Should drugs be legalised?

Should all or any drugs be legalised in you country...

Hi i live in England and personaly I beleive all drugs should be legalised except for heroin and crack

I have had excperiance with many different types of drugs from man made chemicals to natural highs And yet to see and down falls to the leagalisation and goverment distribution, if anything I feel more enlightened and content to my reality

the goverment alone would reak profits of millions in tax and also cut out the gang warfare surrounding the drug traficing industry... Also save money on hospital bills for the dirty chems put in some drugs by dealers to bulk up on weight and make more profits

I don't want any religeous anti drug comment and seek only peoples views with actuall experiance in drugs not voicing the opinions of the bible and preachers alike thankyou for taking your time to responed

Yes, it should not be criminalized period.

The evidence is clear, crime reduction by up to 80-90%, addicts receiving help rather than criminal status and treatment that tends to force them into being criminals when on the street due to criminal status, especially felonies.

Revenues, taxes, freedom, you can't lose. Its a win for everyone but the gangsters on the street, get a real job, and the real criminal gangsters in the governments that are the biggest drug pushers out there!

The war on drugs was just the smoke screen to allow overtly covert control of the drug trafficking by our government. The dealers and traffickers busted are the competition and the masses they want degraded, enslaved, and in their privatized for profit prisons.

Freedom is the answer indeed, that and education on the reality of the situation.

I think it's highly hypocritical of any government to legalize two drugs. Two drugs that are the highest killers among others.Yet make drugs that have positive and non-life threatening effects illegal.

It seems either paranoid or ignorant.
I believe they have been helping with the so called "Drug trade" and the prohibition of these drug are to blind you from what's really going on.

So yes i think all drugs should be legalized or none at all.

Drugs are illegal to artificially raise the price of the product and to benefit the lawyers, judges, etc. who make a living prosecuting small time drug dealers.

Do not legalize drugs because illegal drugs provide jobs.

I think certain drugs should be legalized but certain other ones should not because of their addictive personalities. Like heroin is used to control people by forcing them to take it then making them do things because they can't help but need it.

What do you think?

yah, some are addictive but isn't that up to the user? forcing someone is a crime so thats different than legalization

Sammy K, I agree that a drug like crack shouldn't be legalized.

I've personal experience with an array of elicit drugs. While I do appreciate and understand the Libertarian philosophy regarding government drug policy, it must be taken into account that certain individuals will abuse certain drugs to their early deaths. Most stimulants (Amphetamines, Cocaine, etcetera) come to mind first as causing the most loss in life. The poster, and a previous commenter mention 'Heroin', well certain opiates/opioids have a high danger of overdosing, heroin is one especially when administered IV and self-dosed. However, with legalization, having a steady supply would make tolerance less erratic, and purity would be constant which would drastically reduce incidence of OD. Anyway, I'm sure you've all heard, or may even know someone who's died from Fentanyl.? This particular opioid is hundreds of times more potent that morphine and many dozens of times than that of heroin. Since it's dosed in micrograms overdosing would continue to be a problem, and with legalization, possibly an epidemic. By the way, Heroine (opiates) are the not the only drugs that cause physical dependence. With a few exceptions, an overwhelming majority of recreational drugs do cause neurological and/or physiological dependence--some worse than others (even the pharmaceutical ones)

So where do you draw the line? There are multitude of pharmaceuticals that will kill you for a multitude of different reasons under any number of circumstance in combination with any number of other pharmaceuticals. Would doctors still write Rx's, or simply recommend? Like I said: I appreciate the philosophy, but unless you consider those weak wills expendable; we need a few more practical ideas.

@ EOTW2 I'm assuming you're being satirical, so I'll quickly say: that illegal drugs provide government jobs. (judiciary, law enforcement, etcetera) As for the lawyers (in this case usually public defenders) the Justice department recently has been shelling out our money just to get them to perform better in court... might as well be public employees.

Again, agree with the libertarian talking points. There is, with most of the harder drugs, a severe compromise of normal neurochemistry once the user has become dependant, that result in every kind of erratic behavior you could imagine. People addicted to drugs will do things they would never do sober; and it goes beyond just looking out for the next fix, to a glazed morality, weakened inhibition, or stimulated paranoia. Amphetamines, for example, when used in recreational doses for an extended period of time cause psychosis resulting in hallucinations, delusion, and paranoia. In this state even an inherently good person doesn't need a provocation, or rational reason to shoot or stab a stranger they think is out to get them. Letting them kill themselves off is not without collateral in a disconnected, sociological sense. Rehab is great, if you can get it paid for, and even then, relapse is astronomically likely due to availability. You ever wonder why alcoholism is so difficult to overcome? It's not the drug... let's face it--alcohol is nice, but it isn't great. It's its availability, and its social acceptance that make abstinence such an uphill battle for most alcoholics. Cigarettes to a lesser extent as well, but nicotine does some pretty funky stuff to some neural pathways.. anyhow:

How do we deal with people who pose such clear-cut social dangers? Let neighborhood watch shoot them once they've killed someone? How could we prevent such a scenario so as to avoid re-legislation?

I'm not sure we can agree here. Like I mentioned, I speak from experience of the past. I cannot come up with any other sociological factors that change the way your brain functions, save maybe some hypothetical chemical weapon, and large-scale brainwash. If drugs were aloud to be sold, the populous would undoubtedly utilize community vigilantism to prevent these crimes taking society a step closers to
the mindset an anarchistic mindset. As much as I'm a proponent of government being limited to national defense, emergency services, and certain types of infrastructure, I cannot concede that elicit drugs nor pharmaceuticals should/ or could ever be sold freely.

Off topic...
You know, I was accused once on youtube that I'm propagating nothing more than an anarchistic utopia (probably meant anarcho-capitalism), but nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchy would be far more tragic than any repressive authoritarian regime, and certainly wose than any sort collectivist model. After this guy tells me off and cites his multiple degrees (rather than constructive counterpoints) he then tells me I don't know what I stand for and rudely suggests I should educate myself by reading some of Noam Chomsky's works, so that "I don't sound like blathering idiot."

Apparently 3 degrees and 150,000$ in student loans "can't fix stupid" either.

My point: we can argue subtle differences in political philosophy once libertarian mindsets inhabit the majority of the electorate, and public sector finally begins to shrink. It's happening here, and in Europe, I think the shift will eventually occur world-wide. Drugs however, are not going to be legalized in the foreseeable future. Seems like one of the last things on the list anyhow, doesn't it? Society would at the very least be better off being adjusted to the independent mindset of limited government. That goes doubly for Europe citizens, who most of are already, and have been mired in nanny-states. Just a thought.

It is up to me, and you, and the rest of the electorate. Our government is for the people, by the people.

quote:

---

If you're suggesting that the legalization of drugs will destroy humanity or result in anarchy, or "community justice" as you stated, that's basically just untrue.

---

Have you ever met the average committed father? If there's anything that will get them organized, and militant, it's a physical threat to their family. Even today we have over-zealous neighborhood watch organizations, and we live under big government with legislative emphasis on public safety, and justice. How in the world could living under limited government NOT exacerbate protective urges we already see today. Yes drugs weren't regulated 200 years ago, but considering amphetamines weren't invented until the 1930's, crack-cocaine not until the 1970's, and the overwhelming majority of modern day pharmaceuticals even later than that makes the argument extraneous. There are biological issues with which, in this case, the libertarian's freedom ideal cannot apply so fluidly, and so must be excepted until a solution is found. As I said, I can think of few other issues where the freedom model doesn't work.

Also, even if you don't accept my concern that vigilantism could lead to societal regression under limited government, you must at least accept that limited government without a cohesive society will stagnate. To me, if you're a proponent of the limited government model, you must place the responsibility of society's woes upon the shoulders of the individuals to maintain a cohesive social construct. Some will devote much time to this others none at all, but to suggest the libertarian ideal takes societal concerns and throws them into the wind is absurd; it must be aloud to rest on the shoulders of the proactive, not resented as a form of social compulsion, otherwise this whole political philosophy becomes counter-productive, redundant, and eventually regressive. Might even open an opportunity for a second rise of authoritarianism to take its place, reserving individualism a spot in future history books as an ineffective ideology. If society is the crew of a ship, and government is the ship to carry society forward to progress, or at the very to to keep it afloat, let's make sure it hasn't any holes. Inciting communities to paranoid hostility because we had to make an idealistic point about liberty by legalizing and distributing substances that destabilize the human brain. We're not talking about pot, coke, or even opium. We're talking about modern neurotransmitter re-uptake inhibitors, anti-psychotics, psycho-activaters, CNS stimulants, PCP for god sakes? No you'll have neighborhood witch hunts for any person who might resemble being on a drugs I'm telling you it's ludicrous unless there is some regulation left in place for the more invasive, and potentially destabilizing pharmaceuticals..

(Dancid)
You speak a lot about the effects of drugs on a governed state being negative but rarely touch upon any actual personal experiences with drugs.
You seem to judge drugs from an outside view and quote a reflection of the authoritarian styling voicing no original opinions of your own.

I firmly believe mushrooms and other psychoactive chemicals had a fundamental part to play in the huge evaluational leap 50,000 years ago.

The current system doesn't work

The personal and interpersonal experiences I've had with drugs are not something I'll share on public domain. If you'd like to heed my opinion and experiences, by all means. If not--I won't lose sleep over it, but I assure you that my experiences are valid, and not simply the prejudice you glean from it. Furthermore, I never voiced a specific opinion of hallucinogens themselves, but still... in combination with certain psycho-activators, you're asking for trouble for the user and those around them.