Generalisation
Please explain how Group 2 and Group 3 (the vast majority of the population) are currently affected by drug addicts or casual users? These are the normal people who do not do drugs at all. How are these groups affected by people who take drugs? I believe these groups do not experience negative impacts by drug users for the simple reason that the action of getting high on whatever drug is done for personal and selfish reasons.
The negative impacts on these groups is all because of the illegal sales of the drug, and also the addicts who will commit crime to get them. Someone off their face on crack is typical portrayed in the news something like "foaming at the mouth, high on crack and being violent..." Crack might change someone’s attitude, but if that crack head wasn't looking for the money for his next hit - he wouldn't be committing crimes in the first place. Chances are he'd be at home being high/tripping.
So what’s the problem? Why not let people get off their faces?
If the argument is violence or the attitude of people on hard drugs then we need to ban alcohol. Simple as that. I've already established that there are no negative impacts from a user actually injecting/smoking/swallowing drugs.
Are you sure about that? Are you seriously implying that all crime related to intoxicated people is because they are trying to get the drugs illegally? You can look at data, such as what Supermic posted, but by simple common sense, how many addicts go around guns wild stealing money? 5, atmost 10 %? What about the rest? Do you think they’re all hiding in some completely isolated box alone, doing nothing but drugs? How many accidents happen because of intoxicated people? Funny thing you mentioned alcohol, it’s a great analogy. Take teenagers under 21 (or whatever age limit your country has). How many felonies are committed as they try to steal drinks, as opposed to simply them being drunk?
I am sure you know that drinking and driving (and intoxicated driving in general), and underage teenagers are among the primary reasons of car accidents everywhere. These people under influence have their attention span and reflexes greatly reduced while driving, hence the huge problems. Now, could you please explain to a mother of a child that got run over by a drunken teen how the alcohol had nothing to do with the accident?
That is just one case. Think about all the other activities these people are involved in. They have families. They work. How many relationships are broken down in pain, how many jobs are not done right, how many social problems are derived because of these people. Can’t you see the number being immensely more than the 5-10% we were referring to? How can you simply ignore this?
What about the huge amount of emotional and mental stress they put other people they interact under? Sure, you can't measure that in money, but it shows in the long term, and in actions indirectly. And how would the new generation grow up, in a society where drugs are considered just a product like chocolate?
These people you refer to don’t disappear in a magical world, and reappear exactly at the same state of mind and place 30 minutes later after their buzz. Your model only works on a perfectly isolated persona world, but in reality all these people in group 1 are interacting with groups 2 and 3, and in fact everyone, all the time. All groups are closely correlated. In general, a person’s actions influence anyone around him, and I hate to say it, but the view that what you do only matters to you really enrages me in today’s society.
There are negative impacts on purchasing and distribution.
We can't live in a society with double standards whereby some dangerous chemicals are allowed and others not. Who are you, me, or anyone, to decide what is and isn't acceptable to consume? I could drink a bottle of bleach and die in hospital. There are many legal damaging products available, so the argument about health care, tax money and a user living or dying again is purely an emotional reaction to how we've been brought up with laws that prohibit us from doing whatever we want.
I'll say it again, drug usage has little to zero impact on vast majority of us, we're just emotionally charged when we think about druggies and how they indirectly make our own lives bad.
I will touch on the “right to say” later, but your analogy to drinking a bottle of bleach is totally irrelevant. With that logic, someone can also jump from a high building, does that mean we can’t build high buildings? We cannot stop people from causing self-inflicted injury, or rather we cannot stop them from being stupid, but we can, and should:
1. Remove any negative effect it has on other people.
2. Try and educate the person that he’s only hurting himself and/or others around him.
Now, these are not easy to do, but certainly removing the means with which such an action is done, is a correct step, as opposed to giving everyone access to do exactly that. With time, once people are educated, then access is no more a risk, but at that point in time I really think there will be no need for it whatsoever.
Health care and tax money are emotional reactions only? Really? Who is taking care of all these addicts in hospitals and clinics? Who is paying them? Who builds the institutions and does the research in how to deal with their problems? Where is that money coming from, the sky? Cmon m8, that is quite a naïve view. Or are you suggesting we just group up all these people, and anyone else that becomes that, put em in a cell, and shoot them in the head?
Again, it’s the indirect links that have the huge impact on the majority, not 1% that decides to go Rambo style on 0.1% of the population.
Here’s another example: How many so called “celebrities or stars” are on drugs? They are exposed and portrayed as life models and ideals to follow! In fact a lot of people take drugs because they think they can be “cool” and afford a life-style that is nowhere close to a normal life. Fortunately, it’s not that easy to find cocaine as it is to find a dress or a toy now, but legalization would change all that. This is Majority that we are dealing with!
Well I don't think I did a very good job of it, but I believe that your arguments above, against drug legalisation, are not entirely valid. We can't just find 1 reason why we don't like this system and throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to figure out how to make the approach perfect, in an ideal world. Practically, it will never happen since the population is so engrossed in their own private worlds and their material possessions. They can't be bothered standing up for what they believe in. They think "why should I get involved, I can keep a low profile and smoke pot in my house without bringing any attention to myself".
They won't risk their middle class life style and everything they've got into debit for to try and help a common cause. It's only when people are oppressed that they riot and cause change. And thats not likey to happen anytime soon, although we'll see how hard the world recession hits us soon.
Yes, I agree, sadly people don’t care unless they are really visually and directly, I stress, directly, affected by it. You can see that in a family member or friend of a person with drug related problems, but almost everyone else doesn’t give a sh**.
I think the numbers exist, but they won't be published because, I'm guessing, they do not support the prohibitionists arguments.
For me, it's a no brainer. More people die each year from such trivial things, yet we do nothing to stop it. We have thousands of children die in Europe each year due to industry and pollution, yet we do nothing to reduce the effect this has on people.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on it, yet that opinion is based purely upon "moral" standards which were introduced by law. If the law changed, these people would essentially have to change their moral standards or be hypocritical.
Again, I agree wholeheartedly with your first points, but completely disagree with your conclusion. The law is there for the moral/ethical reasons, not the other way around. We think it’s wrong to do something when it hurts the society (hence individuals in it), so we create a rule to avoid that situation from occurring. People’s morals would not change if the law wasn’t there anymore. It would simply remove an obstacle for people that wanted to get it for free but couldn’t before. We put laws in place to guide the ones that do not know what to do (such as the new generations), and guarantee the safety of the existing generation.
You do make some excellent points Squirrel, and its food for thought. Such as could the money be better spent elsewhere? Well there are lots of areas where money is wasted in the UK government at least. Wars around the world, the millenium doime, money spent on speed cameras. From a purely economical point of view - the costs to introduce this would be much, much lower than the benefit to society.
- Lesser crime
- Lower numbers of police
- Lesser criminal court cases, time paying for Judges, lawyers/solicitors
- Less money spent on prisons and jails
- Lower insurance premiums for cars, houses and personal possessions
- Less pressure on hospitals and the health care system saving peoples lives who OD on bad hard drugs
- Greater safety to people who live in communities where drug dealing is rife
- More taxes generated from the licensed sale of legalised soft drugs
- Increased tourism for the consumption of soft drugs (like Amsterdam attracts)
- More money to protect our borders
- More money re-injected into the economy and local councils from the taxed products
Then we can focus on real crimes, and over generations I believe that the attraction to drugs will go down. It would become a medical issue rather than recreational. I don't know of many people who use drugs administered in hospitals to get high. There isn't much glamour attached to being sick or ill.
We don't need a model, it's common sense from where I am sitting. Although I do appreciate that other people either think I have lost my mind, or don't think the entire solution would work for whatever reason.
Going back to my previous points.
1. Crime: I see no way in hell we’d see lesser crime, police and everything else with open drugs on the street, we’d in fact see the opposite effect for the reasons previously mentioned.
2. Healthcare: Same thing, a big increase in spending for rehab, clinics, research. Would people OD less if they could freely gets the drugs??? Do we just let them loose on the streets? Even worse.
3. Industry: While it will generate tax revenue, a huge amount of money/resources will be invested to make and market these as part of everyday life, promoting how drugs are so wonderful... Just look at tobacco and alcohool industry campaigns...
Useless, I’m really puzzled as to how you all of a sudden you seem to contradict yourself at the end of your post and proclaim legalization is the proper way. See below for the moral right issue.
Now, I promised I’d get back to the “right-to-say” issue. While I do believe this is a sensitive point, and we now get more into the philosophy realm, I will shortly say this, and welcome comments on its own thread maybe:
On a personal note, would you trust your kids driving home with an average Joe that you know does drugs, as opposed to an educated person that you know is clean, all other things being equal? Do you think their decision making is the same?
On today’s society, sadly, there is no easy way to educate the masses. They in fact are driven by the powerful and corrupted people on top who dictate the life style stereotypes and models to suit their goals, to the extent of almost “brain-washing”. All the media and means of information are composed with that goal in mind. When given a free choice, the mob will always go to what they have been fed to as an easy way to happiness, almost always going for the wrong and dumb option. False advertising and marketing makes the most money in this world, because the majority of people fall for it. There are very advanced psychological models being employed in political/marketing campaigns just to fool someone into thinking he’s making the right decision. Can you really trust the average Joe, being bombarded with this stuff, to make the right decision for you?
In these conditions, we cannot rely on them making the right choices. For the sake of them, and all bystanders, it’s the responsibility of the people that understand these matters to guide the masses, even by force (laws, not violence hopefully), in the proper channel. Of course, the idea is to educate them on the consequences, and gradually give the power back to the people as they get enlightened. Democracy doesn’t work in today’s world. The majority plays in the hands of the corrupted, and crushes down the opponents with the right values. We simply CANNOT rely on the majority’s view now. It has proved to be wrong over and over again…
but appreciate the comments anyway 
annual prevalence)