Legalized Drugs?

[muguly]

I have been reading and listening to people debate about legalizing common street drugs. I am interested in the INTJ point of view because, well, it usually makes the most sense.;)

[Karamazov]

Well, it's simple. Drugs should be legalized. It will damage profit derived from sales significantly, since with the legal but controlled proliferation of drugs, buyers will purchase more potent material from non-government sanctioned sellers. People who built their infrastructure through the sale of illegal drugs, won't be able to sustain themselves as easily.

Before the government introduced more rigidly enforced anti-drug laws, The French connection, a drug trafficking scheme that involved heroin coming from Turkey, to France and then the U.S. It was highly potent but the profit margin not as substantial as today. It ended because of the widespread corruption that germinated in the NYPD came to light and fears of the drug becoming too widely available; which elicited the U.S. government to combine efforts with the French and Turkish government. All of this came to a close shortly before Nixon was to launch what we now know is the "War on Drugs" in the 1970's.

Prohibition is a testament in and of itself, but I don't think the U.S. will fully embrace the idea; at least not at this time.

[Tenacious B]

One problem, however, is that legalizing drugs will expand the government's power. The FDA will have to set quality standards for the drug, paraphernalia, and distribution; not to mention the taxes levied on production and sales. I doubt this would thrill most people who want drugs legalized.

[Karamazov]

One problem, however, is that legalizing drugs will expand the government's power. The FDA will have to set quality standards for the drug, paraphernalia, and distribution; not to mention the taxes levied on production and sales. I doubt this would thrill most people who want drugs legalized.

Better than nothing. It may slowly become privatized, through strict adherence to regulations. They do it for Alcohol and Tobacco, which have become immensely profitable and garner influence in public policy, through lobbying in Washington.

[Tenacious B]

Better than nothing. It may slowly become privatized, through strict adherence to regulations. They do it for Alcohol and Tobacco, which have become immensely profitable and garner influence in public policy, through lobbying in Washington.
I was referring to the regulation the government would impose on the formerly-illegal drug industry, not the actual ownership of production. The alcohol and tobacco industries are highly regulated. I was hinting that most of the more libertarian types that support legalizing drugs wouldn't like the expansion of federal regulations. It would be interested to hear which is more desirable: more legalized drugs with regulation, or keep them black market and unregulated.

[GuerrillaVoyage]

I cannot sufficiently state how much of an hypocrisy it is that someone can serve time in prison for doing something that does no harm to anyone but the individual themselves but even that's debatable. Do you put someone who cut themselves in prison or people who attempt suicide in prison? Also with the system and philosophy we have now marijuana a natural plant which is universally agreed upon as having really no adverse health effects (we can get into a debate on the potential of cancer if you smoke it but I have a whole line of argument ready to go on this if you want to play that card) and several medical benefits is considered the same as the meth some guy cooked up in his basement cut with god knows what and sent out on the street where it's going to destroy lives.

I personally have been involved with drugs and the drug culture for several years. I'm not involved much anymore because drugs simply do not interest me anymore but they are a key foundation of who I am today. The reason I got into drugs is because so many of the people I respect and wanted to emulate as a kid were known to be drug users. Also there is a certain brilliant feeling one has in doing something that is so incredibly taboo that so many people lie about. The sad thing is that in modern society drugs are simply lied about so much in attempt to keep them vilified that unless you have personal experience with each different substance you really don't know the truth. My own personal experience was smoking marijuana for the first time as a thirteen year old and having an absolutely marvelous experience and wondering why this experience was so evil and why they were trying to keep it away from me. It made me wonder what else they were lying about. Now as a twenty three year old having worked my way through virtually the entire drug kingdom, I have to say that in my opinion about 95% of what you hear about drugs in society is absolute bullshit.

I personally think the only reason drugs are illegal is because the government is afraid of a populace on psycho-active substances. If you read the works of Hunter Thompson or listen to the music of Jimi Hendrix, it is obvious that drugs... I won't say elevate the mind but at least take an individual's mind to a different place. Also if you look at the history of prohibition in the United States, the government went after drugs during key times in human history. In the 1920s when the black community was really starting to prosper and was at an almost golden age for their community, when jazz was all the rage and it seemed like racial tensions may be starting to ease Marijuana was attacked by the government. It was outlawed by congress amid unbelievable racist fears. It was even said on the floor of congress by a southern senator who's name I can't recall that if black men are allowed to smoke marijuana, they'll be more inclined to rape white women. Of course since marijuana at that time was pretty much an unknown in mainstream life, no one really put up much resistance to the hysteria at the time. Also no one bothered to notice that many of the key capitalist of that time didn't want to compete with hemp products (specifically DuPont) and were championing the outlawing of the plant. And again in the 60s with the introduction of LSD, society exploded into a consciousness experimentation and pursuit of thought and new ideas unseen before. I don't want to glorify or romanticize the 60s but I don't think anyone can deny the revolution in thought from that time period. And again the government stepped in and did what they could to stamp it out. The CIA experimented with using LSD for mind control. There's several documented stories of the government agents infiltrating counter-culture organizations. And some how it all went away. Then in the 80s crack came about and there's been several people accusing the government of being involved with the epidemic that hit the minorities. There's also been whistle blowers that have come out saying that certain government agencies play a huge role in the drug trade to fund their secret projects. I hope I'm not encouraging anyone to get out their tin foil hats. I'm just saying that the United States Government history with drugs has been ridiculous and shady to say the least. And these are the people who will come and possess your property, throw you in jail, and destroy your life if they catch you engaging with drugs.

Also there's a direct link between drugs and the militarization of the police force in our country. It is virtually guaranteed that if you have a drug problem in your community that your local police force is going to get an increased budget to fight the problem. Also with the increased violence that a prohibition brings, the cops need bigger and better equipment and weapons. One of the most brilliant quotes I've ever heard is something to the effect of "There are people in this world who's livelihood depends on war". What better way to sustain a industry than declaring one in your backyard.

Also I'm giving this thought it's own paragraph because I feel it to be the most important to my opinion. The FDA approved and now hands out the chemical equivalent of heroin to it's citizens like candy. From my experience the one drug that has destroyed more lives and fucked over more people hasn't been heroin, coke, or crack. It's been Oxycontin and it's dirvatives. Amongst my peer circles there will usually be a three to six month drug trend which everyone will engage in and then get tired of and either go sober or switch to something new. However, about two years ago Oxycontin suddenly hit the street and that was pretty much of the innocent experimentation drug days. Since Oxy suddenly hit the scene our social scene has completely disintegrated, I can think of at least three people who have overdosed and died, and dozens of others who are hopelessly hooked and going in and out of rehab. And this is a FDA approved substance the government is pushing on people. From my experience the government approved drugs are worse than the street drugs. I personally never got involved with the government heroin because I personally don't care for the high and I was highly suspicious of these little white pills that suddenly everyone seemed to have.

My own personal opinion is that people should be educated about drugs and not terrorized about them. The thing about drugs is that they're like anything else. One kind is completely different from another. There's the mind expanding drugs, the opiate drugs, the speed drugs, and everything in between. I personally feel that some drugs should be actively encouraged to be taken with in society. Others I would personally stamp out myself if I could.

If I ruled the world like Nas I would legalize the natural growing drugs (marijuana, mushrooms, peyote, etc.) and decriminalize yet frown about the chemical drugs (ecstasy, heroin, meth, etc.)

It's fascinating how much INTJs are drawn to drugs. I personally was kind of nervous about approaching these subjects on such an intellectual board. However, you people seem to be just as fascinated and interested in these matters as I am.

[redbaren]

I think it should be legalized the benefits are pretty good for it like, it can be taxed, we can take people out of jails that were in there for drugs witch saves money, and gives more space for people that really need to be in there. With that saved money and the money the government is making from the tax, you can enforce the grade of the drug, and how much a person gets.

The bad affects of it are people that go out in public under the use of the drug can risk other peoples life's, like driving under the influence, and can lead to more domestic dispute reports, if the drug is not used properly. I think any country that is thinking about legalizing any thing should look at how Amsterdam handles there drugs, they handle it efficiently and they control were people are when they use the drug like cafe's.

[deevee]

They should be legal. We all know how much of a giant failure alcohol prohibition was.

[AutisticCuckoo]

Legal drugs may be okay in a country where you pay for your own health care. The only problem I see then is how to keep the junkies from driving (drunk drivers are bad enough).

In a country where health care is funded by taxes (like where I live), it's a different matter. I'm not willing to pay for even more idiots who mess up their bodies and minds with drugs. It's bad enough that I have to pay for those who already do it illegally (and for those who abuse legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine).

[aok]

End drug prohibition.

[Zedicus]

While I agree there are some drugs that should be made legal, the government trying to control the drug culture has been one of my biggest fears since I read Brave New World (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 18 years ago.

[Karamazov]

Legal drugs may be okay in a country where you pay for your own health care. The only problem I see then is how to keep the junkies from driving (drunk drivers are bad enough).

In a country where health care is funded by taxes (like where I live), it's a different matter. I'm not willing to pay for even more idiots who mess up their bodies and minds with drugs. It's bad enough that I have to pay for those who already do it illegally (and for those who abuse legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine).

I doubt they're will be any discernible difference. It's not like every Tom, Dick and Harry will suddenly take to the streets in a drug crazed euphoria; smoking in hospitals, bus stations, etc. Not saying that's what you're alluding to, just that many seem to believe this.

By and large, drunk driving has far more tacked to it in terms of body count, then any drug-induced night ride. I agree though, I'm not too keen on paying for some idiot's irresponsibility but abuses will always occur within a free system and I think the pros significantly outweigh the cons. Arbitrary incarceration of minute drug offenders, who fill up jails unnecessarily, will go. Not "Just Say No".

Not that it ever worked.

[Josh]

Autistic cuckoo you are assuming that there would suddenly be an explosion in drug use if drugs were legalized but this is unfounded. There would probably be a slight increase, but by and large people who want to use drugs are going to, and those who don't will not. So it is the choice between the government handling it intelligently and pragmatically, or with lies, propaganda, and demonetization as they have in the past.

I'm with guerrilla voyage on almost all his points, natural drugs should be legalized, but man made drugs only decriminalized. I really can't say i would support crack stands on street corners, i don't know that that would have beneficial results. It's just so amusing (and sad) that while illegal drugs kill about 10,000 Americans a year, the deaths from prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are one hundred fold. And lets not even begin to discuss the disgusting food we eat in this country. If the government truly cared about the health and well being of it's people, and wanted to prevent millions of deaths a year, they'd outlaw McDonald's instead of pot.

It's a ridiculously hypocritical grab for wealth and power, under the guise of moralism. The truth is the government does want gangs terrorizing the inner cities and they want an excuse to lock up all the brown people. Drug related crime and corruption could go away in a few months if the government legalized and regulated drugs, and the billions going in to the black market or for incarceration, could instead go to the government in the form of taxes and i don't know, perhaps give these underprivileged high schools with a 25% graduation rate, better teachers, books, and the other basic necessities they need to give kids a quality education. And these same kids wouldn't have to go to drug dealers who are going to push their cut, infinitely more dangerous synthetic drugs on them, instead they could be educated about personal responsibility and making the right decisions.

Unfortunately this crap from the government has been spoon fed down the throats of the gullible for so long that anyone in politics is immediately ostracized and painted as being soft on crime if they suggest change. Theres a reason prohibition was repealed, because in every single case, the evil it propagates is far worse than the very evil being sought to be prohibited in the first place.

[AutisticCuckoo]

Autistic cuckoo you are assuming that there would suddenly be an explosion in drug use if drugs were legalized but this is unfounded.
So my assumption that drug abuse would increase is unfounded, but your assumption that legalisation wouldn't be a temptation for anyone isn't? Hmmm...

Comparing the percentage of potheads in the Netherlands (where it's legal) with Sweden (where it's not) ought to give at least an indication. Does anyone know where we could find reliable figures on this?

[Josh]

Yes exactly.

And there's no reason for you to do any researching, i do in fact know this information off the top of my head. Not sure about sweden, but the netherlands have between 50 and 60% of the drug use of the United States (which we were discussing) both for teenagers and adults. Feel free to check my facts.

It doesn't take a psychology degree to understand that impressionable kids will naturally flock to the various taboos in our society, as a natural outlet for their need to rebel in their quest for personal identity.

[Thunderstrat13]

Also there's a direct link between drugs and the militarization of the police force in our country. It is virtually guaranteed that if you have a drug problem in your community that your local police force is going to get an increased budget to fight the problem. Also with the increased violence that a prohibition brings, the cops need bigger and better equipment and weapons. One of the most brilliant quotes I've ever heard is something to the effect of "There are people in this world who's livelihood depends on war". What better way to sustain a industry than declaring one in your backyard.



Prohibition doesn't work.You know it,I know it and the Government knows it.There's an immense industry that's been created around drug prohibition.The dealers,the suppliers,the lawyers,the judges,the cops,the D.E.A..,the "wellness" clinics and of course the C.I.A all drink from the same saucer of milk.The Government doesn't really bitch about drugs because keeping them illegal works so well for them.The drug war isn't really about drugs,it's about extracting money from you and increasing and power and presence in one form or another.

It's a nice little chase your own tail game that endlessly creates tons of revenue for them...keeps common people scared,and creates all kinds of advantages on a global scale.


Should they be legal?On a principal level of course.

[zibber]

The important thing is a total reform of the public education concerning this topic. (The same goes for topics like sex ed, which seems to be completely flipped the f out right now.) Like it has been said before: don't demonize drugs, explain the dangers. Don't tell kids stuff, make them understand it. The only way to effectively communicate some kind of rule (besides literal conditioning, eg. shock therapy and the like) is to convey the meaning of the rule, give arguments for it.

However! The problem for the authorities and all conservative old people is that this kind of education will open young people's minds, and they might disagree with the traditional stance on drugs. Oh no! It's really easy just to indoctrinate people with the traditional stance and base your politics on that (see the hideous propaganda-based farce that is the "war on drugs"). People already know it, they don't have to think hard about it, and they instinctively feel that this is right. Drugs are always terrible and you're only a strong person if you abstain (and you earn the right to be all self-righteous about it to drug users).

(I found a great study of the Bush (1) era "war on drugs" in a little charity shop in England, of all places, I forget the title. It showed through a correlation of official documents with information released through the mass media to the public (who don't regularly browse official documents) how the Bush administration cunningly used the convenient statistics to shape their story and "show" people how important the battle against drugs was, while in reality the majority of drug-related violence stemmed from its prohibition.)

(ps. As for people being jailed for soft-drug-related "crimes".. wow. The US imprisonment rate is insane.)

[HeyZeus]

I see this more as a what and how question than a yes or no.

What: will heroin, cocaine, meth, or crack be legalized in the US in the next 75 yrs? I cannot see laws being changed and distribution transitioning from black market to legal market resulting from legislation initiatied in the US Congress. Where would a government begin? Here, liability (insurance/coverage/treatment for addiction) and morality (giving people the legal right to harm themselves) are tremendous challenges to overcome for those hoping drugs are legalized.

What (cont'd): marijuana? Maybe, if its effects can be extricated from the addictive and physically harmful stigma that the grouping "illegal drugs" currently enjoy.

HOW: but again, how is the political issue of legalizing MJ ever going to be an issue DRIVEN by American constituencies/voters? Hard to visualize. More likely, I think, MJ is federally legalized after MJ possession and use are de-emphasized as punishable crimes at state/local level to the extent that federal law finally endorses what has become reality at state/local level. This sort of desensitization would take decades in generational turnover, and it is hard to imagine this becoming a political issue that politicians want to fight for. If MJ is legalized, it will probably be consumer-driven. Hard to see that political mobilization when the small consumer can already get it.

Also, it is difficult to imagine how the government would establish cooperation for distribution of legal MJ with growers/traffickers who also are in business of selling the harder drugs. I cannot conceive how political forces would organize to make this a reality, because the American "legalize it" consituency will not be large enough in proportion to the whole citizenry to give the issue traction, and politicians put their force behind issues that are popular--which is what representation is about.

Cannot see it Muguly--but the first step to legalizing MJ is to splinter it off in the public consciousness from the harder drugs, like they've done in CA with medical MJ. Baby-steps to desensitization.

[Josh]

Here, liability (insurance/coverage/treatment for addiction) and morality (giving people the legal right to harm themselves) are tremendous challenges to overcome for those hoping drugs are legalized.

Last time i check the united states allowed half a million of it's citizens to kill themselves with commercially available tobacco and alcohol, and another few million with the overabundance of cholesterol, sodium, and saturated fat filled foods. There may be arguments against legalization of drugs, but concern for public safety is NOT one of them.

That said, i agree with most of everything else you said. The first step is federal legalization of medical marijuana, and were not that far off if Obama gets elected.

[HeyZeus]

My point was primarily about constituencies, and the philosphical and political obstacles that I think "legalize it" advocates face in trying to legalize something that is currently illegal. Will the issue ever be important enough, to enough Americans, for representative political action to be successfully undertaken in their name?

Cigarettes have never been illegal to my knowledge. Consumer warnings have been on cigarettes for decades, which addresses the public health liability question. So cigarette health effects legislation and liability have been undertaken SINCE the health issue became known in real life test cases who smoked cigarettes legally. That is a key difference. Legalizing hard drugs or MJ would require politicians to anticipate and mitigate the health impacts BEFORE making the policy, to include insurance/treatment, which attaches to it a greater liability and prescience than addressing an unintended circumstance.

People may disagree about whether the government-mandated warnings on cigarette packaging went far enough, or whether the federal government should have banned cigarette production as a public health issue. Water under the bridge. The INTJ profile says INTJs are forward-looking. I do not smoke, and I do not weep for smokers who started and got hooked despite clear warnings and high cigarette prices. Free will.

[Aeroscoper]

I would agree with those that think decriminalization would be a good thing for the U.S. On a side note, I remember reading a research paper at college that tracked where drug prohibition got it's roots. It was all racist and discrimination based, believe it or not.

During the building of the railroads, the "coolies", the Chinese immigrants that were imported for the labor, brought over with them opium. If I remember correctly, I think it was first San Fransisco that said something to the affect that it attracted young women and the Chinese would have their way with them and lead them into depravity.

Cocaine was first made illegal early in the early 20th century due to fear of "cocainized negros", who would give it to the young women of the day and ravage them.

Marijuana was being imported from the southern border when Mexicans were coming over in large numbers. Folks feared they would smoke up the young women and ravage them, thus the Marijuana Tax act, that was the start of it's being made illegal.

I don't do drugs, nor do I discount the validity of some of the fears, but it should be pretty obvious the failure of the "war on drugs" and the multi-billion dollar industry that has been brought about due to it. Not to mention the use of the "war" to increase the size of government and its inevitable bureaucracies.

Anytime the .gov declares "a war on ______", it usually signals something shady, unless it's an aggressor of some sort, such as fanatical Muslims and such.