Poll: Do you agree with the criminalisation of drug use?

[Jonluw]

Quite a few libertarian idealists here I see.

There are some illegal drugs that, perhaps with strict regulation, could probably be made legal without causing general harm. I'd like to see someone try justifying legalizing meth, heroin, ketamine, or bath salts though.

Do you really think the consumption of bath salts and meth would rise significantly if they were made legal and regulated? How many people do you know that would start doing bath salts if it became legal?
These are the kind of drugs where the adverse effects are the greatest incentive not to use. I, for one, feel pretty certain that the people who are going to use these drugs when they're legal are the same people who currently don't give a shit that they are illegal.

So why should we not make sure that this use happens under controlled conditions, and with access to help that does not include jailtime, without feeding money to violent criminals?

Edit: Ketamine is actually showing some potential in medicine, specifically in treating depression. That's another issue: prohibition is making it very difficult to research the effects of psychoactive drugs, some of which have very promising effects on addiction, depression, and other issues that deal with negative patterns of thought/behaviour and general lack of finding fulfillment/joy in life.

 

[Korolev]

You need more choices. I would legalize Marijuana, Ecstasy and Heroin. Heck, maybe even cocaine. The only drug I would still ban would be crystal meth, because if you've ever worked in ED you know exactly how terrible that drug can be.

I don't like drugs. I don't take drugs. I don't drink alcohol. Not for any religious reasons - I'm an atheist - I just don't like the idea of doing them. Also, a lot of them do have risks - Marijuana might not be as bad as Uncle Sam says, but it's far from harmless, especially in the young.

But if others want them, they should be allowed to take them. If we allow alcohol, why not Marijuana? Seriously? Why not? ANY health risk posed from Marijuana is matched in equal measure or exceeded by ALCOHOL. Do you know exactly how much damage Alcohol does to people? To society? We always talk about the cost of Cocaine or the Cost of Marijuana - does anyone want to talk about how much damage, how much death, how much disability, how much crime, how much lost hours, how much suffering alcohol creates?

If you're gonna drink alcohol or tolerate the legalization of alcohol, you're logically compelled to accept the legalization of most drugs, because not too many are worse than alcohol.

 

[Jesterscup]

I grew up surrounded by drug users & drug deals, I've spend most of my life having to deal with the fallout and surrounding issues, so I'll say this.

The abusers of all drugs ( weed/tobacco & alcohol included ) should be treated like those with a medical condition, with rational treatments and support programs.

And beyond that, all substances that humans choose to take, should be legalised,controlled and taxed. Firstly it removes the criminals from the equation, secondly it ensures the quality of the 'goods' ( a serious issue with many if not all illegal substances) and lastly the taxes will help pay to support those with addictions to recover and get on with their lives. good for people, good for government, good for the economy. try getting it through the political machinery though...

 

[zumbledum]

If a substance is addictive, it removes the ability of people to decide for themselves if they want to use it.

I agree with Thaluikhain. I don't think any reasonable person could consider drug use a 'choice'. Addiction removes choice by definition. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.

Actual addiction isn't really a problem, only a few drugs are very chemically addictive, nicotine and heroin being the big hitters here, weed and mdma for example are not chemically addictive, of course the argument is its habit forming , but so is everything. the problems nearly always happen when using drugs is a way to escape their lives. people who abuse drugs tend to be unhappy people. and going after the drugs and calling them the problem is treating the symptoms not the problem.

I think restricting hard drugs is legitimate as the social costs associated with them are just too high to justify.

but as nothing is as socially destructive or expensive as alcohol, go to your local police station, A and E or get a job that works with the fri/sat drinking crowd and tell me what drug is more costly! it kind of makes it hard to justify banning anything.



As for my views on the op , the "war on drugs" has been an unmitigated failure of stupendous proportions, America has a higher percentage of its populace in jail than china. some states reach over 5X the Chinese incarceration rate. not saying its all drugs, but that stat has to make you think.

Our drug laws simply do not make sense, or rather they are not logical. it has to be said Big tobacco and alcohol have done an amazing job, not just in keeping the better safer more fun competition off the shelves, but think on this , people who smoke and drink do not consider themselves drug users, now that's some powerful advertising at work.

but until we move to democratic form's of government i dont see truth and logic beating out the sacks of cash the lobbyists have.

 

[Batou667]

But as nothing is as socially destructive or expensive as alcohol, go to your local police station, A and E or get a job that works with the fri/sat drinking crowd and tell me what drug is more costly! it kind of makes it hard to justify banning anything.

In part the effects of alcohol are so apparent because use is so widespread - sure, it has a net societal cost higher than crack cocaine or heroin, but that's because far more people use alcohol. Hard drugs typically have a much more pronounced negative effect on an individual than alcohol does. Refrigerators kill more people than landmines in Western countries, but that's no argument for legalising landmines and selling them to the public.

I used to be a barman. Sure, alcohol often led to silly pranks, people falling over, accidents, fights, etc - but I never stood there and thought to myself "This situation would be much better if everyone was high on drugs instead". That's a friggin' terrifying thought.

Secondly, the societal costs associated with alcohol are partly due to culture. If we got society to move past the idea that the best state to socialise is while drunk and the best way to attract somebody of the opposite sex is to drink until your logical faculties are impaired and then attempt non-verbal communication in a darkened room filled with deafening music and crammed with other drunk people, we might see less alcohol-fueled stupidity. There are parts of Europe, for example, that are much more liberal and open about drinking alcohol, but suffer less associated crime and antisocial behaviour.

 

[CrystalViolet]

-snip-

In your system, people would still use it and control would still be in the hands of the cartels.

I'd like to see someone try justifying legalizing meth, heroin, ketamine, or bath salts though.

Well my biggest justification is that criminalising the users doesn't work and is morally reprehensible. How could you possibly support treating use as a criminal as opposed to medical issue?

On a practical level though in a system where drugs are sold by licensed vendors there would be far less demand for crazy dangerous drugs. A drug dealer doesn't ask for ID and doesn't tell you that there's an X mg dosage of this unadulterated product at this potency. Most people aren't going to take contaminated heroin when there's clean opium available.

Meth could be dosage controlled (much like it is when it's legally prescribed) and purified, but again, no one would want to take it when methylphenidates and clean amphetamines are available.

Ketamine is currently under investigation because many scientists have found that it relieves treatment-resistant symptoms of bipolar disorder and clinical depression at small doses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25374095 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25347227 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25341010

I don't know anything about bath salts so I can't say.

-snip-

Why would possibly want that?

Things like meth or heroin are too dangerous to be allowed for general consumption.

The idea is to make alternatives available. People wouldn't abuse heroin if clean opium under supervision would be available.

Ben Elton book...

No I have yet to read it but I read about a book a week. Thanks for the recommendation! I'll add it to the list

Edit: Ketamine is actually showing some potential in medicine, specifically in treating depression. That's another issue: prohibition is making it very difficult to research the effects of psychoactive drugs, some of which have very promising effects on addiction, depression, and other issues that deal with negative patterns of thought/behaviour and general lack of finding fulfillment/joy in life.

I've agreed with everything you've said but this is by far your greatest contribution to this thread. I'm so glad you brought that up since this is a topic that I feel very strongly about. There are so many arbitrarily prohibited drugs which research have shown could have extremely powerful medical benefits:

Marijuana: Multiple sclerosis, chemo sickness
Psilocybin (mushrooms): Cluster headaches
MDMA (Ecstasy): PTSD
LSD: Addiction, depression
Ketamine: Bi-polar disorder, depression
Amphetamine: Sleep apnoea, narcolepsy, ADHD

I could go on. Seriously, I could list a dozen more. I can back up every one of these with peer-reviewed references.

You need more choices. I would legalize Marijuana, Ecstasy and Heroin. Heck, maybe even cocaine. The only drug I would still ban would be crystal meth, because if you've ever worked in ED you know exactly how terrible that drug can be.

I would agree with most of what you said in your post but if by banning meth you mean criminalising its use then I just don't agree with you. My proposed model would mostly deal with the issue without infringing on people's freedoms. What do you mean by "ED" though? Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker I have seen how meth affects people though because I was a police detective for two years.

 

[Nergui]

Some of these so-called illegal drugs already have a legal use. Here in Australia, Cocaine is used as a local anaesthetic by dentists and sometimes as an appetite suppressant. Heroin and Morphine both come from the opium poppy and are essentially the same drug with different refining methods.

Prohibition has never worked and never will. Increasingly expensive law enforement along with increaingly severe incarceration has no effect on trafficing or usage. Prohibition's only apparent value seems to be as political rhetoric for election promises.

Legalization, regulation and taxes will not only have a greater effect in reducing their usage, the government would gain tax revenues instead of a budget black hole.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Here in Australia, Cocaine is used as a local anaesthetic by dentists and sometimes as an appetite suppressant.

I think that might be novacaine you're talking about but I could be wrong. Maybe they use cocaine in Australia

Heroin and Morphine both come from the opium poppy and are essentially the same drug with different refining methods.

I do agree with your sentiments but this isn't strictly speaking true. Heroin (dimorphine) is a semi-synthetic opiate derived from opium and there are some pretty big differences between that and morphine. It's not really correct to say that they're essentially the same.

Prohibition's only apparent value seems to be as political rhetoric for election promises.

Bingo! Could not agree more. It seems politic often use the whole drugs issue as a pet to bring out for mass appeal to the voter base regardless of policy findings or research.

...instead of a budget black hole.

That's a great way to put it! I hope you don't mind if I use that

 

[zumbledum]

In part the effects of alcohol are so apparent because use is so widespread - sure, it has a net societal cost higher than crack cocaine or heroin, but that's because far more people use alcohol. Hard drugs typically have a much more pronounced negative effect on an individual than alcohol does. Refrigerators kill more people than landmines in Western countries, but that's no argument for legalising landmines and selling them to the public.

I used to be a barman. Sure, alcohol often led to silly pranks, people falling over, accidents, fights, etc - but I never stood there and thought to myself "This situation would be much better if everyone was high on drugs instead". That's a friggin' terrifying thought.

never been to a rave? ever seen a large crowd of people on MDMA? it is sooo much better than any alcohol fueled event. a room full of people on heroin are sitting quietly and smiling

i am curious as to what hard drugs you think have a more negative social affects than alcohol , on a per person basis not net. i mean heroin addicts are more capable of holding down a job and functioning in societal norms than alcoholics. and if your more destructive than the big bad H i have to wonder whats worse. i think people accept the damage alcohol does because its normal, its part of the plan, its like how when soldiers die its ok , but one cute blonde co-ed takes one to the brain pan and people loose their shit. if you sit back and add it up its quite surprising just how destructive our legal hard drug does.

Secondly, the societal costs associated with alcohol are partly due to culture. If we got society to move past the idea that the best state to socialise is while drunk and the best way to attract somebody of the opposite sex is to drink until your logical faculties are impaired and then attempt non-verbal communication in a darkened room filled with deafening music and crammed with other drunk people, we might see less alcohol-fueled stupidity. There are parts of Europe, for example, that are much more liberal and open about drinking alcohol, but suffer less associated crime and antisocial behaviour.

yeah have to agree if we could just get everyone onto X and MDMA things would be better across the board.
Im not sure its a liberal thing, were talking about Scandinavian countries here aren't we? but there are too many other things to consider, better education , lower population densities, higher standard of living, better social support mechanisms. the same countries have lower violent crimes in general , less gun crimes , less of everything that comes along with poverty.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

The poll needed an option for legalized possession and criminalized dealing.

On a practical level though in a system where drugs are sold by licensed vendors there would be far less demand for crazy dangerous drugs. A drug dealer doesn't ask for ID and doesn't tell you that there's an X mg dosage of this unadulterated product at this potency. Most people aren't going to take contaminated heroin when there's clean opium available.

Meth could be dosage controlled (much like it is when it's legally prescribed) and purified, but again, no one would want to take it when methylphenidates and clean amphetamines are available.

Ketamine is currently under investigation because many scientists have found that it relieves treatment-resistant symptoms of bipolar disorder and clinical depression at small doses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25374095 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25347227 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25341010

I don't know anything about bath salts so I can't say.

The biggest problem I can see with this is that wherever you have you have regulation is a place where those who sold it illegally can sneak in. Make it so that kids can't buy hard drugs and suddenly they are going to be the biggest consumer base of drug dealers.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of alcohol as it is, never got the appeal of chemically inducing happiness. And I've seen plenty of people make absolutely idiotic, criminal offenses while drunk that they'd never have done while sober. That being said, as long as its only them who's hurt I don't think that the law has much business intervening. The second you have dependents though, I think that it becomes a whole different story. Having kids around when you're high out of your mind sounds like an awful combination

 

[ThreeName]

There's no decriminalisation but illegal option. My view are not represented.

Sadface.

 

[spartan231490]

You don't have an option up there which closely resembles decriminalization, a la Portugal. There, drug use is illegal, but it's on a level with traffic tickets. and they usually decide not to prosecute, instead forcing you to go to a counseling session or rehab depending on how many or how frequent previous offenses you have. That is the way it should work, drugs are too dangerous and harmful to society as whole(lost productivity and increased medical costs) to endorse it, but criminalization like in the US just increases addiction rates and feeds criminal organizations. However, the system in Portugal breaks down the mystery of it, as well as the stigma, which helps people avoid getting addicted, and helps them get help when they do get addicted.

 

[Ruuvan]

It's fairly easy to see how Marijuana could be made legal, monitored and taxed, not so much with other substances. Smoking weed is no different to smoking a roll-up to most people. I've not met any angry or dangerous stoners, not to say they don't exist I'm sure.

It would be very hard to accomplish so I don't think anything will really change. Unless it starts getting taken up by more and more places no leader is going to have the nuts to say "Fuck it, let's give it a go" (talking mainly about the UK, as that's where I am). I would love it if it could just happen already!

Things take too long.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Do you really think the consumption of bath salts and meth would rise significantly if they were made legal and regulated? How many people do you know that would start doing bath salts if it became legal?

I have an answer for that, and it's fucktons. Mephedrone was legal until a couple of years ago in the UK and it was pretty much a free for all on par with the early 90's love for MDMA. Not that these people wouldn't have been doing something else anyway, but if there's something legal that'll get you high almost like something else that's illegal, people will take it. Now it's illegal again people are back to MDMA.

Not challenging your overall point, just being a smart arsed nitpicker.

 

[The Towel Boy]

I believe that only medicinal/recreational marijuana should be taxed and legalized, under certain regulations of course. But, as for any other drug such as cocaine, meth, or any drug of those natures, should still be illegal. I work in a jail and have seen the people on this stuff losing their minds before they finally cool down (about 24 hours later at the latest!). Trust me, it would be a bad idea to have pcp/heroine/or cocaine users commonly walking down the street... it's a disaster that would erupt very quickly...

 

[Mr_Spanky]

Medical yes.

Legal no.

There ends the lesson bitches

 

[Jonluw]

I have an answer for that, and it's fucktons. Mephedrone was legal until a couple of years ago in the UK and it was pretty much a free for all on par with the early 90's love for MDMA. Not that these people wouldn't have been doing something else anyway, but if there's something legal that'll get you high almost like something else that's illegal, people will take it. Now it's illegal again people are back to MDMA.

Not challenging your overall point, just being a smart arsed nitpicker.

I might have been unclear. I didn't mean to imply only meth and bathsalts were made legal in the hypothetical.
Of course if they were the only drugs to be made legal their use would increase as people who woul otherwise use safer illegal drugs now decide to sacrifice their health for the comfort of legal drugs.

It's like how no one in their right mind would ever do synthetic cannabis (spice) if they had a choice between it and the real deal, but since cannabis is illegal and spice is(was) not, people will smoke that horrible substance just to not deal with the fuzz and because they haven't been properly educated about it.
Sort of reminds me of how lots of people who have no business doing salvia are/were doing it anyway since it's legal.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I might have been unclear. SNIP

No, you weren't being unclear, as I said, I wasn't challenging your point, just being a smart arsed nitpicker. You know, the old internet "ha, I can interject here and look knowledgeable if I ignore the intent of this statement and go with the literal out of context interpretation"

 

[Jonluw]

Edit: Ketamine is actually showing some potential in medicine, specifically in treating depression. That's another issue: prohibition is making it very difficult to research the effects of psychoactive drugs, some of which have very promising effects on addiction, depression, and other issues that deal with negative patterns of thought/behaviour and general lack of finding fulfillment/joy in life.

I've agreed with everything you've said but this is by far your greatest contribution to this thread. I'm so glad you brought that up since this is a topic that I feel very strongly about. There are so many arbitrarily prohibited drugs which research have shown could have extremely powerful medical benefits:

Marijuana: Multiple sclerosis, chemo sickness
Psilocybin (mushrooms): Cluster headaches
MDMA (Ecstasy): PTSD
LSD: Addiction, depression
Ketamine: Bi-polar disorder, depression
Amphetamine: Sleep apnoea, narcolepsy, ADHD

I could go on. Seriously, I could list a dozen more. I can back up every one of these with peer-reviewed references.

Truly, the setback of psychedelic medicine is one of the saddest facts of the war on drugs.
These substances have been demonized to the point where it's completely unthinkable to most people that one of the best ways to help a heroin addict could be to give them some LSD with a psychologist. All this because they've mentally placed LSD and heroin in the same category, which is just so ridiculous I can't fathom it.

Hell, even in non-therapeutic contexts I think some variety in people's drug consumption would be great. If people would only skip one of their weekly alcohol binges in favor of doing some MDMA, letting loose and realizing they love eachother with a clear head instead of the sedated alcoholic state, I genuinely think the world would be quite a better place. But people won't do that because they think it's horribly dangerous, when in truth it's far more benign than the alcohol which they drink to the point of being unable to walk.