Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


View Poll Results: Do you support the legalization of heavy drugs?
Yes 29 47.54%
No 32 52.46%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 16th, 2012, 06:11 AM   #91

Chancellor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The far North
Posts: 882

21-21
Chancellor is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 16th, 2012, 10:59 PM   #92

arkteia's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Seattle
Posts: 1,149

I have already posted in this thread, but wanted to add something. If we legalize drugs, and destroy the black market, and the government takes drug production and distribution under its control and taxes drugs, the money obtained from such measures should be absolutely, 100% put into financing research of addiction. And there should be full accountability and transparency about it. As to opiates... let me put it so, I see people who are treated from this addiction, and I started asking their opinion. The result of my "mini-poll" was approximately 50-50, with a slight tendency towards not legalizing them. But I think that "opiate clinics" like the ones they have in the Netherlands could be helpful.
arkteia is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 01:54 AM   #93

Solidaire's Avatar
ou solitaire
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Athens, Greece
Posts: 3,879
Blog Entries: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yōḥānān View Post
If consuming drugs is a civil right and liberty, selling them is also a civil right and liberty, otherwise it is an hypocrisy.
Not really, since one may do what he pleases with himself but not do what he pleases with others. Personal liberty cannot exceed the point that it starts becoming harmful to others. It should then be limited, if societies are to function in harmony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yōḥānān View Post
What you are saying is that criminals should be the only ones who can produce a certain service which is highly lucrative and gives criminal organizations enough power to foster other kinds of violence and corruption, and that the tax payers money and law enforcers lifes, along with innocent people who are victims of these criminals, should be sacrificed with the only objective of keeping drug prices high.
I don't understand. I'm saying exactly the opposite, that no one should be allowed to gain from heavy drugs, that drugs should be totally isolated from the profit incentive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yōḥānān View Post
I understand your point but this would raise some issues. First tax payers would be forced to sustain the vices of other people which might be considered immoral. Second this would promote the use of drugs since once people consumed enough drugs to become addicted they would have them for free. And to be honest drug dealers might loose a share of the business but they would still have a large market. It might ease the problem but many effects you suggest would not happen.
Tax payers are already burdened with the cost of dealing with the effects of the current situation, either in law enforcement and dealing with illegal activities related with drugs, or in dealing with the health and social cost of drug addiction. I believe that this would go down if the state took absolute control of heavy drug handling.
The cost of producing those drugs is actually very low; some are obtained by plants easy to grow, others are simple chemical compositions. It wouldn't cost much for a state to have them available in quantities. Opiates, especially morphine, are already and for many decades now extensively used by health systems worldwide. It's actually very cheap. The chemical difference between morphine and heroin is very small; just a couple of acetyls, and one can easily and cheaply create heroin from morphine. Drugs are so expensive in the black market not because they are expensive to produce, but simply because they are so sought after and illegal. And it is this enormous profit margin that encourages illegal drug dealing and criminality.

As to the argument that their high cost discourages many people from using them, the answer is no, it doesn't. No addict has ever quitted because he couldn't pay the cost for his dose, he simply becomes a slave to dealers, selling if need be everything he or his family owns, and then engaging in criminal activities himself to ensure the money to pay his next fix. A drug addict is a patient, not a criminal, and he should be treated as such. Allowing him to pay a heavy social and economic price for his addiction is a punitive method, not a therapeutic one.

Lastly, I agree that what I suggested would not solve the problem entirely, but I believe that it would be a decisive move in the right direction. There would still be drug dealers and a black market, but their power would be severely limited. And I also think that heavy drugs would have far, far less harmful impact on individual and societies as a whole.
Solidaire is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 05:33 AM   #94

Apachewarlord's Avatar
Chief idiot
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Hippy town U.S.A.!
Posts: 5,389
Blog Entries: 2

I'm for legalization of marijuana (I don't and won't smoke, I just think trying to keep it illegal is a waste of money) however, anything worse then that shouldn't be.
Apachewarlord is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 12:21 PM   #95

arkteia's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Seattle
Posts: 1,149

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apachewarlord View Post
I'm for legalization of marijuana (I don't and won't smoke, I just think trying to keep it illegal is a waste of money) however, anything worse then that shouldn't be.
MJ has been legalized in my state, so far there has been no difference except for some people asking my (professional) advise to smoke or not. They wonder if MJ would help them to stabilize their moods. Which is good, because now that we can speak openly about it, I can counsel them and explain my personal opinion about using MJ as treatment modality. Ironically, when people are given a choice, they start thinking. When MJ was forbidden, they would not think twice before smoking it.
arkteia is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 02:06 PM   #96

Giordano's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: The Southland, CA
Posts: 55

I can't see legalizing drugs as eliminating the cartels. They've grown upon not on the fact of the illegality of drugs, but on the fact that people want to get intoxicated.

Maybe in USA gangs will be reduced a bit thanks to more efficient law enforcement, but in Mexico and Latin America? The cartels would continue to dominate the market down there, regardless of what legal measures the law has put in.

These cartels, making billions in profit and investing millions in the trade, are to be expected to go away? No, they've staked too much. They'll continue fighting against each other in Latin America and fight against competition and conduct tax evasion in USA.

So I'm not entirely sure that the savings of ending the War on Drugs would actually be saved. We'd still have to continue fighting organized crime , just with more white-collared crimes.
Giordano is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 02:17 PM   #97

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
Not really, since one may do what he pleases with himself but not do what he pleases with others. Personal liberty cannot exceed the point that it starts becoming harmful to others. It should then be limited, if societies are to function in harmony.
Buying is not compulsory, people who sell cannot force others to buy so I don't understand the point. Besides under this logic neither cigarrettes or alcohol among several other things should be sold.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
I don't understand. I'm saying exactly the opposite, that no one should be allowed to gain from heavy drugs, that drugs should be totally isolated from the profit incentive.
I was answering a previous post from you in which you said selling should be illegal but buying not. This would mean only criminals could provide the service. But after I understood your full model in which the state provides.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
Tax payers are already burdened with the cost of dealing with the effects of the current situation, either in law enforcement and dealing with illegal activities related with drugs, or in dealing with the health and social cost of drug addiction. I believe that this would go down if the state took absolute control of heavy drug handling.
It seems to me your model would add an extra burden to the tax payers, to provide free drugs for the addicted. The rest would all be there since drugs would only be free and allowed for a restricted group.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidaire View Post
The cost of producing those drugs is actually very low; some are obtained by plants easy to grow, others are simple chemical compositions. It wouldn't cost much for a state to have them available in quantities. Opiates, especially morphine, are already and for many decades now extensively used by health systems worldwide. It's actually very cheap. The chemical difference between morphine and heroin is very small; just a couple of acetyls, and one can easily and cheaply create heroin from morphine. Drugs are so expensive in the black market not because they are expensive to produce, but simply because they are so sought after and illegal. And it is this enormous profit margin that encourages illegal drug dealing and criminality.

As to the argument that their high cost discourages many people from using them, the answer is no, it doesn't. No addict has ever quitted because he couldn't pay the cost for his dose,
The objective of high prices is to create a barrier to entries, and in that objective I believe it works, there would be more people consuming drugs if they were free or cheaper, but the high prices have the dramatic effect you mention of leading addicts to criminality to be able to pay the prices while addicts in cheaper vices do not have such need.

Personally I don't think drugs should be in control of the state. They should be liberalized and the state should inform people of the dangers and forbid advertisement of any kind. Drug packages could contain warnings about its dangers just like cigarrettes.

Last edited by Yōḥānān; November 17th, 2012 at 02:29 PM.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:23 PM   #98

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I can't see legalizing drugs as eliminating the cartels. They've grown upon not on the fact of the illegality of drugs, but on the fact that people want to get intoxicated.

Maybe in USA gangs will be reduced a bit thanks to more efficient law enforcement, but in Mexico and Latin America? The cartels would continue to dominate the market down there, regardless of what legal measures the law has put in.

These cartels, making billions in profit and investing millions in the trade, are to be expected to go away? No, they've staked too much. They'll continue fighting against each other in Latin America and fight against competition and conduct tax evasion in USA.

So I'm not entirely sure that the savings of ending the War on Drugs would actually be saved. We'd still have to continue fighting organized crime , just with more white-collared crimes.
For sure it shall not be eliminated since cigarettes which are legal are still objects of smuggling, but, the underworld organization shall have smaller place to dwell, hence crimes shall be lessened in the event that drugs shall be legalized.
dagul is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 05:44 AM   #99

Yōḥānān's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I can't see legalizing drugs as eliminating the cartels. They've grown upon not on the fact of the illegality of drugs, but on the fact that people want to get intoxicated.
Nope they've grown up on the fact that drugs are illegal, just like the Al Capone's were a product of the Dry Law.

Nobody in his mind would be buying drugs at a higher price and doubtful quality to a dealer in the street if he could get a better price and quality in a legal store.
Yōḥānān is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 05:55 AM   #100

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 2,673
Blog Entries: 30

I voted no. I would not like to see hard drugs legalized. However, I would very much like to see the penalties reduced and money spent on education and assistance rather than much on enforcement.
Baltis is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
drugs, heavy, legalization


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The legalization of marijuana in the USA bartieboy Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 158 November 26th, 2012 09:19 PM
will our aging population lead to legalization of Euthenasia Zarin Speculative History 13 September 8th, 2012 09:59 AM
History and Drugs (Not On Drugs) Robespierre General History 17 June 17th, 2011 01:43 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.