Its a good question.

I think that the government should make all the drugs, then they could test them so they dont have other additives in them. Also with the tax money we could pay for social security and other taxes

We could also make it so you have to be over 21

I think the two primary concerns are safety and taxation, I think by legalizing it there would be less terrorism and gangs

8/15/2007 6:58:05 PM

C-

8/15/2007 7:01:21 PM

this isnt as good as your fallout boy thread, but good effort.

8/15/2007 7:04:29 PM

My taste in music has nothing to do with my opinions

I just think that this is a problem that should be dealt with

8/15/2007 7:27:07 PM

i'll see you downtown tomorrow lobbying for it, then

8/15/2007 7:34:11 PM

I don't do drugs I just was thinking of ideas when I was getting gas in my car and how like fifty cents of each gallon are taxes we should have to think about other ways to get this tax money.

I remember hearing people say that the government cant tax drugs but I think they could be weed cartons just like cigarettes and other drugs sold in abc stores. That way they can.

8/15/2007 7:36:07 PM

novel

8/15/2007 7:37:31 PM

Will someone suspend this alias already?

8/15/2007 7:51:41 PM

Quote :

"the government should make all the drugs........tax money"

Wait, if the government is making all the drugs, then what would they be taxing?
Their own set price?

I agree that the drugs would be generally safer,
and that it would bankrupt 99% of terrorism and gangs.

Gangs usually don't kill non-gang members [on purpose]; they kill each other over drug territory.
If drugs were legal, gangs couldn't profit anywhere near as much as they can now, if at all.
Have you ever heard of a [modern] gang that sells booze? Probably not.
Has your pot dealer ever tried to sell you cigarettes? Very doubtful.

Innocent people who are mugged are usually mugged for money to buy prohibition-priced drugs.
Imagine if a fifth of Beam cost $100. Alcoholics would be robbing and stealing everything in sight.
Imagine tobacco was banned. No one would "bum" a cigarette from someone else, they'd mug them for it.

Who the fuck would buy opium or hash from terrorists if you could buy American opiates and herb at every drug store?

8/15/2007 7:54:32 PM

^BINGO

crime would reduce so much

8/15/2007 7:56:55 PM

my perfect utopia has heroin in every corner drugstore.

8/15/2007 7:59:58 PM

druggies. all you need is statistics. figure out how many people die from drug violence, figure out how many people die from overdoses, make some guesses, put together a report. has someone done this already?

the $$ argument won't get you any votes. the medical and cultural consequences of legalizing drugs so grossly outweigh the benefits of the government having extra $x billion that the money doesn't even matter. "but jubjub, it would be like...BILLIONS!!!!!" jubjub: if it lowered our production by less than 1% it wouldn't be worth it.

im too lazy to look it up but isn't our gdp like 12trillion? 1%=$120,000,000,000

8/15/2007 8:26:25 PM

HAVOCSCOPE ILLICIT MARKETS

Global Drug Trade Industry

Market Data

Contraband Totals


321.6 Billion

yeah...the us "profit" would be...nominal. peanuts.

besides, sorry druggies, but the UN says we are winning the global war on drugs.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/wdr07/WDR_2007_executive_summary.pdf

why legalize it if we are doing "ok" and in fact improving.

8/15/2007 8:32:40 PM

Quote :

"if it lowered our production by less than 1% it wouldn't be worth it."

That's why you legalize amphetamines too. Balances everything out.

8/15/2007 8:52:38 PM

well you can test for drugs that day so you can tell if they ahve been high at work

Just like you wouldnt show up drunk to work, you could wait until you get home, it just isnt legal at work

8/15/2007 8:55:58 PM

excuse me meth addict, could you wait till you go home beforeyou get your fix. we'd appreciate that, mmmmkay.

8/15/2007 9:06:31 PM

speaking of drugs. Anyone find it funny how you some have to take a piss test to get a job to pay taxes, that get given to people who dont work and dont have to take a piss test?

Ok, carry on.

8/15/2007 9:07:26 PM

i didnt have to take a piss test. i bet some of the ppl receiving my taxes did.

8/15/2007 9:47:34 PM

Quote :

"my perfect utopia has heroin in every corner drugstore"

[Irony detected]
What would be wrong with that? I mean, I know you think it would be horrible, but just what exactly do you think would happen if that were the case? Tell me how terrible a world it would be if one could exercise a civil liberty that doesn't hurt anyone. Go ahead, tell me.

Quote :

"druggies"

...because clearly "druggies" are the only ones calling for legalization,
especially the dealers that would have to get real jobs.

Quote :

"the medical and cultural consequences of legalizing drugs so grossly outweigh the benefits of the government having extra $x billion"

What consequences do you mean?
The rampant addiction that we wouldn't have an extra $x billion on which to spend on treatment?
How about freedom, autonomy, liberty and justice as consequences?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot.
The economy is way more important than liberty.
You know, liberty?
...that thing that men and women died for, whom we honor on Memorial Day and Veterans Day?
...that thing we used to care about before socialist fascism took over America?

Quote :

"the UN says we are winning the global war on drugs"

You mean we're winning the race to a global police state?

Quote :

"why legalize it if we are doing "ok" and in fact improving."

How are you measuring this improvement?
By the destruction of families that the war on drugs causes?
By the theft of citizen property by governments?
By the erosion of the Bill of Rights that's necessary to "win" the war on drugs?
By the rise of gangs and terrorism, most of which wouldn't have even been possible without the war on drugs?


BTW,
I'm disagreeing with you,
SO I MUST HIGH ON SOMETHING, RIGHT?

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 10:45 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2007 10:44:18 PM

Quote :

"By the destruction of families that the war on drugs causes?"

you want heroin in corner drugstores, but are worried about family issues?

i was unaware that drugs, particularly strong narcotics, had 0 consequences. can you really not see any type of social or medical issues arrising?

plenty of the people who are for legalization of some controlled substances, even on this crazy ass forum, do NOT want many of these drugs legalized.

8/15/2007 11:04:09 PM

Quote :

"you want heroin in corner drugstores, but are worried about family issues?"

Yes.
How does heroin use endanger families? (Note that I said "use", not "abuse".)
Parents might use heroin, but that's really only marginally different than using alcohol.
Some might abuse heroin, creating a danger, but some abuse alcohol too.
The difference is that with alcohol, you can get treatment without criminal consequences.
With heroin, Mom or Dad LOSE their kids. They may have to go to jail. They become felons.
And that's regardless of whether abuse was occurring, or whether child endangerment was occurring.
The parents might just like a good poke after a long week of work.
Did your parents ever drink alcohol at home when you were a kid?
Yes?
OMG THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL! THEY WERE ENDANGERING YOU!
You see, it's easy to say that all heroin use must, in actuality, somehow be abuse,
but then turn around and say that not all alcohol use is abuse.

Quote :

"i was unaware that drugs, particularly strong narcotics, had 0 consequences."

I was unaware of that too.
Who said that? I certainly didn't.

Quote :

"can you really not see any type of social or medical issues arrising?"

Sure, if abuse occurs.
But like I said, it being illegal, people hide their use/abuse and are less likely to seek treatment.
Legal, they would be able to discreetly.
I'm glad you pointed out that addiction and drug abuse are medical issues, and not criminal ones.
Funny that you think medical issues are crimes. That position just doesn't make sense.

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 11:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2007 11:34:49 PM

Quote :

"Have you ever heard of a [modern] gang that sells booze? Probably not."

Because there is no specific alcohol tax.

Quote :

"Has your pot dealer ever tried to sell you cigarettes? Very doubtful."

Go to New York or any place with a huge tax on cigs, there is a massive bootleg market, if you wanted a massive tax on illegal drugs, there would be a bootleg market there too.

Quote :

"Innocent people who are mugged are usually mugged for money to buy prohibition-priced drugs."

Back that up with any legitimate source please. Yes, people who steal usually use drugs, but they also need food/place to live etc, they have other needs that money goes for.

Quote :

"Who the fuck would buy opium or hash from terrorists if you could buy American opiates and herb at every drug store"

Cheaper, more potent, etc. I imagine the FDA would weaken the potency of legal drugs compared to other stuff.

Quote :

"my perfect utopia has heroin in every corner drugstore."

Quote :

"the medical and cultural consequences of legalizing drugs so grossly outweigh the benefits of the government having extra $x billion that the money doesn't even matter."

BINGO

Oh and all you fuckers talking about prohibition..You do realize thats a horrible horrible example. The US took away something that was easily available and legal. Yes cocaine and other things were legal at one point in time, it wasn't as widely spread used as alcohol.

8/15/2007 11:46:34 PM

Quote :

"Parents might use heroin, but that's really only marginally different than using alcohol. "

Wow.

8/16/2007 1:10:26 AM

Also, if you make hardcore drugs legal in the US, how are you going to deal with ramifications of people smuggling them out of the country as well as people from other countries coming just to spend a week getting high on heroin.

8/16/2007 1:29:30 AM

Quote :

"392 : How does heroin use endanger families? (Note that I said "use", not "abuse".) "

yeah, exactly.

i mean, thousands of social heroin users can't be wrong.

ya know?

me personally, I preferred to smoke a bit of crystal meth, 'specially 'round exam times, but I never use it at work. And I always keep it out of reach of the kids.

Now how is that wrong, i say? How?






[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 2:23 AM. Reason : ]

8/16/2007 2:19:46 AM

This strikes me as a very silly thread but I'll lay out my spiel anyway.

My preferred solution:

1) Decriminalization/legalization/taxation of "soft" drugs like marijuana, certain hallucinogens, and others with demonstrably low potential for addiction and major impact on society.

2) Significantly restructured and improve rehabilitation and detoxification program for people who only take "hard" drugs (crack, heroine, etc.), or who take it and sell a very limited amount on the side.

3) Dramatically ramped up penalties for those who sell, traffic, or otherwise make a business out of the trade of hard drugs. If I had my way it would be a capital offense (the damage done by a dealer of hard drugs to society being greater than that of the average murderer), but I'll settle for nothing less than life in prison with no possibility whatsoever of release.

This way all the hippies, mild libertarians, and general soft drug enthusiasts get their pot and their partially-emptied jails, the users get help rather than incarceration, and all the rest of us get to be confident that we aren't just opening the door for total legalization of everything.

The only people who don't win are the pseudo-anarchists who want us to legalize everything because, like, police state and shit, man. Frankly I think the larger compromise far outweighs the fact that crazy big-L types will continue to be crazy big-L types no matter what we do.

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 10:13 AM. Reason : ]

8/16/2007 10:12:54 AM

Killing people isnt the solution though

8/16/2007 10:17:23 AM

killing people is a solution.

it's always a solution.

8/16/2007 10:29:26 AM

What a well reasoned and cogent argument! Not a simple statement of opinion at all. No siree.

Grow up, kid. It's not as easy as just saying, "But violence is bad!" Unless you want to tell me that nobody should ever defend themselves under any circumstances, you have to admit that some violence is acceptable and, in fact, necessary. Now it's just a matter of drawing the line where it ceases to be so. It's the job of the government -- and, by extension, of us as voters -- to draw that line.

My line leaves violence against hard drug dealers as acceptable. I justify that by saying that the violence done against society and its members is far greater than the violence I'm talking about doing against them.

Your line...well, it isn't really a line at all. Your justification is equally nonexistant.

8/16/2007 10:30:12 AM

Quote :

"how like fifty cents of each gallon are taxes we should have to think about other ways to get this tax money."

are you serious? the gas tax seems like one of the most fair taxes out there.

8/16/2007 10:41:42 AM

organized criminal gangs = terrorist organizations


to make my life simple, I'll basically agree w/ grumpy's above proposal

I will point out that if all drugs are legalized, taxed, and sold the assumption (incorrect) is being made that the user would actually have/hold a job to enable them to have discretionary income levels high enough to purchase the drugs.

Price them too low, and as someone above posted you will reverse the smuggling from imports to exports

Also, there is still a black market in cigarrettes as well as prescription pharm's - so don't think legalizing all narcotics will suddenly halt the problem.

and finally, build in a HUGE portion of tax dollars to continue to treat all those users, their families, and their victims.

8/16/2007 10:41:50 AM

Yes please.

8/16/2007 10:46:59 AM

So you basically want to murder people to set and example?

8/16/2007 10:58:20 AM

murder is such an ugly word

but you can't spell "MANSLAUGHTER" without laughter

8/16/2007 11:00:03 AM

Quote :

"the assumption (incorrect) is being made that the user would actually have/hold a job to enable them to have discretionary income levels high enough to purchase the drugs."

An important offshoot of this is that companies don't just screen out drug users because drugs are illegal -- they do it for pragmatic business reasons, as well, namely insurance. Companies are already starting to screen and even fire smokers because of the cost. Do you think that they are going to happily pay for the health care of a long-term (even if moderate) heroine user?

The result is that you still have people whose drug use is making or keeping them poor. Poor, and still wanting drugs. The result will be crime. Less crime, admittedly, than currently exists, since the actual black market transfer of drugs would likely become negligible, but more crime than I think some people seem to expect.

--

Bear in mind also that having the government sell and tax the drugs implies a heavy amount of government regulation, which will likely result in drugs that aren't as potent as they could be. What will happen when the ABC store heroin isn't doing it for you anymore, and a guy on the street has unregulated (and thus potentially more potent) shit?

---

Quote :

"So you basically want to murder people to set and example?"

I'm not stupid. Killing them won't "set an example," in the sense of deterring many drug dealers. It will, however, reduce the population of drug dealers, and quickly if I can help it. I could also have a hissy about your word choice, but I won't waste my breath.

So no, what I want to do is murder drug dealers to get rid of drug dealers. There are a finite number of them, you know. It will also heavily disrupt the drug trade infrastructure. If we can get some of the big fish -- the major importers and growers and their immediate underlings -- then we can heavily disrupt supply.

I can be cool about this, because it's really the only alternative at all to total legalization. That is to say, there is no middle ground. A dealer in jail is just learning how to be a more effective criminal, and is possibly dealing even within prison walls. A higher-up in jail is quite likely still controlling his operation from his cell. As long as they and the business of drugs live, they will keep doing what they do.

Now, I don't think we can get rid of the business of drugs. We can co-opt it, possibly, make it a government operation; we can continue to flail harmlessly against it while it continues to operate; but we can't get rid of it. What we can get rid of are the businessmen and their offices, so to speak.

So let's just get to the crux of it, shall we? The only meaningful thing we can discuss is whether or not the death of X criminals is more acceptable than the death of Y more-or-less innocents?

Remember that X is less than Y, because there are fewer dealers than there are users.

You'll probably start telling me that the state should never kill anybody, and I'll ask what a cop should do if a crook is pointing a gun at him, and you'll say yeah, but that's self defense, and I'll change it so that the crook is pointing the gun at other people, and you'll say yeah, but that's in defense of those people, and I'll say those people are society and what I'm talking about is exactly the same thing except on a larger and more systematic scale.

I'm not sure what you'll say at that point, but at least I've helped us skip the usual rigamarole.

8/16/2007 11:18:29 AM

Um we killed all of pablo escobars team and there are still people selling drugs, so that doesnt work, you cant just kill em all

what you can do is take their business from under their noses (hahaha) and make it legal, then they cant do it anymore

8/16/2007 11:20:49 AM

Sigh...I clearly overestimated you.

We can't just kill a handful of top guys and shout, "Well that didn't work!" I didn't say kill a few or some of them, I said, kill as many of them as you can get your hands on (and subsequently convict).

The efforts against the kingpins were just a manifestation of our half-assed approach to the issue.

Quote :

"what you can do is take their business from under their noses (hahaha) and make it legal, then they cant do it anymore"

...which reduces Y, but doesn't eliminate it. You can remove a large portion of the terrorist/gang aspect through legalization, yes, but you've still got plenty of drug-related crime and all of the usual damage inflicted by hard drug use.

8/16/2007 11:25:02 AM

um if what they sell isnt illegal anymore why would they sell it?

how many times do skeezy guys walk up to you and say "hey man wanna buy a cigarette?"

use your head you idiot

8/16/2007 11:26:56 AM

doesn't (or didn't) the mob do that very thing? (sell cigarettes, minus the state and fed taxes)

8/16/2007 11:49:39 AM

Thats because cigs cost more in those places, we should have a national rate for the drugs

8/16/2007 12:02:37 PM

are you dense?

that would invite the very black market that we're speaking of.

8/16/2007 12:11:34 PM

is there a blackmarket for beer?

how many beer dealers do you know?

8/16/2007 12:20:00 PM

is there a government-set price for beer?

and actually there's at least one un-licensed bar in raleigh. i'm not going to give any more details than that.

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2007 12:33:04 PM

Agony, his point is that government-set prices create black markets. Practically by definition, government involvement is the ONLY way a black market can appear or exist.

And I've been a beer dealer, as has anyone over 21 with friends who are under 21. I've also been a cigarette dealer, as any number of bums on Hillsborough who have smoked my Camels will tell you. No, I don't run up to them and say, "Hey man, want a cig?" But drug dealers, as far as I've experienced, don't run up to people and say, "Hey man, want some crack?" either. The consumer will come to them. I know that every time I've ever bought drugs -- or that anyone I know ever has -- I didn't do so because of a guy approaching me to sell (which they never have), but rather because of me approaching someone to buy.

Quote :

"um if what they sell isnt illegal anymore why would they sell it?"

When did I say they would continue selling it? A few would, to be sure, because they can sell completely unregulated merchandise, which eliminates the taxes and may allow for increased potency of the drug. But these represent a negligible part of the problem.

If you legalize drugs, you still have (as I've already discussed in this thread):

-People who want drugs -- need them, as far as they can tell -- but can't afford them. They will do what drug addicts have always done and resort to crime to pay for them. Sure, they may not have to do this as much because presumably drugs will get cheaper once the black market element is removed; at the very least, they'd better damn well get cheaper, or the black market will continue going right along. In either case, though, you still have people committing crime to get drugs.

-Many of the same organized crime elements, still extant, though inconvenience with having to find another source of income. They'll shrink, almost certainly. But legalizing alcohol didn't get rid of the mafia, it just forced the mafia to look elsewhere for big money in contraband.

So in short, you've still got the gangs, the violence, and the crime, you just have somewhat less of it. It's impossible to say how much less, of course, but I'm willing to wager that it will not go down so much as to compensate for the other major thing that will remain:

-Hard drug addicts. They'll still be there, probably in roughly the same numbers as they are now. They'll still be falling out of society, becoming useless in the best case and major drains in the worst. Their health will continue to be generally atrocious, which costs us money, while simultaneously their earning potential is severely undercut. They represent nothing good for society and many, many bad things for it.

---

I also wanted to go back and make special reference to this again:

Quote :

"what you can do is take their business from under their noses (hahaha) and make it legal, then they cant do it anymore"

What makes you think that legalization will take the business away from the producers? Who do you think is going to grow the drugs for legalize sale in America? The same exact people. Do you think that legalization will make them abandon all crime? Or are you so naive as to think that if they maintained criminal aspects we just wouldn't do business with them?

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 12:36 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2007 12:33:11 PM

Quote :

"Wow."

I know, right? Wow. The truth is shocking.

Quote :

"people from other countries coming just to spend a week getting high on heroin"

Drug tourism is good money. Don't knock it.

Quote :

"Do you think that they are going to happily pay for the health care of a long-term (even if moderate) heroine user?....Their health will continue to be generally atrocious, which costs us money,"

That assumes that the implementation of health care and insurance stays the same. If drugs were legalized, I'm sure this would be properly addressed so that health care costs aren't unfairly forced on those not responsible. I could also have a hissy about your word choice, but I won't waste my breath.

Quote :

"I didn't say kill a few or some of them, I said, kill as many of them as you can get your hands on"

Quote :

"drug dealers, as far as I've experienced, don't run up to people and say, "Hey man, want some crack?"

actually, crack-heads are known for that. It's happened to me.
They're usually not too bright.

Quote :

"their earning potential is severely undercut"

..because the economy is more important than liberty.
Besides, if their earning potential was undercut, that would just leave more earning room for someone else. Their loss.
It's called competition.

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2007 2:45:16 PM

Quote :

"their earning potential is severely undercut"

yeah cause criminals never find new hustles

8/16/2007 2:46:32 PM

Quote :

"Drug tourism is good money. Don't knock it."

I have no doubt that it would be good money, but is it worth it?

8/16/2007 2:56:06 PM

I read up on the prohibition, and apparently when alcohol was made illegal the black market sky-rocketed. Also another major thing i noticed was that people started dying from drinking bad moonshine/homemade brews. Also, the most amazing thing I noticed was MORE people tried alcohol because of the fact that it was illegal. Remember many people do illegal drugs initially because of peer pressure, and because they think it's cool to do something illegal.

So my question is, if we legalized something like marijuana, would marijuana use skyrocket in the US, or would it follow a trend similar to the prohibition and level out in the end? I mean from the graph i posted, the drugs that kill people are the legal ones, not the illegal ones.

8/16/2007 3:13:47 PM

Again, prohibition is not a good example. Alcohol was already legal, used widespread throughout the US, etc etc. If you take away something thats already readily available, people will be pissed and still try to use it, also people who normally don't do illegal stuff, will get pissed off that big brother took their freedoms away and go find the booze.

8/16/2007 3:19:24 PM

^I agree i was about to say "I realize the prohibition is a silly example", but in actuality marijuana was legal in the US up until the early 1900's too. It was actually widely used in the United States once Mexicans immegrated over, and showed people how to use it. Also hemp was grown by all farmers, and the US government actually required many farmers to grow hemp. There was a 1938 Popular Mechanics article about hemp, and it's uses:

http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/TEXT/TXTCH03.HTM

Obviously it wasn't as wide spread so people didn't complain as much as when alcohol was made illegal, but it's similar on a smaller scale.

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : /]

8/16/2007 3:32:48 PM