Poll on Drug Decriminalization/Legalization.

[Gordon B]

What do you think the law should be on drug use?

I voted for legalization but I wouldn't want government to have a monopoly on the merchandising and distribution of recreational drugs. Treat 'em like alcohol, I say.

[Enforcer]

I don't know about this. I voted legalize, but I might think of reservations about that, given enough time. In general, I prefer to let grown people do what they want to. And pretending a line somehow can be drawn between marijuana and alcohol is kind of specious, to my mind. But for now, I can't think of a good reason to illegalize the hard stuff, either.

[sonic1]

I have been around every kind of drug user throughout my life. Alcoholics are by far the most destructive, and that substance is legal.

I don't believe in making decisions for people, even if those decisions are, in my mind, bad.

And I am reworking all my beliefs in this way. I think to be consistent, guns, abortion, sexual preference, etc. should all be free for everyone to choose for themselves-we are not a complete democracy until we put the power in the hands of the individual over government (states, and corporations do not fall under that reworking, since they are not individuals and are often not responsible for consequences).

But I also think those individuals also must be responsible for the consequences of their choices. IE personal financial responsibility for medical bills run up due to your drug use. If you overdose and go to the hospital, no insurance company or taxpayer should pay for that. You should, and if you cannot, THEN you go to jail. If you can maintain your habit without bothering anybody, and not costing tax payers, power to ya.

I personally no longer take any sort of drug, except caffeine. This includes also perscriptions-no prozac, etc. I am not anti-drug. I just know they don't mix well with my life, and my personal brain chemistry. But I made that choice regardless of their illegality.

[Sergio Zamora]

I certainly support the decriminalization of 'soft drugs':

I really don't know quite where I stand on hard drugs. In theory, I'm all for letting people do whatever they wanna do, but I start thinking of other issues, such as the social cost of drug addiction (irrespective of current or future health care systems), and I start to have my doubts. I really haven't thought about it in depth enough to formulate an opinion.

[sonic1]

Sergio if we worried about health costs, alcohol would be eliminated immediately. It kills way more people than heroin.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

I certainly support the decriminalization of 'soft drugs':

I really don't know quite where I stand on hard drugs. In theory, I'm all for letting people do whatever they wanna do, but I start thinking of other issues, such as the social cost of drug addiction (irrespective of current or future health care systems), and I start to have my doubts. I really haven't thought about it in depth enough to formulate an opinion.

This is kind of where I stand too. I've thought about it, but I don't know what the right answer is from a social policy perspective, other than that people really, really should think twice before smoking crack.

One option was missing from this poll: "Become more consistent. Keep the current laws in place, but also return to prohibition of alcohol, and ban tobacco and Cool Ranch Doritos."

[Enforcer]

I am definitely not interested in paying health costs for drug abusers, any more than I want to pay the medical costs for people who live on Big Macs and french fries.

[sonic1]

Hilarious...

That is exactly my point. Made with much less verbal economy.

[cookie]

Prohibitions don't work. They just cause crime around black markets.

Legalize drugs and treat addicts who want/need treatment.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by sonic1

Sergio if we worried about health costs, alcohol would be eliminated immediately. It kills way more people than heroin.

Just to clarify, by social costs (and admittedly, that might be the wrong term), I didn't just mean direct health costs, but all the other problems, some more intangible than others, that drug addiction and use cause to the users, their families, and their communities.

Regardless, is your comparison of alcohol and hard drugs based on the current illegal status of the latter or are you assuming that if, say, crack, heroin, and meth were made legal, the social costs of alcholism would still be comparable or higher?

Anyway, my point is I just don't know.

[sonic1]

I am not making a prediction about how abuse would change. I actually think making drugs illegal has almost no effect on users (it only really effects sellers and smugglers). In all my life, I never once thought about the legality of drugs before partaking.

Now, would abuse spike when first legalized? Probably.


I still believe consistency and personal responsibility are more important. And compare the cost of maintaining the illegality of drugs to the cost of possible health, family, etc. costs.

oh, and alcohol has ruined more families than heroine too. I don't see heroine or any other hard drug being more costly than alcohol in any category. Take it from someone who came from a family of drunks.

[Noj]

I agree with cookie 100%. Illegality itself is what makes drugs valuable to criminals. If drugs were legitimized, there would be no black market and no gangs and no violence.

[hearsay]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

Just to clarify, by social costs (and admittedly, that might be the wrong term), I didn't just mean direct health costs, but all the other problems, some more intangible than others, that drug addiction and use cause to the users, their families, and their communities.

Regardless, is your comparison of alcohol and hard drugs based on the current illegal status of the latter or are you assuming that if, say, crack, heroin, and meth were made legal, the social costs of alcholism would still be comparable or higher?

Anyway, my point is I just don't know.

I'm all for the legalization of drugs, the libertarian party line. I say start with some "Hamsterdam" type experiments (please watch "The Wire" season three for this reference) throughout the country and see how that works out. I'm willing to bet that it isn't far off from the show. I doubt that drug abuse would drop much, in fact it might spike, but crime would certainly drop in large percentages. At this point in the "war on drugs" we aren't winnning anything, just holding territory. If you ended that futlie gesture, you could avert much more money and energy to drug education and treatment.

[sonic1]

yeah,

if one is really for less government, there is a huge slice to rid ourselves of.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Sumptuary Laws are laws designed to regulate behavior and morality rather than crime, and they are all odious. The government's business stops well short of trying to protect its citizens from themselves. Yes, there are problems related to drug use, gambling, and prostitution, but the laws against them are ineffective and ill-advised. Legalize them all, and deal with the problems created by that -- those problems will be miniscule compared with the problems created by making the acts illegal (such as soaring prison populations caused by non-violent drug offenders).

[walto]

Does "legalize all drugs" mean the decriminalization of selling as well as using? Does it mean that all prescription drugs would be available over the counter? Does it call for the elimination of the FDA?

Just not sure what I'm voting on here.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by walto

Does "legalize all drugs" mean the decriminalization of selling as well as using? Does it mean that all prescription drugs would be available over the counter? Does it call for the elimination of the FDA?

Just not sure what I'm voting on here.

Good question, Walt. The only logical answer is "yes" for the "legalize all drugs" option and no for the others.

[walto]

Thanks. If legalize all drugs means pushers can hang out at my daughter's elementary school, I'm against it.

I do agree that the current laws are cuckoo, though. So I guess I'll abstain.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by walto

Thanks. If legalize all drugs means pushers can hang out at my daughter's elementary school, I'm against it.

I do agree that the current laws are cuckoo, though. So I guess I'll abstain.

I don't think it means that. Schools could still ban pushers from the premises. I don't think any school would allow open sale of beer from the premises now. They don't even allow the distribution of flyers from retail stores so why would they have to allow pushers to sell there.

Besides, if drugs were legalized similar to alcohol, there would be a very limited market for pushers, maybe none at all. They'd have to find new jobs.

[walto]

As I said, I just need to know what I'm voting on. If the theory is that, say, coke and pot would be regulated in much the way alcohol sales are now regulated, with other laws (licenses to sell, etc.) remaining the same--I probably wouldn't have a big problem with it.

With legislation (as with almost everything) the devil's in the details. I know: Post the proposed statutory changes!

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

The only logical answer is "yes" for the "legalize all drugs" option and no for the others.

I don't see this at all. In no way could anyone describe FDA-controlled drugs as "illegal" without context. Their access is simply controlled by the govt.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

I certainly support the decriminalization of 'soft drugs':

I really don't know quite where I stand on hard drugs. In theory, I'm all for letting people do whatever they wanna do, but I start thinking of other issues, such as the social cost of drug addiction (irrespective of current or future health care systems), and I start to have my doubts. I really haven't thought about it in depth enough to formulate an opinion.

I agree basically with the above. I think Gordon would like life to be so simple that it can all be boiled to polls. I can just imagine the poll Gordon puts his wife through before bed.

[Brian Olewnick]

I admit to not expecting Prof. Sutton's tag to appear on the status quo line (!).

[Gary Sisco]

I think they should keep their laws off of my body and out of my space, whether we're talking drugs or anything else.

[Gary Sisco]

VT has a new (this fall) medical marijuana law that is a good idea idiotically planned. Basically the law allows for an exemption from state prosecution for possession and growing of a certain amount of pot, for people with (legally defined in the law) chronic medical conditions. An excellent idea.

Hardly anyone has applied for it, though. Why, you ask?

Because you have to apply for the exemption *through the state police.*

Fuckin' duh?

[groover]

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. President.
Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives

But WTF did he know?

[Coda]

How about Steriods? If we legalize these it would have a profound impact on sports and the history of sports. With most high school boys, sports and participation in them rank high on the list of things that they need to do for peer acceptance.

I think this is a slippery slope in that if you were to start with the soft drugs it increases the acceptance in the public and encourages experimentation by the young.

Also, there is the productivity factor that will affect the economy above and beyond the increased need for medical services. It surely cannot benefit society in either the short or long term.

[groover]

You're jumping to conclusions, Coda. Steroids are legal, aren't they?

Even if some currently controlled substances had their status changed, many employers would probably continue to screen employees for those substances the way athletes are screened for steroids. This would certainly curtail widespread usage in the employed population.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by groover

Steroids are legal, aren't they?

They're illegal, groover. But in the same way pot is. They're everywhere, but nobody talks about it.

Originally Posted by Jared

Alcoholics are by far the most destructive, and that substance is legal.

Without question.

I've always wondered why pot was illegal and alcohol was legal.

Alcohol is much more dangerous to the human body, and unlike pot, is extremely addictive.

Just doesn't make sense, but then again, not much in this world does.