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU

For/Against:

Countries that legalise might attract a new type of tourism, the same kind as Amsterdam. This would benefit local businesses, but could lower the reputation of a city/district as being 'seedy'.

I could think of only one valid argument for prohibition of a specific substance: that the use of it would harm other people besides the person who decides to use them.

This is a complex argument because in reality you can only speak of the relative chance that my substance intake would cause harm to somebody else and not a certainty at all.

Not drinking and driving is such a situation where the risk of hurting others is considered intolerable.

I am ambiguous towards substances like methamfetamine and cocaine, because i feel that the use these substances has a very high risk of resulting into extremely anti-social behaviour and legalising them would not decrease crime related to it at all. On the other hand the war on drugs in south america has huge consequences over there, so the total amount of casualties could indeed be far less if cocaine would be legalised.

It still is true though, that some substances are completely surounded by 'bad karma' in the sense that they have an extremely negative effect on the environment of people who use them as a result of the damage they do to the users brain.

A compromise would be that the use of or being under the influence of meth and simmilar substances in the public domain would be forbidden but legal in the private sanctuary of ones own house.

I think that would solve most of the problems related to those substances.

Maybe meth users could also have a meth-user equivalent on their house of those 'beware of the dog' sign-plates.

Half seriously-half tongue in cheek i will try to provide some responces to some of the things said so far. For "arguments sake" i will try to give the "against" side a go, and "tickle" some "for" opinions , not because i side with the "against" group but because i think discussing for legalisation in this forum might be like preaching to the choir. It goes without saying that most of the members have knowledge on these substances and do not see them as "demons in chemical form". So, i am playing a bit the devil's advocate. I hope noone is offended.



I am afraid that many people simply do not care, in the same way they do not care for many situations until those situation become their problem and then people become...experts on the "offending"/"interesting" subject. They do not care about the legality of drugs if they do not label themselves "drug users" (or any form of people having any contact with illegal drugs, including the other end of the spectrum that is "sad drug family stories/examples of abuse" ). In that state, they conviniently adopt the "common" beliefs about them. Also, They can be quite shortsighted to see that they loose money from the taxes, at least in my experience. Few view it that way



Hm, on the second part of the equation is the commercialisation of drugs. This is not an "argument" , its more of a personal statement. I would get annoyed by "fancy packadging" , advertising or the vendors "pushing" a certain kind of mentality. I am the kind of person that id rather buy a botanical or a substance in a plain container with just its name on, no adverts, no bright colors that can urge people either to take them as toys or to scream the "children" lines etc. I visited Amsterdam and while i indulged in its main attraction, i was annoyed a bit of how such substances where portrayed in many shops.



Leary had proposed something akin to it. Thing is that many ideas might look good on paper but in action there would be many things left to be desired. The downside of such a system would be that people could circumvent them. Many would ...sleep through the courses with the motto "I just want the drugs man, gimme my fucking drugs!" (works best if you imagine in in an Amy Winehouse kind of voice). What would people that fail the test for the lisence do? I find it hard that this would put them into thoughts. I am afraid that either they would turn to the black market -which could still exist and there would be more material flowing around easily because of the legalisation, or there could be a black market for licenses or shady ways of obtaining one without having what it takes.



While religious use and religion is a "passport" in a politically correct society i find it unfair -and sometimes even damaging to the image of users of any kind. Do i have to "declare" my belief in something i do not believe (that happens to be immaterial,supernatural,God-connected) in order to have access to a substance? This could also urge the hasty constitution of many wacky pseudoreligions in order for their members to ensure substance availability : "Sure, erm...tell them we believe in a Huge Tentacle thats Oooooozes 2C-P and that Yage is its Son!". This could paint in the public opinion users of those substance wackier than the majority of them really are.



I share the question. A Dictatorship under Crystalito's boot would be fiercely relentless: You could do by law ANYTHING AT ALL you wanted except things that harm others. That means that you could drink bleach, proceed to overdose on methadone and then stick a fork in your penis and ram it with force in the first electrict socket you would find infront of you. The catch? Well, you asked for freedom and you were given freedom : you wouldnt though be able to sue or "call anyone to justice before a court of law" should the plan go south.If you tried to do so, you would automatically be countersued for "Criminal Idiocy" by the state. Also if you survived the above and proceeded to visit the local hospital with a bewildered look of "how could such a plan go south" to be treated for injuries, i am afraid the priority of treatment would have to be people that arrived with...errr...not self-inflicted "accidents".

Sooner or later people would be flocking my palace , threatening to burn it down and hang me if i dont give them "less freedom"

Many times we might wonder "Who will protect us from the appointed protectors?" , but i am saddened to see that many times the appropriate question would be "who will protect us from ourselves?"



A meth user could argue that this would be discriminating. If someone proposed the same about psychedelics , psychedelic users would be furious. They would support that they can handle their use and that of course there are bad examples of psychedelic use that can cause sorrow to someone and people around him but thats no reason to "stigmatise" with a sign.

This is a cruel one, but it's how I feel, so forgive me:

I think natural selection is one reason to legalize drugs. Anyone weak enough to be lured by addictive substances deserve the consequences that befall them. Those who avoid them or have the superior will power to break their addiction would be granted the privilege of contributing worthy genes to the pool.

in other news, empathy is down 40% from what is was in the 80's and 90's

http://www.scientificame...e-less-empathic-10-05-29

[quote=the_ki]in other news, empathy is down 40% from what is was in the 80's and 90's

http://www.scientificame...-less-empathic-10-05-29[/quote]

Lol.
Great Job!

in a legal or free atmosphere, i dont think that drugs like meth would exist at all. it seems that these sketchy drugs pop up to fill the void left by the drug war making all the good/safer drugs illegal. also, if cocaine were suddenly legalized, i certainly would not be rushing out to buy some- if i wanted it, i would seek it now... i would, however love to extract some myself.

surely the 'crimes' associated with these substances arise out of the fact that they are illegal/controlled/expensive and there is a black market with a demand, and an opportunity to turn a quick buck.

in the US, cocaine and methamphetamine are not very good examples because they have accepted medical usage, AND have registered trade names (they're made by big pharma)
they are in C-II scheduling (accepted medical use, high abuse potential).

although there is a black market for them, they're not completely prohibited in the US like mescaline, LSD, psilocybin, and ibogaine.

I don't see the relevance of that in relation to their recreational use. The argument remains the same.

I would be for legalising of these substances, if only the legal recreational use would be confinded within the borders of people's private domain.

Use of them and being under the influence of them in public settings brings too large a risk of leading to extreme violence.
Probably one of the reasons why meth, for instance was such a popular drug among soldiers in WW2.
And probably one of the reasons why the military propagated the use of it during this period as well.

These drug's mostly affect the dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems within the brain, wich are crucial for social behaviour among other things.

My experience with users of cocaine and methamphetamine has convinced me that the neural circuitry and regulating systems responsable for social behaviour are deeply affected by these substances in an extremely negative way.
Agression is boosted while at the same time emphaty is diminished extremely.
Cocaine, but especially methamphetamine seems to do exactly the opposite in that way, as it's familymember MDMA.

I don't doubt this. Someday science will proof that coke and meth have the opposite effect on the neural circuitry involved in social behaviour, as MDMA.

Like the use of alcohol is legal, but not when operating heavy machinery and automobiles, the use some substances should be legalised but not accepted in public areas and certainly not in areas where alcohol is used at the same time.

Have you ever considered that the personalities of the people you have seen under the influence of cocaine and methamphetamine could have something to do with their aggressive behavior and lack of empathy? I owned a recording studio and I've been around plenty of cocaine abusers and I have NEVER seen an act of aggression from someone high on coke. I saw it a lot in clubs and music venues. Once again, never saw an act of aggression from someone on cocaine or amphetamines, unless alcohol was involved. My cousin worked in a biker bar. He said that the bikers who tended towards violence didn't need to be on anything to commit acts of violence, but that alcohol was the culprit in the most extreme cases. I've seen people who are the kindest most wonderful people have a polar shift when alcohol is used. I've also seen the opposite. I've also seen someone flip out and get violent on mushrooms. Then again, personality of the user and other factors might be partially to blame.
As far as I've seen and read, alcohol causes much more aggression than cocaine. And talk about a lack of empathy! Yikes!
Do you believe that people who use alcohol should be confined to their homes during use? Should other members of the household be removed while the alcohol user is imbibing? Also, in the U.S., methamphetamine is prescribed as a medecine for ADHD and ADD under the trade name Desoxyn. Should people prescribed this drug be confined within the borders of their private domain?

Great post Mister_Niles!

I agree and think people should be held accountable for their ACTIONS regardless of what substances they're on.

the recreational use isn't even relevant to my response, which was addressing the level of restriction of these compounds. the law recognizes utility in cocaine and meth, but not mescaline.

and science doesn't prove anything...i don't know how many times i've said this..nothing in science is ever 'proven'. only non-scientists use that term.
furthermore, the actions of MDMA are very similar to meth and cocaine in the nucleus accumbens, so don't hold your breath for scientists to show otherwise.