Mexico Legalizes Personal Possession of MJ, coke, meth, LSD etc.

That is such a meaningless question. How do you measure "total harm"? I guess you're the one defining what kinds of harm are worse than others?

 

Problem with that is, people under the influence of these drugs might kill other innocent bystanders who have never done drugs, before killing themselves.

 

You sound as though you believe that making these substances legal would be a panacea for all collateral harm from them. It won't. It will not stop hardcore addicts from robbing people for money for their next fix.

Legalizing meth, cocaine and heroin simply is not a good idea. I am not sure what is so controversial about that concept.

 

Why don't we outline our feelings on the various major aspects of this debate, so we won't be fighting each others' straw men:

I think that all drug use should be decriminalized. People caught using illicit substances should not go to jail or pay any fines, but should insead be offered evidence-based treatment. Other harm-reducing programs, such as needle exchange programs, should also be implemented.

Further, I think that we need to seriously overhaul our regulation regime over controlled substances. Drug markets should be legalized. The FDA will monitor quality, enforce strict marketing restrictions, and conduct education campaigns about the risks of drug abuse.

None of these measures are intended to be a panacea. There will always be people who use and abuse drugs, legal or illegal, causing harm to themselves and those around them. The ironic truth is, however, that the measures we currently employ in our fight against drug abuse are far more destructive than the drugs themselves.

The biggest question in all of this should be whether legalization will lead to a spike in drug abuse and addiction. Surely there will be an increase in use, but will there be a wave of people destroying their lives with drugs? I highly doubt it, and I think the evidence is on my side from countries that have liberalized their drug laws as well as from the days when drugs were legal here. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary.

 

I think that mar1juana and similar substances should be legalized. I think that cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin should remain illegal. Those that are addicted to these substances should be provided with treatment rather than prison. Those that manufacture and distribute these substances should be thrown under the jail. Needle exchange programs are a must, and should be anonymous so those who wish to take advantage of such programs will not be fearful to use them.

There is no way that the FDA should be involved in regard to LSD, cocaine, heroin and meth. These are inherently dangerous substances. No arm of the government should be potentially seen as putting their seal of approval on them.

 

We definitely have a lot of common ground here, and I think a lot of what we agree on should be a no-brainer first step in reforming our drug policy.

The problem I have with mere decriminalization (for personal use) is that it doesn't address the ever increasingly violent drug war.

I would disagree that they are "inherently dangerous", as there are many counterexamples of people using those substances responsibly. I also disagree that legalization would constitute any sort of sanction for irresponsible drug use.

Your argument here is essentially an appeal to emotion--those drugs are offensive to you so you think they should be illegal. That's well and good, but it doesn't really say anything about whether banning those substances is actually a good idea or not.

 

Have you seen meth lab fires? Have you seen people who've been users of meth or heroin or crack for long term periods of time? Have you seen people who've overdosed on those substances? If you haven't, how can you say they aren't inherently dangerous? If you'd seen those things, there's no way you'd think they are safe.

Who pays the health care costs associated with a societal increase in drug use of those substances that you are advocating?

 

My argument is not based on emotion. it is based on reality.

There are scores of instances of people dying from the first time they use cocaine. Ask your county medical examiner if they think cocaine is inherently dangerous.

As for heroin, any substance where the withdrawal can kill you is inherently dangerous.

As for LSD, any substance where a bad trip can give you flashbacks more than a decade later with no warning is inherently dangerous.

We have a lot of common ground, but on this sub-issue, we could not be further apart.

 

They aren't inherently dangerous as evidenced by people who use those substances without incident.

Who is saying they're safe?

I'm not advocating any substance. And I'm not sure what you mean by: "societal increase in drug use." Could you clarify?

 

I said your argument is an appeal to emotion. You are saying certain drugs should be illegal because they're "inherently dangerous", but you're failing to say how making them illegal mitigates that danger (or how making them legal increases it).

People die the first time they eat peanuts, too. Are they inherently dangerous?

Alcohol? Medical opiates/opioids? There are all sorts of legal substances that can kill you if you don't wean off them.

That's something of a narrow standard, isn't it? Sound a lot like special pleading to me. Either way, the vast majority of LSD users never have flashbacks or any other discernible long-term effects.

 

someone who dies from a peanut has absolutely ZERO chance of hurting anyone else while i the process of eating said peanut.

There are so many people in my family that do this **** and **** over everyone around them because of it. I'm sick of it, and have no sympathy for users.

 

I see slightly different but distinct terminology in play here. The layman seeks some understanding. There's

Decriminalization - mostly pertaining to POSSESSION of drugs. Meaning a USER having drugs won't face prosecution as a criminal, they'll get recommended treatment and rehabilitation.
Legalization - no criminal prosecution of creating, distributing, selling or using drugs. Still heavily regulated to prevent dangerous, unethical practice.

With decriminalization of possession, I suppose existing laws pertaining to alcohol would be used in accordance with drugs. As in having beer/drugs on you isnt illegal. But being publicly and obnoxiously INTOXICATED is illegal. Being ass drunk and being high as a kite in a controlled environment is allowable, but operating a vehicle under that influence is certainly punishable. Its try that I may I cant stop the stupid from happening in people, but I can give the stupid the fair option of not being OVERLY stupid.

I wonder the percentage of drug users that commit actual crimes due to drugs? I think preventative maintenance of throwing a drug user in jail by affiliation to possible criminal behavior is wasteful. We want to prevent things bad things from happening instead of waiting on it understandably, but we cant even throw every gang member in jail. Yes, lock up the person carrying agent orange and DDT. A drug user first and foremost poses a threat to THEMSELVES before they ruin families and society.

Not everyone tries drugs from some recreational bohemian environment. Not a high number but there's a few people really are so down on luck, dejected and downtrodden through little to no fault of their own that they have physically NO WHERE to turn to, so they tune out their minds from the harsh reality. Why would I want to send that person to jail? They definitely need treament first. At the same time I know people who've been repeatedly offered treatment and have either refused or just dont change their ways. Those knuckleheads need to die off.

 

Maybe that wasn't the best phrasing. I was referencing your post when you said

I was referring to that "increase in use" in drugs if they were legalized.

 

I think you draw a false dichotomy between treatment and prosecution. The fact that drugs are illegal doesn't mean that drugs users don't get treatment. Quite the opposite - there are many programs used, including both inpatient and outpatient treatment, to help offenders charged with drug crimes recover from those addictions. These programs are provided free of charge and are far better than any treatment they could afford on their own. Locking them up is always a last resort.

And I don't know if you could determine the percentages of people using drugs who commit other crimes. But I can tell you this. When someone breaks into a home or a business, or robs a store or an individual, or steals from anyone in any other way, chances are that the money being stolen is for drug use. Much of the crime problem in this country is a drug problem.

 

We will never agree on this. Now your argument attempts to compare cocaine to peanuts.

Perhaps we should respectfully agree to disagree as we really aren't getting anywhere.

 

I don't get the "inherently dangerous" standard. Alcohol, cigarettes and guns are all inherently dangerous too, but they're all legal and regulated by the government.

 

I have never heard of anybody going into cardiac arrest from their first cigarette or first drink. I have heard of a person going into cardiac arrest from their first use of cocaine.

Guns are supposed to be dangerous. That is their job. The real difference there is that you aren't going to thwart a burglar by throwing a line of blow at them.

 

You won't go into cardiac arrest from first use of cocaine unless you have some serious preexisting conditions. People with normal hearts don't suffer sudden cardiac death from taking cocaine for the first time unless they have a major overdose. The real risk to the heart is cardiomyopathy from damage caused by long-term chronic use.

One of the side effects of ACE inhibitors (used to treat high blood pressure) is that a small fraction of people will suffer swelling of the tongue and potentially choke to death on first use. But since the incidence is so small, the drugs are still prescribed.

I guess in general I agree with your viewpoint, but ONDCP-type hysteria and finding the most extreme outcomes and pretending they are common isn't particularly helpful from my perspective. Cocaine is very bad for you. Chronic use is worse for you than chronic tobacco use. And like tobacco, casual users have a tendency to become chronic and heavy users. But it isn't exactly like playing Russian roulette each use.

 

See, now you're moving the goalpost. Before it was all about being "inherently dangerous." Now you're saying we should ban anything that can give new users a heart attack.

But your basic argument is that the drugs are too dangerous to be legal.

You'd be hard pressed to argue that cigarettes and alcohol are less deadly than most illegal drugs. But prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it doesn't work with cocaine or heroin. It just adds a lot of death and danger specifically related to its illegal nature (as it was with alcohol prohibition).

Nobody's arguing illegal drugs are not dangerous or that they're not very, very dangerous. The argument is that they'd be less dangerous if they were legal. Pointing out that they're dangerous isn't even an attempt to argue against that position.

Sure, people have had heart attacks from using cocaine. But a hell of a lot of people have also died of overdose because they had no idea how strong the drug they were using was or died of poisoning because they didn't know what the drug was cut with. Legalization and regulation would have prevented each one of those deaths.

Which new deaths would legalization and regulation cause?

If the FDA saw to it that users knew the dosage and ingredients of the drugs they chose to use, there would less (not more) coke users dying of heart attacks. That's a fact.

 

Gotcha. What I meant was that the increase in use would be barely significant. The societal costs for that increase would be more than covered by the savings gained from not prosecuting and jailing drug consumers. Moreover, some risks associated with drug use--buying from violent dealers, needle sharing, being poisoned--would essentially disappear.