Humans have been using drugs for a very long time. Wine was produced as far back as 7000 BC in Iran, and it's likely that humans were munching on psychedelic plants and fungi long before that. Humans are tool users, and drugs are tools. Illegal drugs can be safely used for various mental issues, expansion of thought, and general recreation (which is not illegitimate). They affect no one but the user, when taken responsibly. Why should the government decide what you can put in your body?

Since Portugal decriminalized all drugs, usage steadily decreased, HIV infection rates decreased 17%, and drug-related deaths decreased 50%.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_legalized_all_drugs_--_what_happened_next

Nearly half of federal prisoners are drug offenders:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.aeg66myi.dpbs

Combined, federal and state governments spend $40 billion per year on the drug war. Probably more.

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/how-much-your-money-wasted-war-drugs

The drug war should be refocused to teach people how to use drugs safely, and provide voluntary treatment and rehabilitation for problem users.

[Edited on September 18, 2013 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2013 1:52:20 PM

Let's legalize prostitution as well. It has been around a very long time. Legal prostitution with mandatory health checks might prevent the spread of STD's. Then the legal prostitutes could spend all their money on their legal drugs.

That was sarcasm.

As an almost-libertarian, you'd think I would be all on board with the legalization of drugs, and I do think that their legalization would definitely undercut the cartels and black markets. But I also think the status quo would remain though, with possibly less people in jail and more people on the streets. The people compelled to do drugs will continue to do drugs, and the people who don't do drugs won't buy into it just because they are legal. I seriously doubt anybody out there who refrains from drugs makes that choice based on legality alone.

[Edited on September 18, 2013 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ada]

9/18/2013 2:00:30 PM

Quote :

"Let's legalize prostitution as well. It has been around a very long time. Legal prostitution with mandatory health checks might prevent the spread of STD's. Then the legal prostitutes could spend all their money on their legal drugs. That was sarcasm."

I agree, though.

Quote :

"As an almost-libertarian, you'd think I would be all on board with the legalization of drugs, and I do think that their legalization would definitely undercut the cartels and black markets. But I also think the status quo would remain though, with possibly less people in jail and more people on the streets. The people compelled to do drugs will continue to do drugs, and the people who don't do drugs won't buy into it just because they are legal. I seriously doubt anybody out there who refrains from drugs makes that choice based on legality alone."

Why are you not on board? The link about Portugal I posted above shows that the status quo would likely not remain. Their situation improved and opened up a lot of money to be spent on other programs.

[Edited on September 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2013 2:07:29 PM

^^i don't understand your point.

legalizing drugs would eliminate a lot of street-crime and organized crime, free-up jails for violent criminals instead of giving them slaps on the wrist, and potentially help those addicted to serious drugs have better access to treatment. win, win, win all around.

[Edited on September 18, 2013 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2013 2:10:18 PM

yeah. prostitution should be legalized.

(and drugs)

9/18/2013 2:10:23 PM

^^ i do ... hes not nearly as libertarian as he thinks

and hes wrong ... so theres that

if anything, the status quo would vastly improve if we follow the models set by other countries.

[Edited on September 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM. Reason : yes to legalized prostitution]

9/18/2013 2:12:23 PM

lol at rjrumfel making an entirely reasonable point and then calling it sarcasm.

Maybe you should look at the reactions for what you consider "sarcasm" as a hint as to how outdated your actual beliefs are.

9/18/2013 2:28:06 PM

yeah, not sure how you can call yourself a libertarian and say "but you should be imprisoned if you grow a certain plant in your backyard".

9/18/2013 2:33:09 PM

It's as if I still called myself a libertarian after understanding why single-payer is a good idea

there are standards to these ideological labels, people

9/18/2013 3:03:32 PM

i'm a radical socialist and want drugs and prostitution legalized and thinks that markets should be as free as possible, and with a government providing strong social services want mostly free markets for anything else. I want strong gun control but understand how dumb assault weapon bans are and don't want a registry without privacy protections guaranteed, I support civil liberties and think that a woman has control over her own body and should get to make her own medical decisions while not liking abortion and wanting to abolish the death penalty. its okay to not fit into a label.

9/18/2013 3:19:50 PM

You know what's been around longer than drugs or prositution? Murder and rape.

I don't get the "it's been around forever why not legalize it argument". You really have to start your argument from the perspective of "society is better with drugs legal" which is a much harder (but still possible) argument to make.

9/18/2013 3:21:44 PM

Quote :

"I don't get the "it's been around forever why not legalize it argument"."

the only person who used that argument was being sarcastic.

9/18/2013 3:26:01 PM

I used it, and he's right.

But I made other good arguments. The point I was trying to make is that we've benefited from drugs for thousands of years. And drug use will never be eradicated.

[Edited on September 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2013 3:30:20 PM

I'm going to go with the "prove to me it's detrimental to society before outlawing it" argument, if that's OK with you Kris. Especially in regards to prostitution.

9/18/2013 3:32:12 PM

Quote :

"prove to me it's detrimental to society before outlawing it"

Bingo. I'm of the mindset that the default setting for all activities is "allowed" until you can logically prove that it shouldn't be. Maximum liberty, please.

9/18/2013 3:39:52 PM

I am all for this. Take all the money we waste on the prison and justice system arresting and locking these people up and spend it on rehabilitation so we can make people productive members of society instead of criminals.

9/18/2013 3:41:32 PM

Or we could just legalize them, not waste a bunch of money on treatment and watch as usage of hard drugs dwindles as addicts die out, and people see the true effects and decide not to use them.

That's basically what happens when you legalize.

9/18/2013 3:51:33 PM

I'd be for dumping it straight into education, but I think there should at least be resources allocated for drug safety.

9/18/2013 4:09:05 PM

Why?

We could just cut the money we piss away on prisons, law enforcement, etc. from the budget and let people keep more of their own money.

What's wrong with that?

9/18/2013 4:14:35 PM

That debate has happened at least 100 times in TSB. And I think we know where everyone stands by now.

9/18/2013 4:24:02 PM

I'm all for this.

9/19/2013 9:19:31 AM

^^^ Because having people running around on all sorts of drugs has certain costs attached to it, whereas educating people about drug use and prevention and giving them resources to use responsibly carry certain benefits. Add to that the fact that people who come from poor and uneducated backgrounds are more likely to use drugs irresponsibly and you can make a pretty solid case that spending some money drug policy creates a net gain to society while also being the morally acceptable thing to do.

But you can disregard all that because I'm pretty sure you're just as asshole.

9/19/2013 10:04:01 AM

can anyone opposed to full legalization at least acknowledge that the schedule system makes no sense and needs to be thrown out entirely? could we at least all agree that the system needs to be thrown out, and if you want to write laws or regulations at the very least they should be based on real dangers and not perceived hysteria?

9/19/2013 10:11:15 AM

Quote :

"But you can disregard all that because I'm pretty sure you're just as asshole."

you should stop hurling personal insults in every other post. you're ruining what civil discourse remains in TSB

9/19/2013 10:15:27 AM

^^agreed. I can't for the life of me understand why marijuana is a level 1 schedule drug while cocaine is level 2.

9/19/2013 10:18:08 AM

Could someone briefly explain the schedule system? Is it a rating on the "severity" of each drug?

9/19/2013 10:43:30 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

Quote :

"Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings: The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.[25]"

except the rankings have nothing to do with even that

9/19/2013 10:45:41 AM

^^^^ I post in here maybe once a day, usually less. Discourse in here died a long time ago because everyone just wants to come in here and spout off their opinions instead of learning and debating the best course of action, especially the extreme conservatives. For instance, a typical debate with the far-right conservatives on this board goes something like this:

Quote :

"Me: So I think that X is the best way to do this thing. Them: No. You're wrong. Anything infringing on any freedom at all is immoral and I don't want the government taking my money. Me: Well, you know, some studies show that if a society invests in X, then there are certain benefits attached to it that otherwise would not be gained. Them: No. You're wrong. Anything infringing on any freedom at all is immoral and I don't want the government taking my money. Me: You're being pretty unreasonable. X works in other countries, we should at least talk about how to implement it here. Them: No. You're wrong. Anything infringing on any freedom at all is immoral and I don't want the government taking my money. Me: Ok then. So you base all of your political ideology on philosophers from the 17th century who lived during times of horrible war which undoubtedly shaped their opinion on human nature and you don't want to deviate from that at all? Them: No, I base my political ideology on the fact that I don't want the government taking my money. Me: But what if there are social benefits to be gained from taxing the unimaginable profits created by a capitalist system and spending them on the "general welfare." You know, that phrase from the Consitution... Them: No. You're wrong. Anything infringing on any freedom at all is immoral and I don't want the government taking my money. Me: You're a fucking idiot."

So I just make my point and skip to the bottom so that I don't waste so much time here. I would also like to note that I don't include destroyer as "Them" because he will at least attempt to argue his point instead of just stating his opinion as fact and leaving it as that.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ]

9/19/2013 10:54:17 AM

My second post aside, here is my beef with the legalize everything argument. When it is legalized, the current user base will be expected to go through the now-legal routes to obtain these substances, whereas before , they were able to get their supply on street corners, or wherever you go to get meth or coke or crack. Can we really rely on these folks to go to the local gas station for their needs? Where they might possibly pay more for the same thing they were getting illegally at a lower cost?

I could just see black markets still being the go-to source even if they are legal.

Granted this beef has no factual basis other than what has been tried in other countries, but that is my non-factual worry with legalization. I would however like to see the cartels get kicked in the nuts if legalization ever does happen, their profit margins completely deflate, and that be the end of it.

Anybody got any stats on how the illegal pot trade is going now that they've legalized in some states?

9/19/2013 11:10:34 AM

you can still buy black market cigarettes and booze, but most people don't

9/19/2013 11:11:39 AM

There's a difference between regulating and legalizing.

Regulating is what is happening to marijuana right now. There are tight controls on how it is produced which are monitored by the government and tax revenue is produced.

Legalizing is basically saying, we're not going to send people to jail anymore simply for being a heroine addict with no other history of crime. We'll provide you needles and treatment if you like because you're a public health risk and we want you to get better, but ultimately you do what you want to do. We won't send you to jail because you're addicted to a drug. Then, law enforcement is no longer worried about popping the guy with $50 of heroine or crack or whatever as long as they're not driving or otherwise endangering others. Most likely, there would still be a DEA though to go after the traffickers and the "big fish."

9/19/2013 11:16:30 AM

Quote :

"My second post aside, here is my beef with the legalize everything argument. When it is legalized, the current user base will be expected to go through the now-legal routes to obtain these substances, whereas before , they were able to get their supply on street corners, or wherever you go to get meth or coke or crack. Can we really rely on these folks to go to the local gas station for their needs? Where they might possibly pay more for the same thing they were getting illegally at a lower cost? I could just see black markets still being the go-to source even if they are legal. Granted this beef has no factual basis other than what has been tried in other countries, but that is my non-factual worry with legalization. I would however like to see the cartels get kicked in the nuts if legalization ever does happen, their profit margins completely deflate, and that be the end of it. Anybody got any stats on how the illegal pot trade is going now that they've legalized in some states?"

It's nearly half the price in Colorado.

http://business.time.com/2013/05/20/how-much-will-a-legal-marijuana-habit-cost-you/

There are tons of reasons why people would go the legal route,even if it were a little more expensive, which it wouldn't be.

9/19/2013 11:19:35 AM

Quote :

"prove to me it's detrimental to society before outlawing it"

That boat passed, it's already illegal. The burden of proof is on you since you want to change the status quo. If you want to argue what the status quo is, then that's not even an argument worth having.

9/19/2013 11:26:22 AM

that is terrible circular logic, you are missing the point of this discussion and thought exercise entirely.

9/19/2013 11:28:39 AM

For the sake of equality, I'd additionally like say that I think Kris is also an idiot.

9/19/2013 11:31:00 AM

^^^
what the hell are you even talking about? burden of proof doesn't apply here. if you can't give reasons why it should be illegal, it shouldn't be illegal.

lots of arguments have been presented for legalization

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2013 11:31:43 AM

Kris: why even have a congress, the laws are already the law so why should we ever need to have discussions about how we think they should change

9/19/2013 11:34:16 AM

Another legalization problem is the highly addictive nature of some of these drugs. I guess that would be my only real argument for the continued ban on these substances. You can argue that marijuana isn't addictive, but that argument can't hold up against heroin. Why legalize a substance you know is going to continue to escalate someone's habit. Are you just taking the stance that the problem will eventually take care of itself when said person OD's?

9/19/2013 11:40:09 AM

heroin is less addictive than a lot of prescription medications that we have no problem with.

but more importantly, addiction isa medical issue, not a criminal one, so lets treat it that way. prisons are a terrible way to deal with addiction.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2013 11:42:17 AM

^^
Decriminalization reduced drug use substantially in Portugal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

It also makes it more likely that drug users would seek help (less stigma, threat of incarceration.) And if you spend some of the saved money on drug safety/rehabilitation programs, there's even more incentive.

9/19/2013 11:45:59 AM

legalize AND regulate all drugs and spend the money we're wasting on the failing 'war on drugs' for education and rehabilitation programs. no sense in punishing responsible recreational drug users and criminalizing those who can't control themselves either.

[Edited on September 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2013 4:25:43 PM

How about if we just spend a tiny fraction of what we're spending on the war on drugs instead? We don't really need to spend $41 billion annually on drug rehab and education.

I don't think most people realize just what kind of resources we've pissed away in this immoral war against ourselves. It's literally a trillion+ dollars over the course of 30 years, we have the largest prison population on the planet, with millions more carrying lifelong stigma (or worse) of being a "criminal".

9/19/2013 4:50:11 PM

Quote :

"what the hell are you even talking about? burden of proof doesn't apply here. if you can't give reasons why it should be illegal, it shouldn't be illegal."

Look at the discussion here:

A: Laws should be changed, X should now be legal
B: Why?
A: You have to explain why X should be illegal!
B: I didn't make X illegal, you need to say why things should change.
A: ur dumb

Granted I've overstated it, but that's essentially the argument. When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to support it. You don't make a claim and get to assume it to be true until someone else disproves it.

Quote :

"Kris: why even have a congress, the laws are already the law so why should we ever need to have discussions about how we think they should change"

That's not what I said, I was merely pointing out that after suggesting a change, the burden of proof is on you to support it. You can't make a claim and assume it to be true until someone disproves it.

9/19/2013 5:10:01 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

"When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the agnostic position that "I don't believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false""

philosophical masturbation aside, there are numerous arguments in this thread supporting legalization

there are 0 supporting the status quo

9/19/2013 5:23:56 PM

http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/#page-24

Relevant. Illustration about an experiment that was a follow up to the one that implied drug addiction is unavoidable at minimal use.

Tldr; if rats are given ample play space they won't choose drugs over food. The results were suppressed.

[Edited on September 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM. Reason : A]

9/20/2013 12:19:11 AM

Quote :

"How about if we just spend a tiny fraction of what we're spending on the war on drugs instead?"

Because it doesn't work?

9/20/2013 11:20:42 AM

He meant spend a tiny fraction of that on drug safety and rehab. I agree. It wouldn't take anywhere near $41 billion.

9/20/2013 11:28:23 AM

I agree with coke and hookers.

9/20/2013 2:48:29 PM

Quote :

"Are you just taking the stance that the problem will eventually take care of itself when said person OD's? "

yes.

9/20/2013 9:22:00 PM