Would you legalise drugs?

[TruthSpeaker1]

Sup guys? I've been gone for a while but I think i'm going to start posting again. Been working a bunch recently.

The "society" myth, and the greater good, have been a fallacy used to oppress people forever. Example:

The individualist view of "society" has been summed up in the phrase: "Society" is everyone but yourself. Put thus bluntly, this analysis can be used to consider those cases where "society" is treated, not only as a superhero with superrights, but as a supervillain on whose shoulders massive blame is placed. Consider the typical view that not the individual criminal, but "society," is responsible for his crime. Take, for example, the case where Smith robs or murders Jones. The "old-fashioned" view is that Smith is responsible for his act. The modern liberal counters that "society" is responsible. This sounds both sophisticated and humanitarian, until we apply the individualist perspective. Then we see that what liberals are really saying is that everyone but Smith, including of course the victim Jones, is responsible for the crime. Put this baldly, almost everyone would recognize the absurdity of this position. But conjuring up the fictive entity "society" obfuscates this process. As the sociologist Arnold W. Green puts it: "It would follow, then, that if society is responsible for crime, and criminals are not responsible for crime, only those members of society who do not commit crime can be held responsible for crime. Nonsense this obvious can be circumvented only by conjuring up society as devil, as evil being apart from people and what they do.

I think I see where your trying to go with that but your making it too complicated.

Society, in general, is simply what the overall actions and opinion of a majority of a population.

Society is an abstract term, not a myth, and it is one of the biggest factors in deciding legislation. If society is public opinion, then congress feeds off it. If congress makes a law that society does not favor, then you have trouble.

Okay, with that in mind let's discuss the principles behind legalising some if not all drugs.

First off, the reason why it is legal in places like Amsterdam and "pretty much" legal in some places in Europe is because the mood over there is extremely liberal. People are familar with pot and it has been accepted as a habit in Europe for a while now. The only reason why alcohol is legal and pot isn't is because of alcohol's tradition. Alcohol has been around for a long time, thus it is legal. People are familar with the effects of alcohol. Legalisation of marijuana is tricky in the US because it is way more conservative over here than in the countries that accept marijuana. If marijuana was legalized many people wouldn't be very happy.

A second reason I believe marijuana shouldn't be legalized over here is because many people don't know how to use marijuana and still be healthy functional members of society. Marijuana obviously causes motivational issues, which doesn't work in a capitalistic society.

Legalizing marijuana in the US is also unpredictable. That is, politicians don't know how the public would act if marijuana was legalized. It is too risky of a move for most people in Congress to vote for. It's not as simple as people make it out to be. It's mostly politics, many people in power don't want their name attached to an radical opinion such as anti-prohibition, homosexuality, stem-cell research.

It's not that I'm against drug legalization, I just don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

"Oh so we should ban x because it's unsafe?" Everything is unsafe. Should we ban life? Should we ban keyboards because the useage of one can get you carpal tunnel, the arguement is childish. With what turnandburn said, how can you logically compare bike riding, snack foods, and driving a car with substances that mess with your central nervous system?

It's the degree of safeness that every recreational drug brings. Hard drugs are easy to OD on, soft drugs are hard to OD on, generally speaking. Yes extascy has many therapeutic effects but it is also a drug that requires knowledge in order to conduct safety procedures. Not everyone has this information, this is the whole problem behind drug legalization. If everyone had the information needed to do drugs safely, we wouldn't have this problem.

I believe that only an increased effort in recreational drug education will solve the problem. And I don't mean government anti-drug propaganda that you see every day in drug war. There have been countless studies done showing the effectiveness of drug education and treatment over criminal prosecution.

One such study:

"A RAND corporation study showed that each dollar spent on education and treatment is 7 times more effective than a dollar spent on criminal interdiction, yet we spend more than 45 BILLION DOLLARS per year on criminal interdiction and incarceration costs, and less than 4 billion dollars on education, treatment, and prevention. "

I will still say that drugs should be left illegal. Drop this "war on drugs" and see where it goes. Everyone blames our government for everything, this is fine as well. The amount of people they protect is greater than the amount of people they harm with this "war".

Actually the war on drugs has brought nothing but problems.

Crime has skyrocketed since the war on drugs. The reason behind this is due to the gangs that have spawned since the starting of the drug war in the 70s by Nixon. Drug Lords don't ID, they jack up their prices and they don't pay any taxes. If the government sold drugs all gangs would be pretty much eliminated because most if not all of them run off the money produced in the drug trade. Do you ever see a dealer selling cigerattes or alcohol? That's because companies sell them already, and the taxes all go to the government.

Drug use has actually increased in schools since the drug war.

"Since Nixon started the war on drugs, use among teens has increased 7 times - and abuses of personal freedoms have risen by an order of magnitude."

http://drugactionnetwork.com/faq/

Do you realize that more than 50% of the people in prison are drug offenders? What happened to filling up our jails with murders and rapists?

Children in high school find it easier to get marijuana than alcohol.

 

[Cyrus]

Wouldn't crime have "skyrocketed" without it as well? I don't see how something meant to prevent drug-related crime would add to it.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

Wouldn't crime have "skyrocketed" without it as well? I don't see how something meant to prevent drug-related crime would add to it.

No, the legalization of the drug causes drug-related crimes. Think about all of the gang-related violence. All of that is related to drugs. Since drugs are illegal, gangs can use that to their advantage by selling drugs to others at a very high rate. The traditional mafia was created in the 1920s during the alcohol prohibition period. They sold alcohol to people at high rates to fund their organization. Gangs do not exist without drug prohibition.

www.drugactionnetwork.com

Go to the drug faq, it explains the drug war very well.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

If drugs were legalized and some sort of regulation was put on the process of using and selling, do you really think drug-related crimes are going to go down? People on the street are going to stop selling them and leave it to an institution to do the selling? I highly doubt it. The vast majority of people who are chronically in drug-related trouble with the law aren't in that position solely because of illegalized drugs. That is a lifestyle they live and do not know any other than circumventing the law for survival. Legalizing drugs isn't going to make crimes rates go down.

 

[bGIveNs33]

You dont own my body, or what I put into it. You moral busybodies are the biggest criminals; locking somebody up for doing drugs is a much bigger crime than doing drugs.

No, but we do live in the same country. This country has decided that it will not allow drugs to become legal at this time. If you are going to continue to live in this country and use drugs you either need to a. change the law b. live with any consequences or c. move away

That is pretty simple. You don't own your body, not completely. If you are going to accept our military protection and other benefits of being an american you have to play by the rules. You have jury duty, you could be drafted and please obey the speed limit.

If you think your body is completely yours, then you need to wake up.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

If drugs were legalized and some sort of regulation was put on the process of using and selling, do you really think drug-related crimes are going to go down?

Yes, completely.

People on the street are going to stop selling them and leave it to an institution to do the selling? I highly doubt it.

Are you kidding me? They will have no choice but to stop selling. If a legimate company can sell a drug faster, cheaper and with better service who would you buy from? Have you seen any alcohol or nicotine dealers recently?

The vast majority of people who are chronically in drug-related trouble with the law aren't in that position solely because of illegalized drugs

Source? And yes a lot of users (not dealers) go to jail just because of a drug charge. Do you realize that each illegal possession of a pharm is a felony by itself? This means that someone who has 30 pills of xanax is facing a felony charge for each pill.

That is a lifestyle they live and do not know any other than circumventing the law for survival. Legalizing drugs isn't going to make crimes rates go down.

Take a look at the prohibition days of 1920. When alcohol prohibition was first introduced.

"during prohibition, the MURDER rate skyrocketed up to 10 per 100,000, spurred largely by the kind of gang shootings one hears about in large cities today, all fueled by the money to be made from the prohibition-created black market in drugs.

After prohibition, the murder rates dropped by more than HALF."

 

[Able Danger]

No, but we do live in the same country. This country has decided that it will not allow drugs to become legal at this time. If you are going to continue to live in this country and use drugs you either need to a. change the law b. live with any consequences or c. move away

That is pretty simple. You don't own your body, not completely. If you are going to accept our military protection and other benefits of being an american you have to play by the rules. You have jury duty, you could be drafted and please obey the speed limit.

If you think your body is completely yours, then you need to wake up.

spoken like a true fascist.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Yes, completely.

So you think crime would go down? You must be a sociologist. Here's your silly reference:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/drrc.pdf
A sociology class would be a much better reference.

Here's a quote from the reference:

Drug use and crime are common aspects of a deviant lifestyle. The likelihood and frequency of involvement in illegal activity is increased because drug users may not participate in the legitimate economy and are exposed to situations that encourage crime.

You said:

Are you kidding me? They will have no choice but to stop selling. If a legimate company can sell a drug faster, cheaper and with better service who would you buy from? Have you seen any alcohol or nicotine dealers recently?

They have no choice but to stop selling? Just like they have no choice but to obey the laws now, right? So you suppose they will all just pick up and take on jobs at the local WalMart then right? And all of a sudden become law abiding citizens? Not gonna happen.

Also, how many times do I have to explain why you can't compare alcohol to illegal drugs. Alcohol was an integral part of our culture before prohibition, much more than any illegal drug today. There's a hundred positive uses for alcohol - there's none for crack.

 

[ebola?]

>>You must be a sociologist.>>

Hi.
I happen to be a sociologist (although my area of specialization is hardly deviance and crime).

>>Drug use and crime are common aspects of a deviant lifestyle. The likelihood and frequency of involvement in illegal activity is increased because drug users may not participate in the legitimate economy and are exposed to situations that encourage crime.>>

This sort of structural-functionalist take on deviance is short-sighted in that it does not critique the role of society in defining deviance (although vulgar labeling theory is clearly myopic in its own ways).

>>They have no choice but to stop selling? Just like they have no choice but to obey the laws now, right? So you suppose they will all just pick up and take on jobs at the local WalMart then right? And all of a sudden become law abiding citizens? Not gonna happen.>>

Okay. You should ask the question, though, as to WHY drug sales and trafficking are the crimes of choice in impoverished areas. It is because drug trafficking is remarkably profitable, which depends on recreational drugs' illegal status. If drugs were sold cheaply through legal channels, other black-market goods and services would come to dominate impoverished areas.

>>If you've taken sociology, you would realize that society, at least here in the US has changed dramatically. Our social framework and behavior in 2006 isn't anything like it was in 1906.>>

What demographic factors suggest that the drug war is appropriate for the contemporary US population but not that of the past?

>>There is absolutely no evidence that legalizing a dangerous, addictive substance will reduce harm. >>

Since you are impervious to libertarian claims of rights, you have to weigh out things on utilitarian terms. Legalization would ensure safe, stable, pure, and cheap supplies of drugs for addicts. This would reduce adverse medical effects while allowing addicts to lead relatively more stable and productive lives. Legalization would also reduce expenditure on law enforcement and incarceration focused on supression of drug use and crime and violence associated with the black market (assuming that not all potential drug dealers switch to other profitable black markets).

The danger would be increased drug use. Given the dismal quantity of drugs that are seized by law enforcement and overall social taboos surrounding drug use...and relative dangers of illegal drugs compared to alcohol, how much do you think use would escalate and how much of a danger do you think it would really pose? How many people are there who are itching to IV meth, if only it were legal?

ebola

 

[qwedsa]

^i think that the thoughts of the pro legalization side is that, once legal, over a period of time they will lose their stigma, leading to greater use... rather than right when it's legalized people go to it

I told you already the importance of alcohol to the medical field so you cannot criminalize it

so make alcohol prescription...

Legalizing every street drug will cause society, as a whole, more trouble than it's worth

what trouble does it cause? possibly more drug use (but people would be using pure drugs with known dose and with more information on using safer). what trouble does prohibition bring? ive said it countless times in this thread. the medical impact of prohibition is staggering when people use drugs of unknown dose and purity, with contaminents, with no simple labels warning against which drugs not to mix with, and with higher concentrated drugs because of efficiency in the black market; as is the cost with law enforcement, prisons, courts

If drugs were legalized and some sort of regulation was put on the process of using and selling, do you really think drug-related crimes are going to go down? People on the street are going to stop selling them and leave it to an institution to do the selling?

of course. this is one of the main arguments. you could look back at my post for a real life example (drug crack downs causing more drug use, especially injection)
the idea behind it is this: when drugs are illegal, there is a HUGE amount of money in the drug economy, so much that people will risk imprisonment. the black market swells. along with the black market comes settling disputes messily (ie, homicide). along with the black market's inflated prices comes stealing to support habits. both of these comprise virtually all of the drug related crime, and both would almost dissappear almost immediately upon legalization

 

[bGIveNs33]

spoken like a true fascist.

"a witty phrase proves nothing"



well thought our response, you have my convinced, let's legalize drugs against the will of the majority of america. we wouldn't want to trample on your imaginary right to get high.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

So you think crime would go down? You must be a sociologist. Here's your silly reference:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/drrc.pdf
A sociology class would be a much better reference.

yes i have taken sociology classes and I doubt soc 101 would certify you as a sociologist.

that link didn't work for me but I'll take your word for it and start with the paragraph you quoted:

"Drug use and crime are common aspects of a deviant lifestyle. The likelihood and frequency of involvement in illegal activity is increased because drug users may not participate in the legitimate economy and are exposed to situations that encourage crime. "

That proves my point. If drugs weren't illegal people would not have to "not participate in the legitimate economy" because they could just buy their drug of choice from a local general store. Hence, they are indeed participating in the economy because if drugs were legal, a portion of the money spent on drugs by the user would be going toward the government. What's there to understand?

They have no choice but to stop selling? Just like they have no choice but to obey the laws now, right? So you suppose they will all just pick up and take on jobs at the local WalMart then right? And all of a sudden become law abiding citizens? Not gonna happen.

Perhaps you should take more economics classes. Look, if marlboro can make type A heroin for $10.00 a bag and a dealer makes type A heroin for $25 a bag, which one would the consumer buy? The dealer can try to sell his product but eventually all the users would just buy it legally. All the dealers would have to take jobs at the local wal-mart I guess.

Also, how many times do I have to explain why you can't compare alcohol to illegal drugs. Alcohol was an integral part of our culture before prohibition, much more than any illegal drug today.

Um let's see, yea your right, we can't compare alcohol to most drugs. You know why? Because most drugs aren't nearly as neurotoxic or as easy to OD off of them most drugs. Alcohol WD's can kill a person, heroin WD's can't even do that.

There's a hundred positive uses for alcohol - there's none for crack.

By positive I'm guessing you mean therapeutic. And as far as decreasing anxiety, I can name of none for alcohol. Crack, meth, coke, amphetamines (in a medicinal dosage) has been known to treat anxiety, ADD, and depression. 3 times as many people die from alcohol poisoning than off of all other illegal drugs combined.

Since you are impervious to libertarian claims of rights, you have to weigh out things on utilitarian terms. Legalization would ensure safe, stable, pure, and cheap supplies of drugs for addicts. This would reduce adverse medical effects while allowing addicts to lead relatively more stable and productive lives. Legalization would also reduce expenditure on law enforcement and incarceration focused on supression of drug use and crime and violence associated with the black market (assuming that not all potential drug dealers switch to other profitable black markets).

The danger would be increased drug use. Given the dismal quantity of drugs that are seized by law enforcement and overall social taboos surrounding drug use...and relative dangers of illegal drugs compared to alcohol, how much do you think use would escalate and how much of a danger do you think it would really pose? How many people are there who are itching to IV meth, if only it were legal?

Ah Ebola, sup man? I couldn't have said the latter of your post better myself. I'm kinda disappointed you didn't have anything to say in regard to my posts, I find it challenging to debate with you. I've been busy as hell recently.

Anyways, the fundamental problem to the above post is the spontanous occurance of addictions that may spawn if a drug were legalized. That is, no one is just going to say one day "hey, let's try crack!" after 30 years of not using any drugs. But there will most likely be people, mostly 21-35 range (just an estimate), that will try the legalized drug simply because it is legal now and fall prey to addiction.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Legalization would ensure safe, stable, pure, and cheap supplies of drugs for addicts. This would reduce adverse medical effects while allowing addicts to lead relatively more stable and productive lives.

So giving addicts more of what they are addicted to is going to make them more stable? Then why don't we do the same for alcoholics? Why don't we just forget treatment and just let them drink themselves to death?

The black market isn't there for the sole reason that things are illegal. Black market exists for vitrually every demand, whether illegal or not, in the world. People know nothing but that lifestyle. They have no other education and are perpetually ignorant of what they should do - that is the reason for black markets. Drug dealers will still need income and they will sell no matter if they become legal or not.

Crack, meth, coke, amphetamines (in a medicinal dosage) has been known to treat anxiety, ADD, and depression.

Source? The only substance that came close to treating disorder was amphetamines, and like what I said above, we couldn't handle it and drove it to illegalization. It was a clear cut example of how the general public was full of irresponsible drugs users.

That proves my point. If drugs weren't illegal people would not have to "not participate in the legitimate economy" because they could just buy their drug of choice from a local general store. Hence, they are indeed participating in the economy because if drugs were legal, a portion of the money spent on drugs by the user would be going toward the government. What's there to understand?

If drugs became legal, they would become part of the "legitimate economy". It's not about the drugs themselves like I said before, it's about anti-socializing and the unwillingnes to participate in society, hence criminal activity. Guns are legal. Do you see criminals buying them legitimately? You can't use "cheapness" because you can get guns really cheap at gun shows.

Um let's see, yea your right, we can't compare alcohol to most drugs. You know why? Because most drugs aren't nearly as neurotoxic or as easy to OD off of them most drugs. Alcohol WD's can kill a person, heroin WD's can't even do that.

It's easier to OD on alcohol than heroin? Are you crazy?

3 times as many people die from alcohol poisoning than off of all other illegal drugs combined.

And if other substances became just as easy to obtain, they would fall to the same statistic, not merely replacing but adding on to the total deaths. People that die from alcohol poisoning aren't doing it by accident. They are either heavy binge drinkers or highly addicted to alcohol. If you throw drugs in the mix, it just gives those same addictive people another tool to act out the same behavior.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

So giving addicts more of what they are addicted to is going to make them more stable? Then why don't we do the same for alcoholics? Why don't we just forget treatment and just let them drink themselves to death?

Your not getting the point. Alcoholics and cigeratte addicts can lead successful and fullfilling lives. Many people need a pack of cigerattes or a 6-pack of beer just to get through the day. Same goes with drug addicts except it is a much bigger challenge for them to get their dose every day, especially with the high prices of illegal drugs, the questionable potency of the drug, and the hassle of "shady" dealers users have to put up with. If drugs were legal all of those problems are gone.

The black market isn't there for the sole reason that things are illegal. Black market exists for vitrually every demand, whether illegal or not, in the world.

Your completely wrong.

From wikipedia: "The black market or underground market is the part of economic activity involving illegal dealings, typically the buying and selling of merchandise or services (for example sexual services in many countries) illegally. The goods may be inherently illegal (e.g. weapons or illegal drugs); the merchandise may be stolen; or the merchandise may be otherwise legal goods sold illicitly to avoid tax payments or licensing requirements, such as cigarettes or unregistered firearms. It is so called because "black economy" or "black market" affairs are conducted outside the law, and so are necessarily conducted "in the dark", out of the sight of the law"

Drug dealers will still need income and they will sell no matter if they become legal or not.

How are you still not getting my point? Drug dealers will be forced out of business if drugs were legal. Just like mom and pop stores are forced out of business when a major corporation comes into town.

Source? The only substance that came close to treating disorder was amphetamines, and like what I said above, we couldn't handle it and drove it to illegalization.

First off, I thought it was generally known that all stimulants help people focus better, thus treating ADD. ADD, putting it simply, is the lack of focus.

Methamphetamine and Amphetamines are still be prescribed to people who have ADD. Dexedrine is pure d-type amphetamine, adderall is amphetamine salts and Desoxyn is methamphetamine.

Here is my source for cocaine:

A research report in the Archives of General Psychiatry states, "Cocaine, which is one of the most reinforcing and addicting of the abused drugs, has pharmacological actions that are very similar to those of methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta), which is now the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medicine for children in the U.S."

http://www.adhdhelp.org/stimulants.htm

It was a clear cut example of how the general public was full of irresponsible drugs users.

What are you talking about now? MANY people still use amphetamines and methamphetamines to treat their ADD.

Also, those stimulants that I mentioned may also treat narcoplsy(sp?).

If drugs became legal, they would become part of the "legitimate economy". It's not about the drugs themselves like I said before, it's about anti-socializing and the unwillingnes to participate in society, hence criminal activity.

I didn't see you say that before, or maybe I just overlooked that part.

So what your saying is that drug usage can lead people to become anti-social and not participate in society? So can a lot of other things.

Drug usage isn't the problem here, obsession is the problem. Anything in excess can lead to unhealthy habits. Gambling, video games, hobbies, eating, anything that can be done for enjoyment can be abused and may have addictive potential.

Guns are legal. Do you see criminals buying them legitimately? You can't use "cheapness" because you can get guns really cheap at gun shows.

How can you compare guns with drugs? You don't need to be placed on a waiting list simply to own a drug. Drugs are not created to kill other human beings, drugs do not impose (not least not directly) a safety hazard to other human beings.

It's easier to OD on alcohol than heroin? Are you crazy?

I never said that, although there are more deaths per year due to alcohol than all other illegal drugs combined. MUCH MORE.

What I did say is that it is impossible to die from heroin withdrawals yet it it is possible for an alcoholic to die from alcohol WDs.

And if other substances became just as easy to obtain, they would fall to the same statistic, not merely replacing but adding on to the total deaths. People that die from alcohol poisoning aren't doing it by accident. They are either heavy binge drinkers or highly addicted to alcohol. If you throw drugs in the mix, it just gives those same addictive people another tool to act out the same behavior.

yea that's pretty much what I just said in my last paragraph of my previous post.

 

[ebola?]

>>So giving addicts more of what they are addicted to is going to make them more stable? Then why don't we do the same for alcoholics? Why don't we just forget treatment and just let them drink themselves to death?>>

You are clearly setting up a straw man. Of course people should be offered the option of treatment insofar as they wish to seek it. The fact of the matter is, though, that forcible incarceration and the tiny dent prohibition makes in the supply of drugs does little to treat addicts.

And, yes, in many cases a steady supply of drugs does make addicts more stable. That way, they can administer carefully titrated maintanance doses while going about their work (and get high at home) rather than roving the streets trying to secure funds and then illegal goods. Many a successful surgeon has been a morphine addict.

>>Black market exists for vitrually every demand, whether illegal or not, in the world.>>

But black markets arise out of regulations and taxation on goods. Otherwise, there is no point to them. In the case of firearms, their black market has arisen out of surveillance made on gun purchases.

>>People know nothing but that lifestyle. They have no other education and are perpetually ignorant of what they should do - that is the reason for black markets. . .It's not about the drugs themselves like I said before, it's about anti-socializing and the unwillingnes to participate in society, hence criminal activity.>>

This theoretical orientation towards criminology is naive at best. Perhaps you should consider taking some sociology. You have to look at the wider politico-economic forces of ghettoization, the suburbanization and international outsourcing of jobs, and deindustrialization of the inner cities to understand current patterns of deviance. People participate in the black market for drugs because
1. the lack other opportunities
2. drug prohibition cultivates a context where black market drugs are extremely profitable.

The "anti-socialization" you note is practically epiphenomenal.

>>It's easier to OD on alcohol than heroin? Are you crazy?>>

Heroin has a higher theraputic index than alcohol. If it were sold in a pure and carefully measured form, overdoses would become far more rare.

>>If you throw drugs in the mix, it just gives those same addictive people another tool to act out the same behavior.>>

Okay...so do you envision the overall number of recreational drug users (including alcohol users) going up or rather, for the most part, people switching from alcohol to other substances?

>>
Ah Ebola, sup man? I couldn't have said the latter of your post better myself. I'm kinda disappointed you didn't have anything to say in regard to my posts, I find it challenging to debate with you. I've been busy as hell recently.>>

Hey. I've been busy too...too busy to follow these sprawling, lengthy threads.

ebola

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

But black markets arise out of regulations and taxation on goods. Otherwise, there is no point to them.

How can you be sure this won't arise with legalized drugs? Look at the massive cigarette taxes in the past few years. Try buying one in Chicago.

This theoretical orientation towards criminology is naive at best. Perhaps you should consider taking some sociology. You have to look at the wider politico-economic forces of ghettoization, the suburbanization and international outsourcing of jobs, and deindustrialization of the inner cities to understand current patterns of deviance. People participate in the black market for drugs because
1. the lack other opportunities
2. drug prohibition cultivates a context where black market drugs are extremely profitable.

Unless companies outsource their resources in the production of street drugs, you will see the same price crisis that faces prescription drugs today. Making drugs here in America will drive up the prices comparable to prescriptions, hence you will still see the prevalance of the drug black market. The goverment can barely regulate prescription drug prices, you think they will be more vigilante with recreational drugs? It will be worse. I've taken several sociology (macro & micro) classes, thank you.

Okay...so do you envision the overall number of recreational drug users (including alcohol users) going up or rather, for the most part, people switching from alcohol to other substances?

Yes. People that become addicted aren't going to switch, they will just have more to use. Introducing more readily available addictive substances into society isn't going to solve the problem. Decriminalizing yes, but like I said before health care costs related to them will skyrocket as more people harm themselves.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Your completely wrong.

From wikipedia: "The black market or underground market is the part of economic activity involving illegal dealings, typically the buying and selling of merchandise or services (for example sexual services in many countries) illegally. The goods may be inherently illegal (e.g. weapons or illegal drugs); the merchandise may be stolen; or the merchandise may be otherwise legal goods sold illicitly to avoid tax payments or licensing requirements, such as cigarettes or unregistered firearms. It is so called because "black economy" or "black market" affairs are conducted outside the law, and so are necessarily conducted "in the dark", out of the sight of the law"

Dude, you just proved my point by quoting wikipedia. So drugs won't be stolen? People won't try to circumvent licensure? There isn't a black market for DVD's? Aren't they legal? You specifically proved my point when you quoted "goods sold illicitly to avoid tax payments or licensing requirements". If recreational drugs were legal, the tax on them will make the tax on cigarettes
look like puke.

How are you still not getting my point? Drug dealers will be forced out of business if drugs were legal. Just like mom and pop stores are forced out of business when a major corporation comes into town.

You can't "force" criminals out of business. Criminals arent operating under normal business ethics. "Mom and Pop" stores operated under the legitimate economy and you can't compare competition the black market to the legitimate economy.

 

[redeemer]

So what will the drug dealers do when people won't buy their drugs anymore? Force people into buying their unpure drugs at inflated prices?

 

[qwedsa]

You can't "force" criminals out of business. Criminals arent operating under normal business ethics. "Mom and Pop" stores operated under the legitimate economy and you can't compare competition the black market to the legitimate economy.

if a dealer's business dwindles to a couple loyal people because everyone else likes the cheap and convenient prices at their local drug store, that dealer is forced out of business. no matter what business ethics he follows or does not follows, no customers = no business

it's about anti-socializing and the unwillingnes to participate in society, hence criminal activity.

i dont think youre reading my posts at all

you could look back at my post for a real life example (drug crack downs causing more drug use, especially injection)
the idea behind it is this: when drugs are illegal, there is a HUGE amount of money in the drug economy, so much that people will risk imprisonment. the black market swells. along with the black market comes settling disputes messily (ie, homicide). along with the black market's inflated prices comes stealing to support habits. both of these comprise virtually all of the drug related crime, and both would almost dissappear almost immediately upon legalization

 

[Cyrus]

Drug dealing isn't a "business."

We're reading your posts, qwedsa, but nothings getting across, as they don't make much sense in your reasoning. (At least, in my opinion.)