Legalize drugs to stop the violence?

[TheNamelessWonder]

Well until they try it, that evidence is just an educated guess. Consumption would increase, and we'd see an immediate increase in the drug users, most simply to 'try it' and then i'm sure a bunch would be hooked since that's how addiction works.

Would you go try some heroin if it were legal? Doubt it. You don't take heroin because you know it's bad for you, not because the law prohibits it. Maybe consumption would pick up a little. Maybe it would decrease a little, because all those dumbass kids who do stupid things just because they're against the rules wouldn't have a reason to start anymore.

Gangs won't subside, they have been around since the beginning of time; they just won't be quite as involved in the drug trade (and that's debatable since the black market will still remain since we've proven we can't shut it down, and there'll always be people willing to undercut the gov't prices.)

Drug gangs won't have a point without a drug black market to sell on. Corporations will take over for cartels. Sure they might exist in some form, but what happen to the alcohol mobsters after Prohibition was repealed? Exactly.

Drugs won't necessarily safer; sure they might not contain crazy cutting drugs to increase the potency but if you start letting people use drugs, they might not die from doing Ecstasy, but they might go out and run in front of traffic. You would definitely have an increase in drug related injuries/accidents/deaths.

Except they will be safer, as you just said. They'll be regulated, and the corporations who produce this stuff will be subject to government inspections.

The problems drug prohibition incurs aren't as dangerous as the costs of letting everyone have free reign on drugs. Yes it does fail to curb consumption; that doesn't mean we should open the floodgates and encourage consumption. You're simply approaching this from the wrong angle.

Free reign? Nobody here is talking about free reign, nor encouraging consumption. Stop putting words in my mouth, and stuff away your knee-jerk reactions. Open up your mind and take a look at the situation.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

You're entitled to freedom if you don't take someone else's freedom away. There's quite a big bunch of people that would do stupid things under influence, like killing, raping or suiciding.

Why do you need drugs anyways?

We already lock up murderers and rapists. I don't think anybody is saying that we shouldn't.

And if you want to start banning things that we don't "need", I'll suggest you toddle along off to North Korea.

 

[Hobbezak]

Well, from Belgian to Belgian.. There is a reason you can't buy guns either, or morphine or other harmful stuff...
Guns can kill other individuals, while drugs can kill someone who's addicted to it.

To throw in a "boutade" p): "Guns don't kill people, people do".
But on guns I agree. They're intended as weapons, they're intended to harm other people, therefore should be regulated by the government.
I don't think that drugs are intended to kill someone, and if they're used responsible they're not exactly lethal.
That's the difference for me.

And on your other post: There are plenty of people who do stupid things (murder etc) because they don't have money, after spending it on too expensive stuff. Does that mean the government should start managing your wallet/bank account?
Obviously crimes cannot be tolerated, but it's people who perform crimes. Using drugs does not mean you go on a killing spree. But as I said: Driving while under influence should be punished severely. Because that is the other side of a free society: Any breach of a principal of the society should be punished ever more severely, to deter people from doing things that are illegal.

PS: As I said: I don't use drugs (apart from the occasional beer), so I'm not defending my own habits, I'm defending a principal which for me is harmed way too much these days: Freedom.

 

[Scorpio]

You're entitled to freedom if you don't take someone else's freedom away. There's quite a big bunch of people that would do stupid things under influence, like killing, raping or suiciding.

Why do you need drugs anyways?

We already lock up murderers and rapists. I don't think anybody is saying that we shouldn't.

And if you want to start banning things that we don't "need", I'll suggest you toddle along off to North Korea.

Well, I grew up in a society where drugs are prohibited and don't see the use of us, legalizing them, as they bring - besides more violence - nothing but misery.

You say that criminals get locked up anyway, but why are you complaining about "full prisons" then, if more people will end up in jail after all?

 

[Alcibiades]

Well until they try it, that evidence is just an educated guess. Consumption would increase, and we'd see an immediate increase in the drug users, most simply to 'try it' and then i'm sure a bunch would be hooked since that's how addiction works.

Would you go try some heroin if it were legal? Doubt it. You don't take heroin because you know it's bad for you, not because the law prohibits it. Maybe consumption would pick up a little. Maybe it would decrease a little, because all those dumbass kids who do stupid things just because they're against the rules wouldn't have a reason to start anymore.

I wouldn't try heroin if it were legal, but I'm sure i'm not the average person. i'm fairly certain loads of people would try drugs they wouldn't ordinarily try. Imagine the average university student and there you go.... People aren't as smart as you credit them for being, they are far more stupid.

Gangs won't subside, they have been around since the beginning of time; they just won't be quite as involved in the drug trade (and that's debatable since the black market will still remain since we've proven we can't shut it down, and there'll always be people willing to undercut the gov't prices.)

Drug gangs won't have a point without a drug black market to sell on. Corporations will take over for cartels. Sure they might exist in some form, but what happen to the alcohol mobsters after Prohibition was repealed? Exactly.

Bollocks. The alcohol mobsters weren't half as well established as the drug cartels and drug industry. The black market won't vanish simply because corporations produce drugs. Period. That's a fallacy that you're committed too.

Drug gangs will move on to something else if they must and extend their interests if the drug industry slows down. So some might vanish, but you'll still have gangs. They won't vanish, period. That's wishful thinking in the extreme.

Drugs won't necessarily safer; sure they might not contain crazy cutting drugs to increase the potency but if you start letting people use drugs, they might not die from doing Ecstasy, but they might go out and run in front of traffic. You would definitely have an increase in drug related injuries/accidents/deaths.

Except they will be safer, as you just said. They'll be regulated, and the corporations who produce this stuff will be subject to government inspections.

There will still remain a black market for drugs, it won't vanish simply because drugs are legal. That's another fallacy full of wishful thinking you're adhering too. And you didn't address the drug related injuries point either....

The problems drug prohibition incurs aren't as dangerous as the costs of letting everyone have free reign on drugs. Yes it does fail to curb consumption; that doesn't mean we should open the floodgates and encourage consumption. You're simply approaching this from the wrong angle.

Free reign? Nobody here is talking about free reign, nor encouraging consumption. Stop putting words in my mouth, and stuff away your knee-jerk reactions. Open up your mind and take a look at the situation.

Drugs legally available for purchase is encouraging consumption since it says 'these drugs are okay to use.' That's not really up for argument.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

Well, I grew up in a society where drugs are prohibited and don't see the use of us, legalizing them, as they bring - besides more violence - nothing but misery.

Really? I was under the impression that quite a few people enjoy using various drugs from time to time. That's misery? The guy lighting a blunt after work to calm down is miserable? Seriously?

You say that criminals get locked up anyway, but why are you complaining about "full prisons" then, if more people will end up in jail after all?

Except they won't, I don't see where you came up with that.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

I wouldn't try heroin if it were legal, but I'm sure i'm not the average person. i'm fairly certain loads of people would try drugs they wouldn't ordinarily try. Imagine the average university student and there you go.... People aren't as smart as you credit them for being, they are far more stupid.

My perception is that the vast majority of people think heroin is something awful. That's why it's banned! Our anti-drug programs have done a pretty fair job of teaching kids how bad most drugs are (even if they undermined their cause a bit on the marijuana topic).

Bollocks. The alcohol mobsters weren't half as well established as the drug cartels and drug industry. The black market won't vanish simply because corporations produce drugs. Period. That's a fallacy that you're committed too.

Drug gangs will move on to something else, and expand their territory and grasp if the drug industry slows down. So some might vanish, but you'll still have gangs. They won't vanish, period. That's wishful thinking in the extreme.

If corporations can produce the product people want at a lower price and/or higher quality, why would there be a black market? Do explain.

Drugs legally available for purchase is encouraging consumption since it says 'these drugs are okay to use.' That's not really up for argument.

They're going to be taxed and regulated, for one thing. And to be clear, the government isn't going to come out and say "Drugs are legal now...enjoy!" There would be a major campaign to discourage drug use, educate everybody about the consequences of using various drugs, and to generally explain the reasons for legalization, which of course are not because drugs are a good thing.

It's about giving the people the facts and letting them make an informed decision. That's as far as the government should go. Let people decide what to do with their lives and bodies, and deal with anyone who harms others.

 

[Scorpio]

TNW, you know that we aren't simply talking about "The guy lighting a blunt after work to calm down". Let's see what your opinion is when your brother / sister or your son / daughter gets addicted to drugs because their friends use it and fails exams, quits school etc...

And wether criminality raises or remains the same is not known. Maybe make a poll where people think if criminality will remain the same, rise or decrease
Endless discution tbh ...

@ Hobbe, if you want drugs, move to Holland.

 

[Hobbezak]

Drugs legally available for purchase is encouraging consumption since it says 'these drugs are okay to use.' That's not really up for argument.

They're going to be taxed and regulated, for one thing. And to be clear, the government isn't going to come out and say "Drugs are legal now...enjoy!" There would be a major campaign to discourage drug use, educate everybody about the consequences of using various drugs, and to generally explain the reasons for legalization, which of course are not because drugs are a good thing.

Amen. Instead of putting effort into hunting down people who use it illegally, they should try to inform people of why you shouldn't use it, or if you do, that you should use it responsibly and maturely. Like a good parent does.
My parents have, probably since my 10th, not said: "You can't do that. Period!" They said: "You shouldn't do that, because of this and this and this." They would be disappointed if I did it anyway, but they'd accept that it is my choice.
This is a task for the government. Explain to people why they shouldn't do something, but accept that it's their own choice, as long as they don't harm other people.
But you can't punish someone before they've done something wrong, only afterwards.


Edit: @ Scorpio: I don't want legal drugs, I want the government to stop forcing me to do this or do that. The government should only interfere in important business, or in things that are bigger than just one individual (collision of the rights of people (plural)).

 

[Garrett]

well the problem with this kind of discussion and debate is this...

automatic assumption of great # of people trying it.

You have no #'s and no proof of an increase. It is only supposed and assumed. It's a campaign of fear. Not saying legalize it all or legalize, but this argument just doesn't hold any water.

If the money spent chasing it, was re-directed to treatment and education... it would probably be a statistical wash. I say probably because I don't know. However, the other side doesn't know either. It could even lead to a decline.

There IS documentation on reluctance to find help because of people feeling ostricized and looked down upon when they admit they need help. You remove the 'illegal' and fund different education and awareness problems and you may see more people seek help and possibly see the use decline.

I'm just throwing some things out there.

edit: damn other people jumping on tasty points. I feel so behind the curve.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

TNW, you know that we aren't simply talking about "The guy lighting a blunt after work to calm down". Let's see what your opinion is when your brother / sister or your son / daughter gets addicted to drugs because their friends use it and fails exams, quits school etc...

My opinion will remain the same. If they're old enough, then it's a matter of personal choice, though I will do everything in my power to get them off the stuff. If they're too young, then the responsibility is on the parents.

And wether criminality raises or remains the same is not known. Maybe make a poll where people think if criminality will remain the same, rise or decrease
Endless discution tbh ...

Except it isn't about opinion, clearly public opinion thinks legalization will make things worse. It's about where the evidence is. I should go dig some up, I have some stats around here somewhere...

 

[Alcibiades]

Bollocks. The alcohol mobsters weren't half as well established as the drug cartels and drug industry. The black market won't vanish simply because corporations produce drugs. Period. That's a fallacy that you're committed too.

Drug gangs will move on to something else, and expand their territory and grasp if the drug industry slows down. So some might vanish, but you'll still have gangs. They won't vanish, period. That's wishful thinking in the extreme.

If corporations can produce the product people want at a lower price and/or higher quality, why would there be a black market? Do explain.

Okay.

The government wants to make money off these drugs (hence the taxing and billions of dollars you spoke of earlier). Therefore the price will be higher for these drugs than from their local dealer.

People will buy from the cheaper source. The government can't afford to compete with dealers unless it wants to lower prices to make it no longer profitable for them.

Pretty simple that one.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

A couple fun things to consider, more forthcoming.

In 1988 in New York City, 85% of crack-related crimes were caused by the market culture associated with illicit crack sales, primarily territorial disputes between rival crack dealers.
Source:
Goldstein, P.J., Brownstein, H.H., Ryan, P.J. & Bellucci, P.A., "Crack and Homicide in New York City: A Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence," in Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 113-130.

 

[Garrett]

Gangs have already moved on for the most part alci. Human trafficking has had a huge upswing. Trafficking of illegal drugs is becoming passe what you have is the old cartels from old mexico trying to hold on to the past instead of embracing the future.

 

[Scorpio]

Well the problem is that people don't know how quickly you can get addicted, how quickly you want more etc etc

A common problem is that you start with a seeming to be harmless drug, and end up want more / needing hard drugs.

If corporations can produce the product people want at a lower price and/or higher quality, why would there be a black market? Do explain.

There probably will be people stealing drugs from stores & depots, robbing delivery trucks or producing them illegaly and then selling them at a cheaper price...
(which is more violence )

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

Okay.

The government wants to make money off these drugs (hence the taxing and billions of dollars you spoke of earlier). Therefore the price will be higher for these drugs than from their local dealer.

People will buy from the cheaper source. The government can't afford to compete with dealers unless it wants to lower prices to make it no longer profitable for them.

Pretty simple that one.

Far more-educated economic minds than mine have sorted out the numbers, and come to the conclusion that taxes and regulated drugs could push illegal drugs out of the market.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

There probably will be people stealing drugs from stores & depots, robbing delivery trucks or producing them illegaly and then selling them at a cheaper price...
(which is more violence )

Soo....wild speculation on a non-drug market? Huh?

Please people, stick to evidence and facts rather than knee-jerk speculation.

 

[Alcibiades]

Okay.

The government wants to make money off these drugs (hence the taxing and billions of dollars you spoke of earlier). Therefore the price will be higher for these drugs than from their local dealer.

People will buy from the cheaper source. The government can't afford to compete with dealers unless it wants to lower prices to make it no longer profitable for them.

Pretty simple that one.

Far more-educated economic minds than mine have sorted out the numbers, and come to the conclusion that taxes and regulated drugs could push illegal drugs out of the market.

Proof please...

And as i stated before, that really is only educated guesses. So is mine of course, but i think mine is based more in reality than their economic rules and number crunching.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

And as i stated before, that really is only educated guesses. So is mine of course, but i think mine is based more in reality than their economic rules and number crunching.

So...your speculation trumps the economic projections of renowned economists? Hmmm, that makes sense...

I'll post something if I can find it.

 

[Scorpio]

A couple fun things to consider, more forthcoming.

In 1988 in New York City, 85% of crack-related crimes were caused by the market culture associated with illicit crack sales, primarily territorial disputes between rival crack dealers.
Source:
Goldstein, P.J., Brownstein, H.H., Ryan, P.J. & Bellucci, P.A., "Crack and Homicide in New York City: A Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence," in Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 113-130.

A graphic art doesn't say anything. You should also take into account external factors like the development of new drugs and stuff like that.