Would you legalise drugs?

[DJDannyUhOh]

^ I don't see how negatively affecting your own health can directly affect someone else's freedom.

In the case of insurance, it's a third party that chooses to raise its prices trying to accomodate to the market. This isn't the fault of the drug user but the insurance company.

The reason for the price increase is directly because of the additional health resources being utilized.

 

[redeemer]

Firstly, I disagree that legalizing drugs will require additional health resources.

Secondly, if what you propose, that the act of possibly hurting yourself should be criminalized, were to come in effect we wouldn't be able to do anyhting.

Rock climbing, sky diving, driving a car, riding your bicycle in inner city, tree climbing, etc. etc..

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

^ yea but that hasn't stopped the government from making laws to protect ourselves from ourselves

Seat beat laws, suicide laws, etc. Hell, in some places we can't even cut trees on our own property.

The government can do anything as long as it agrees with public opinion. How else do you think they could of gotten away with that bullshit war in Iraq? In fact, I read somewhere that public opinion was never higher for the president during the post 9/11 months.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

There's no speculating that health care costs would go up - they would.

Drug and alcohol abuse costs U.S. business as much as $140 billion a year in lost productivity, accidents, healthcare costs and absenteeism. People abusing drugs and alcohol on the job have three to four times the number of accidents as those who don't.

http://www.abbottdiagnostics.com/Your_Health/Drug_Abuse/

This is referenced just from a laboratory perspective - Abbott Laboratories. They are a partner lab to the one I work at and stand as a credible source of health care costs as they perpetually dance a balancing act between providing health care and profitability.

 

[redeemer]

There's no speculating that health care costs would go up - they would.

There is only speculation as to whether health care costs would go up as no conclucisve evidence exists.

Alcohol is as safe as it can be right now because it is availble in known quantities without harmful impurities. Heroin users wouldn't be injecting 50% heroin 50% crap, they would be injecting sterile solutions. They wouldn't overdose to anywhere near the same extent as they would know how much of the drug they actually have.

Ecstasy users wouldn't die of harmful combinations of MDMA mixed with unknown fillers:

In a recent study in the UK, of 81 deaths where MDMA was present, only 6 died from simple MDMA toxicity.(1)

I also don't belive drug use would go up as drastically as some claim. The average non-drug user isn't really concerned with their legality AFAIK.

 

[kocher]

in turkey firstly ı could legallize cannabis.
cos music is fucking good..!

 

[turnandburn]

Ecstasy users wouldn't die of harmful combinations of MDMA mixed with unknown fillers:

In a recent study in the UK, of 81 deaths where MDMA was present, only 6 died from simple MDMA toxicity.(1)

Just to point out, according to your link, those ecstasy users didn't die from impure samples, but rather from hyperthermia or hyponatremia.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Just to point out, according to your link, those ecstasy users didn't die from impure samples, but rather from hyperthermia or hyponatremia.

Exactly. The costs do not stem from impurities. Making E pure doesn't make it safe. Behavior behind the drug use is what's responsible for the consequences. Giving the public easy access to these things inevitably will increase the incidence of such behavior, thus increasing the costs associated in treating such behavior. Actually, death altogether is a cheaper alternative to the end result.

 

[redeemer]

Just to point out, according to your link, those ecstasy users didn't die from impure samples, but rather from hyperthermia or hyponatremia.

Yeah, you're right. I just saw that quote when browsing TheDEA's site and thought it concerned lethal MDMA combinations.

Exactly. The costs do not stem from impurities. Making E pure doesn't make it safe.

No one has ever argued it would be safe if legalized. Have you taken a look at the site I linked to? It shows an estimate of the death rate of MDMA users to be 25 times less than that of alcohol users.

Giving the public easy access to these things inevitably will increase the incidence of such behavior, thus increasing the costs associated in treating such behavior.

Again, you aren't considering the deaths it will save because of previously mentioned factors. Nor have you considered how much healthier addicts who have access to pure drugs and can live in a house instead of on the streets actually are. There's a lot of money to be saved in numerous areas that one doesn't consider because we've never liven in a society without drug prohibition. Law enforcement, the DEA, and other governmental agencies that help enforce prohibiton will be either freed from work or completely abolished. You cannot narrow it down to "more users = more damage".

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

It shows an estimate of the death rate of MDMA users to be 25 times less than that of alcohol users.

Like I said, the easier availability of a substance, the higher the incidences involving that substance.

 

[redeemer]

Like I said, the easier availability of a substance, the higher the incidences involving that substance.

It is a death rate, based on deaths per 100,000 users of the substance, it isn't affected by the size of user population (ex. its margin of error).

 

[qwedsa]

Drug and alcohol abuse costs U.S. business as much as $140 billion a year in lost productivity, accidents, healthcare costs and absenteeism. People abusing drugs and alcohol on the job have three to four times the number of accidents as those who don't.

the problem with using that number to argue to keep drugs illegal is that the situation would not be the same after legalization. the same amount of drug use might not account for the same proportion of cost. although the page you linked to doesnt source itself, it matches the $140b figure the Lewin Group came up with in The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States. let's look at each cost

healthcare costs: in terms of overdose, almost all are from mixing drugs, which usually is because people are unaware of which drugs are dangerous to mix with which

other overdoses are due to unknown dose, another consequence of getting drugs from the black market

in terms of health/disease, unknown dose and impurities contribute greatly to this

two of the highest costs in the healthcare figure are drug exposed infants and the highest by far is HIV/AIDS. in an illegal environment, both of these are horribly exacerbated. pregnant mothers may be afraid to get treatment letting their infants' problems grow wrose without getting the help needed to quit. and of course HIV/AIDs spreads with needle sharing

healthcare costs would probably decrease. even if they did, though, healthcare costs only make up 9% of that 140$bil figure

productivity costs: this figure accounts for 69% of that $140b. it includes:

premature death - would decrease beacuse overdoses would be far less common
drug abuse related illness - would decrease because drugs would be far less hazardous to use
hospitalization - would decrease for the same reason
productivity loss from victims of crime - would decrease because with a greatly reduced black market, there would be greatly reduced homicide and with cheaper drugs there would be no need to resort to crime to pay for habits
incarceration - this is an easy one. no productivity loss due to this because no one would be in jail for drugs. this is the biggest cost in this category as well
crime careers - with less people in the black market, less money would be lost to the black market. this would go down

now lets look at other costs which accounts for 22% of the $140b

nearly all of this figure is under Criminal Justice System and otehr Public Costs, which wouldnt exist once drugs are legal

the smallest figure is from property damage for victims of crime, which would decrease, and the second smallest figure is private legal defense, which wouldnt need to exist at all

if you want to argue numbers, at least know what your numbers mean. in terms of med costs, govt costs, economy, and civil liberty, drug use makes absolutely no sense

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

It is a death rate, based on deaths per 100,000 users of the substance, it isn't affected by the size of user population (ex. its margin of error).

Oh, I see. If use goes up, the death rate won't. Sure thing.

healthcare costs would probably decrease. even if they did, though, healthcare costs only make up 9% of that 140$bil figure

I'm done debating on health care costs going down as a result of introducing more addictive chemicals into our daily consumer behaviors. It's absurd. You really need to separate yourself from your personal passion for drug use and legalization and assess reality (or American society in particular) from a third person perspective. Having enjoyed drugs already puts you in a position of strong bias. Not everybody behaves the way you wish them to. Separate yourself from the system for a moment, pretend you never did drugs in the first place, and look at the raw behavioral patterns. Put yourself in another's shoes for once and walk a mile. It will make you a more rounded person to understand the world beyond "me, myself, and I". If people on this earth can go to great lengths to choose pulling an animal from a buring building rather than a fellow human being, then there must be some of us that understand how to protect one another. There's approximately 6.5 billion other people that share this planet.

 

[Gldm]

So let's factor in health care costs of people shot, stabbed, or injured in the illegal pursuit of drugs that if legalized they could just go buy without any danger.

Or let's go the other way. We're already banning smoking, let's bring back prohibition as well. But wait, there's also an obesity crisis, so let's strictly regulate refined sugar and fat. While we're at it, let's make red meat illegal too. Coffee can sometimes have negative health impacts as well. Where do you want to draw the line? Just because it's been at the current position for a while does not mean that's the optimum place.

You also seem to be ignoring the potential taxable revenue from sales of these products that could easily offset the healthcare costs given the huge markups they're currently sold at. Marijuana alone would generate an estimated 14 billion dollars a year in the US if legalized, half from tax and half from reduced incarceration costs of petty offenses.

 

[ebola?]

>>Separate yourself from the system for a moment, pretend you never did drugs in the first place, and look at the raw behavioral patterns.>>

I probably wouldn't try them if they were legalized.

>>But if what you irresponsibly do to your own body affects someone else's freedom, where do you draw the line?>>

This is a difficult question with no clear answer. Nonetheless,
1. It is an empirical question as to what effect legalization would have on healthcare costs. Regardless, possible increased healthcare costs would be offset by elimination of expenditure on the war on drugs and incarcertaion due to drug offences.
2. Cognitive freedom and healthcare costs are not quantitatively comparable. At some point, we just have to pick our values.

ebola

 

[turnandburn]

Really? I sure as fuck would. I would probably try a whole cocktail of drugs. The reason I haven't done many drugs is I don't know where to get them.

 

[ebola?]

I'm "separating myself from the system" and "imagining I never tried drugs in the first place".

ebola

 

[turnandburn]

I still would. Their legal, why not? Might as well try it.

 

[redeemer]

I still would. Their legal, why not? Might as well try it.

This is the result from trying to teach morals via the law.

One could imagine that after you've tried waking up with ass pain in some strangers bed following one of your drug cocktail binges, you'd perhaps reconsider if you really want to keep doing this.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

I'm "separating myself from the system" and "imagining I never tried drugs in the first place".

ebola

Then how come you can't understand that we in the US would have a much bigger health crisis if drugs became easily obtained? We can't keep our fat asses out of McDonalds and our hearts from clogging up. How are we supposed to tackle the issue of an increase in drug-related accidents? Chalk it up to human rights as much as you want but sooner of later, somebody is going to have to clean up the mess and front the bill. You can't just float words like "freedom", "free will", and "human rights" without taking into consideration the consequences.