Should we legalize all drugs for personal use?

Pretzel Man wrote:

Clapton Coke wrote:

Legalize everything. Focus on treatment for addicts. Have safe, clean locations for people to use instead of out in the streets.

People don't need to be locked up for using or selling. We're wasting money housing prisoners.

Wasn't there a movie out not to long ago about there being no law's in the world for a hour?

That's what would happen eventually.

Maybe there is something to all them zombie movies because that's we're we would end up.

Maybe not.

More seriously, is that your logic? I mean, it is completely vacuous.

Maybe Mouse wrote:

Pretzel Man wrote:

Wasn't there a movie out not to long ago about there being no law's in the world for a hour?

That's what would happen eventually.

Maybe there is something to all them zombie movies because that's we're we would end up.

Maybe not.

More seriously, is that your logic? I mean, it is completely vacuous.

It's already here.

Free drugs for everybody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9obBLTeGLM

If drugs were legal would you use them? I wouldn't.

Hey, I'm expanding my consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb4Mbn4gsaA

agip wrote:

the problem with legalization I have is the amazing skills of our pharma companies.

I have zero doubt that if they can make money on it legally and profitably, Pfizer could devise a drug so frighteningly addictive that it would destroy lives in one taking. And I'm sure they could modify MJ to be much much stronger too.

This^^. Make it legal and you've pretty well left the population unprotected.

It is universally accepted throughout the world that the purpose of government is to protect people from the possibility of making bad decisions.

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

agip wrote:

and anyway, with modern science, big pharma can make something far, far more addictive than bloody nicotine. I mean come on. They are some of the best scientists in the world. Vs. a plant.

you don't want to turn those boys and girls loose.

I'm don't see your point on this. Big Pharma already makes and sells plenty of goodies that are far more addictive than nicotine. This is a problem NOW, and it's one that can be addressed with more effective government oversight (i.e., tyranny!!!!).

but they aren't legal without a prescription. I think this thread is about legalizing drugs as if they were tobacco

What constitutes a 'drug' would be problematic on it's own. The idea of making all drugs legally available immediately creates a classification issue and this can have drastic repurcussions that could handcuff social groups such as the medical community. You can't just release any molecular compound freely into the population.

agip wrote:

but they aren't legal without a prescription. I think this thread is about legalizing drugs as if they were tobacco

Ah. Well, again, I think that's where the government comes in. You can regulate drug ingredients and set caps on potency.

M A L M O

loves

E P O

agip wrote:

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

I'm don't see your point on this. Big Pharma already makes and sells plenty of goodies that are far more addictive than nicotine. This is a problem NOW, and it's one that can be addressed with more effective government oversight (i.e., tyranny!!!!).

but they aren't legal without a prescription. I think this thread is about legalizing drugs as if they were tobacco

What drugs are you talking about?

Cocaine, THC, morphine, meth are obtainable with a prescription. Are you proposing that a prescription should no longer be required for cocaine and heroin derivatives?

Blah Blah. wrote:

agip wrote:

but they aren't legal without a prescription. I think this thread is about legalizing drugs as if they were tobacco

What drugs are you talking about?

Cocaine, THC, morphine, meth are obtainable with a prescription. Are you proposing that a prescription should no longer be required for cocaine and heroin derivatives?

not sure why my position is so confusing.

I said if all drugs were legal, Pfizer et al would devise ever more addictive drugs. That would be more addictive than anything out now.

Someone else said 'but they will be regulated'

I said 'but that's a different question - the thread seems to be about full and free legalization.

I am against further legalization partly on the premise that if pharma companies had the profit motive to do so they could come with fvery frightenign drugs - worse than what is even illegal now.

agip wrote:

Blah Blah. wrote:

What drugs are you talking about?

Cocaine, THC, morphine, meth are obtainable with a prescription. Are you proposing that a prescription should no longer be required for cocaine and heroin derivatives?

not sure why my position is so confusing.

I said if all drugs were legal, Pfizer et al would devise ever more addictive drugs. That would be more addictive than anything out now.

Someone else said 'but they will be regulated'

I said 'but that's a different question - the thread seems to be about full and free legalization.

I am against further legalization partly on the premise that if pharma companies had the profit motive to do so they could come with fvery frightenign drugs - worse than what is even illegal now.

moran

I have a theory too wrote:

agip wrote:

the problem with legalization I have is the amazing skills of our pharma companies.

I have zero doubt that if they can make money on it legally and profitably, Pfizer could devise a drug so frighteningly addictive that it would destroy lives in one taking. And I'm sure they could modify MJ to be much much stronger too.

This^^. Make it legal and you've pretty well left the population unprotected.

The population isn't unprotected if we actually invest in Healthcare, namely Mental healthcare. We use the funds from the savings from no longer fighting "The war on drugs" and from the taxes earned when selling the now legal drugs. (See Colorado as a shining example.)

agip wrote:

not sure why my position is so confusing.

I said if all drugs were legal, Pfizer et al would devise ever more addictive drugs. That would be more addictive than anything out now.

Someone else said 'but they will be regulated'

I said 'but that's a different question - the thread seems to be about full and free legalization.

I am against further legalization partly on the premise that if pharma companies had the profit motive to do so they could come with fvery frightenign drugs - worse than what is even illegal now.

Well, the thread is phrased as legalization, but I don't have a desire to foreclose other schemes as well.

I do think it is pretty clear that the war on drugs is a huge failure and we have to do something else.

I think it is clear that we are headed towards regulating cannabis like alcohol or tobacco. I don't know where we are heading with other substances. I would guess that psychedelics are on the way to following the path of cannabis, but it will be a long time coming.

For some substances, such as heroin, I have a very hard time figuring out what to do with that. I am open to it being available as a maintenance medication for addiction, such as the scheme they have in Switzerland, which has been pretty successful.

I'd say your concerns about pharma companies fundamentally misunderstands the nature of addiction. The primary drivers of addiction are not the chemical substances themselves, but childhood trauma and social isolation. That doesn't mean the substances don't matter at all, but they are far less important than portrayed in the war on drugs.

LAID BACK wrote:

It is universally accepted throughout the world that the purpose of government is to protect people from the possibility of making bad decisions.

I do not think that is something that government is capable of doing effectively or should do.

People make legal, but bad decisions all the time. Conversely sometimes people do things that are illegal and that are good decisions.

Clapton Coke wrote:

If drugs were legal would you use them? I wouldn't.

So, I'm really trying to talk about this as a policy issue and not so much about perso al use, but I've posted before that I have used cannabis many years ago in college. I stopped because I really didn't like it that much.

If it was legalized I probably wouldn't use it, but I do think I should have the option to smoke a joint on Friday night with my pizza instead of drinking my 2 beers.

If I was really interested in using cannabis, or coke, or meth, I think I would use it regardless of its legal status. I've never used meth or coke because I was never interested.

I don't think my personal interest in using is a great guide for public policy. I'm not encouraging anybody to use drugs

G jo wrote:

Also, the war on drugs has been a disaster. It could never succeed.

I think low level offenders should be offered drug court prior to prison. The demand will soften. We should invest in more rehabs instead of more prisons.

I think this is probably one of the main reasons it won't happen. The private prison business is booming. Taking drug offenses and crime related to drugs out of the mix is bad for business.