Should all Drugs be Legalized? (Vanity - updated article)

Self ^ | Sept 25, 2002 | Edward Watson

[Protagoras]

The anti-WOD crowd makes no sense here.

Its not a good idea, or accurate, to lump all those who oppose the WOD together. People have different reasons for opposing it.

[Monty22]

Wouldn't needing a prescription for any chemical be a form of government control, therefore unacceptable to libertarians on this issue?

[Phantom Lord]

Under the scenario i gave you could buy it OTH or with a prescription, so no prescription would be required.

[Gigantor]

"The problem with demanding addicts pay for their own drugs is where are they going to get the money...?"

The same way people get the money for stogies and booze. Are you for real?

[Willie Green]

If it is true drug use will increase if drugs are legalized, who exactly is going to pick up the habit? Me? Not a chance. If I don’t take ‘legal’ drugs like beer, coffee or tea, what makes one think I’ll pick up newly-legalized heroin? Would my mother start taking cocaine if it’s legal? Of course not. So who exactly are these new addicts and why should we exchange all the benefits of legalization to prevent them from picking up the habit?

Well, you've vouched for yourself and your mother.
I guess you must be too young to be concerned for your children.
Your attitude will change when you grow up.

[A2J]

What, a government program for free drugs?

The government (i.e., taxpayers) would have no choice but to ante up the free dope because legalization would create far more addicts than exists today.

If you think taxpayer-free needle and condom programs were it, think again. You ain't seen nothing yet in a liberdopian society.

[headsonpikes]

"The status quo is simply the best balance we can have."

Yes, this is the best of all possible worlds, and those who disagree are simply SOL.

There's no order like an established order.

[Gigantor]

"Wouldn't needing a prescription for any chemical be a form of government control, therefore unacceptable to libertarians on this issue?"

Who cares? I'm against the WOD and I'm not a libertarian.

[Gigantor]

"The government (i.e., taxpayers) would have no choice but to ante up the free dope because legalization would create far more addicts than exists today."

Did the government have to provide free booze when the first war on drugs ended?

You must be high...

[Phantom Lord]

How many people in America today do not do drugs because they are illegal? I suspect the number is around zero. And why would the legalization of drugs suddenly cause more people to use them? Those who are interested in using drugs are already using them.

And why in Amsterdamn, where drugs are basically legal, do they have a lower usage rate than the US?

[avenir]

How does an "active conservative Mormon who doesn’t even drink coffee or tea, much less consume alcoholic beverages, cigarettes or drugs" come to be a staunch defender of drug legalization?

Seriously, I find that very strange.

Not to mention your essay, which is quite a volume of wishful thinking held forth as fact. Surely there are some facts in there, but they are overwhelmed by the naive conclusions they are forced to support (but don't).

It's hard to know where to begin. I'll pick a favorite passage:

"If the government produces and gives the drugs for free to addicts in designated facilities—

1) The drug cartels and drug dealers go out of business,
2) No more corrupted (by drugs and drug money) police and judges,
3) No more drug-addicted prostitutes – streets are nicer,
4) No more drug dealers on streets – streets are safer,
5) No more thefts, assaults and murders by drug addicts for money to buy drugs – society is much safer and nicer,
6) Tailored dosages for specific addicts - drastic reduction in drug overdose emergencies and fatalities – reduction in health care costs – 16,000 lives saved every year,
7) Significant reduction in HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and STD infections – reduction in health care costs – 36,000 lives saved every year,
8) Addicts have a place to stay and sleep - considerable reduction in homelessness and its associated crimes,
9) Treatment programs available to aid addicts in quitting the habit."

I think your intentions are good, but most of these points are assumptions based on Utopian constructs. I can't imagine anyone not wanting the above to be true, but it just doesn't jibe with life as we know it on planet Earth.

"No more: drug cartels/drug dealers/drug-addicted prostitutes/corrupted police and judges/thefts, assaults, or crimes by drug addicts."

Yes, legalize drugs and all this mess goes bye-bye. Utopia indeed.

[southern rock]

While I am a supporter of drug legalization/decriminlization I would be 100% opposed to the plan of giving free drugs to addicts or anyone else.

Exactly! It really ticks me off that these two proposals get linked together so often. I guess it just goes to show you that even some libertarians (and most conservatives) don't have the stomach to TRULY allow people to genuinely suffer the consequences of their own actions. We have really become a society addicted to the "safety net" It's pathetic!

[Willie Green]

Willie, you take care of your kids, and Edward will take care of his.

If push comes to shove, I'd have no qualms protecting my children from Edward's.
However, in civilized societies, we establish governments to (among other things) "assure domestic tranquility" through the passage and enforcement of laws. Unfortunately, you and Edward seem intent on discarding this mutually beneficial means of protecting our children, so as a parent, I'd be left to resorting to my own capable resources.

Granted, Edward's hypothetical children have nothing to fear from me so long as they would be well behaved. But there are others who would be less judicious in their approach, with the end result being a dangerous environment of anarchic inconsistancy. That is another excellent reason for having government establish a common set of laws that all are expected to observe.

[Dead Corpse]

It's for the children? BS. It's for you, another nanny-statist who doesn't want people to make their own decisions.

Well said. My Nomination for Qoute of the Day.

[Pahuanui]

If push comes to shove, I'd have no qualms protecting my children from Edward's.

Which has nothing to do with the WOD or it's legal justifications.

However, in civilized societies, we establish governments to (among other things) "assure domestic tranquility" through the passage and enforcement of laws. Unfortunately, you and Edward seem intent on discarding this mutually beneficial means of protecting our children, so as a parent, I'd be left to resorting to my own capable resources.

You already are left to resorting to your own resources, which, again, has nothing to do with the WOD or it's legal justifications.

Granted, Edward's hypothetical children have nothing to fear from me so long as they would be well behaved.

Which is exactly how things are now.

But there are others who would be less judicious in their approach, with the end result being a dangerous environment of anarchic inconsistancy.

Those 'others' are already out there now.

That is another excellent reason for having government establish a common set of laws that all are expected to observe.

Which has nothing to do with the WOD.

[tacticalogic]

I could go along with legalization, but only for personal use. Put microscopic plastic "taggants" in them like they do dynamite, so that whatever you buy is traceable to you. If it turns out to be unworkable, and we decide we need federal control back, then we pass an amendment for it, and quit using the "anything that might involve money" commerce clause.

[Willie Green]

If you don't want your kids to see MTV, don't let em watch it. If you don't want them to read Huck Finn, don't let em.

Comparing watching TV or reading a book to the hazards of peer pressure and addiction to dibilitating drugs and narcotics?

You seem to lack a sense of priority.