Why illegal if you never heard about it in the news

In my opinion, no...

Bath salts would likely not exist in a regulatory structure that allowed people to choose the drugs they use in a recreational manner. There are better and safer drugs out there, bath salts were created to have a legal way to get high. That being said, if "bath salts" were proven to be harmful, then the bar could be set higher as far as who can acquire it and under what circumstances.

Crack would likely cease to exist as well. It was created and persists because it is an easily measured form of cocaine for street dealers. Personally, I would regulate cocaine as if it were a strong form of caffeine. There would be people who would boil it down and smoke it one way or another, but with reasonable controls, we can identify those people and target them with treatment options.

Meth would die overnight if the same amphetamines that USAF pilots are provided with by the Air Force were available to people who wanted to use them.

 

mar1juana is MUCH safer than alcohol and it isn't even close. You can die from drinking too much alcohol, there is NO "lethal dose" of THC that has been found for humans.

 

That would be based on company policy. If the business didn't want people smoking weed OTJ, they could prohibit such behavior just as they do drinking on the job.

 

the health impact of mar1juana need not be decided democratically

sad to see people falling into that trap

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=63243

Old thread (2002) that discusses the regulatory structure I would create around drugs...

 

Even heroin's destructive effects can be mitigated with intelligent policy options...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm

Swiss voters have approved a radical health policy that offers prescription heroin to addicts on a permanent basis.
Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

The scheme, allowing addicts to inject the drug under medical supervision at a clinic, began in Zurich 14 years ago before spreading across the country.
But in another referendum vote, 63% of voters rejected the decriminalisation of cannabis.

The heroin vote was one of a series of referendums held to decide policy on illegal drugs.

Under the scheme, addicts visit clinics up to twice a day, where they inject the drug under medical supervision. They can also be treated for other medical issues or mental health problems, out correspondent says.

The policy is described as one of last resort - prescribing addicts with the very drug that caused their problems in the first place - but supporters say it works, and Swiss voters appear to have agreed, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Berne says.

Switzerland will be the first country to include it in government policy.

Supporters say it has had positive results - getting long-term addicts out of Switzerland's once notorious "needle parks" and reducing drug-related crime.
Opponents say heroin prescription sends the wrong message to young people and harms the addicts themselves.

On the cannabis issue, the government had opposed a change to the law. Swiss police regularly turn a blind eye to moderate cannabis use. But recent studies suggesting that long-term use of the drug may be more harmful than previously thought had looked likely to encourage a "No" to decriminalisation.

Jo Lang, a Green Party MP from Zug, said he was disappointed that the proposal to change the law on cannabis had failed.

"People have died from alcohol and heroin, but not from cannabis," said Mr Lang.

 

That being the case, we should just have scientists do the governing. We'll all live in a happy dictatorship lead by those who know better than we do.

 

For Some . . . I think this is the ENDGAME they want
a TechnoCracy?

Rocket River

 

To me, the line is not whether something is harmful to someone who consumes it. And to some degree, I agree with you. That is if some act or substance undertaken by a person is harmful ONLY to that person, then let that person decide. Banning stuff like Coke is just slippery slope that I don't see it has a end.

However, that said, I am concerned with detrimental socical effects legalized drug would bring. Such effects are well documented throughout histories of all civilizations.

 

The thing is, taxes on those substances can help to recoup the societal costs more effectively than pouring money into the wasted effort that is prohibition.

 

Hmm, possible, but the problem is not just money. It's addictive, and people might just do crazy things to get continued, ruin the whole family, and people around them.

 

I wonder if it is likely for a recreational weed smoker to become a hardcore junkie wanting to try stronger stuff. Also legalizing weed might also create a false perception of govt' endorsement on narcotics and may that lead to more people wanting to try stronger stuff that are not leaglized?

 

I'm scared of Rowdy's world.

 

^^^
Sin taxes, not a new concpet.

 

The sin taxes aren't what frightens me.

 

They do that anyway, it is simply worse with prohibition. Read my writeup on a potential regulatory system, I posted the link earlier in the thread.

 

People are going to want to try various and sundry different drugs, the best thing to do is fully educate them and set aside money for the relatively small number of people who do become addicted to receive treatment. Drug policy needs to be based on education and health care, let the criminal justice system step in when and if addicts cross the line into criminal behavior.

If only legitimate businesspeople are allowed to sell drugs, the entire system will run better.

 

My system would cost less, reduce the number of young people with access to drugs, and would likely pay for Medicare Part D.

 

If you look at his posting history on this subject, it is clear that he means that they should be available over the counter, without the need for a prescription.

 

Well, then look at MY posting history on this subject, far preferable to that kind of nonsense.