Regulation of Drugs

[Danneskjold]

I hardly have time to look through 13 pages of this thread, which is unfortunate because I'm sure there's a lot of value in this thread.

I have thought quite a bit about drugs/alcohol etc. and although I would never do them, I think they should be legalized. I do not, however, think that drugs that take you out of a sane state of mind and are proven to make you violent such as meth should be legalized. If it takes people out of their rational state and makes them violent then other laws are not deterrent enough to keep them from committing a crime. As a result it directly affects the well being of another person.

[Brant Gaede]

I hardly have time to look through 13 pages of this thread, which is unfortunate because I'm sure there's a lot of value in this thread.

I have thought quite a bit about drugs/alcohol etc. and although I would never do them, I think they should be legalized. I do not, however, think that drugs that take you out of a sane state of mind and are proven to make you violent such as meth should be legalized. If it takes people out of their rational state and makes them violent then other laws are not deterrent enough to keep them from committing a crime. As a result it directly affects the well being of another person.

Mrth is shit. But it thrives in a context where more beneficient choices are also outlawed. People don't need control. They need choices. Producers too need freedom. True freedom is so awesome even the would be/should be sympathetic run away in horror and aprehension. Ergo: CONTROL!!!! What a relief!

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I hardly have time to look through 13 pages of this thread, which is unfortunate because I'm sure there's a lot of value in this thread.

I have thought quite a bit about drugs/alcohol etc. and although I would never do them, I think they should be legalized. I do not, however, think that drugs that take you out of a sane state of mind and are proven to make you violent such as meth should be legalized. If it takes people out of their rational state and makes them violent then other laws are not deterrent enough to keep them from committing a crime. As a result it directly affects the well being of another person.

Mrth is shit. But it thrives in a context where more beneficient choices are also outlawed. People don't need control. They need choices. Producers too need freedom.

Not sure what you mean Brant. Are you saying that we have meth because we can't buy pot legally? That people wouldn't make meth if other "softer" drugs were freely available? I think there will always be some who want to push the limit because there will always be individuals who are not well adjusted for some reason. We need to protect ourselves from these individuals. Having drugs like meth in our midst is like having a formula 1 car on our residential streets. The production and distribution of meth for recreational purposes should in no way be legalized. This is even worse than having hand guns everywhere. When a person goes nuts and he has easy access to a handgun the someone can easily get killed but when we allow people to get hooked on drugs like meth it makes them crazy. It's hard enough to keep one's sanity in this world as it is, we need to fight insanity/unsanity whenever we can and this is no-brainer.

[Brant Gaede]

We don't have power to keep people off illegal drugs. That's the fallacy of The War On Drugs. Meth makes some people go literally insane.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

We don't have power to keep people off illegal drugs. That's the fallacy of The War On Drugs. Meth makes some people go literally insane.

Don't get me wrong - I think "the war on drugs" is absolute insanity! I am for taking money away from law enforcement and putting it into programs to prevent and treat drug abuse. But I suppose you will say that is a waste of money as well.

[Mike Renzulli]

It was but as one poster pointed out it was for revenue purposes and not out of a concern for people's health. Sadly, much of the crap science about second hand smoke is also being used to justify regulation and prohibition of tobacco too.

I wasn't aguing for an illegal substance I was pointing out what happened when illegal substances were created as a result of the illegality of them. In this case alcohol and relating it with crystal meth.

As far as regulation of crystal meth, it would and should not be because if all drugs are decriminalized crystal meth would cease to exist since consumers would automatically gravitate toward drug products that were produced by companies that would be safer than anything made on the streets.

Mike,

I need to check, but isn't alcohol regulated by the government for strength? Aren't there limits set on proof for being allowed to be sold to consumers?

So long as that exists, there is no way an argument for releasing meth or crack or heroin to the general public will have any effect at all. A fundamental principle cannot be argued for an illegal substance, then compared to a legal substance where it is violated. That's a contradiction and shooing oneself in the foot.

In any case, how would one regulate crystal meth for strength? When you start using that crap, you always shoot for maximum effect. Nobody does just a little (at least not for very long). They only use little because they don't have enough money or drug, hardly ever because they only want a little (like a cocktail befere supper).

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

We don't have power to keep people off illegal drugs. That's the fallacy of The War On Drugs. Meth makes some people go literally insane.

Don't get me wrong - I think "the war on drugs" is absolute insanity! I am for taking money away from law enforcement and putting it into programs to prevent and treat drug abuse. But I suppose you will say that is a waste of money as well.

Not the government's rightful business. "Drug abuse," btw, is loaded terminology supportive of government drug wars. It's not used apropos alcohol or tobacco which are regulated and taxed. If the government gets its cut, it's generally happy.

--Brant