Drugs: The Legalization Debate

[Bill Moore]

My argument isn't based on the assumption that all illegal drugs are equal, but that rather it based on the fact that we have a failed strategy that is not only is failing to stop drug abuse, but it is also undermining numerous nations creating narco-states within those states.

The State can't stop John and Sue from abusing drugs by declaring draconian laws, regardless of what color the drug may be. The State can and should encourage people not to do so, but the ill effects of over crowded prisons (real criminals that intend to harm your family competing for space for some kid caught abusing drugs), undermining friendly governments, etc. just isn't worth it. I realize it would appear to be morally reprehensible to suddenly say anything goes, but it equally reprehensible to continue along the same track we're on now.

The drug market (the demand side) can be best be undermined through an intelligent education program (it will take time), private and government business testing for abuse (yea it may be legal, but if you're going to use it, you can't work here), and even getting the insurance companies involved (if you're going to engage in risky behavior you have to pay more for it).

The benefits of legalizing it appear to be greater than the risks, especially if we in fact shift the wealth from narco-terrorist organizations back to the State, take a burden off our police and prison system so they focus on real criminals, and shift the money we currently use now to entrap kids from buyng small amounts of drugs to education and deterrance programs.

Some people are going to abuse drugs regardless of what we do. If they have to, they'll stiff glue or paint thinner. Some folks are going to commit suicide regardless of what we do. We'll try and continue to try to help all, but the war on drugs isn't working and it is making other problems worse.

[Uboat509]

The drug market (the demand side) can be best be undermined through an intelligent education program (it will take time), private and government business testing for abuse (yea it may be legal, but if you're going to use it, you can't work here), and even getting the insurance companies involved (if you're going to engage in risky behavior you have to pay more for it).

All of these things are in place now. Why would they work better if these drugs were legal?

The benefits of legalizing it appear to be greater than the risks, especially if we in fact shift the wealth from narco-terrorist organizations back to the State, take a burden off our police and prison system so they focus on real criminals, and shift the money we currently use now to entrap kids from buyng small amounts of drugs to education and deterrance programs.

The only way to shift the wealth from the narco-terrorist organizations would be to legalize the hard drugs. That is a guaranteed loser. This is not like alcohol. Alcohol certainly has the potential for abuse but no where near the abuse potential of drugs like crack or meth. You can have a drink now and again without becoming addicted, you can even have a drink or two every day with out becoming addicted. It's not like that with the hard drugs. Some drugs begin forming physical addictions with the first dose. If you make these drugs legal then you simply make it more available to people who were unable or unwilling to try them before.

SFC W

[reed11b]

Alcohol certainly has the potential for abuse but no where near the abuse potential of drugs like crack or meth. You can have a drink now and again without becoming addicted, you can even have a drink or two every day with out becoming addicted. It's not like that with the hard drugs. Some drugs begin forming physical addictions with the first dose. If you make these drugs legal then you simply make it more available to people who were unable or unwilling to try them before.

SFC W

Wrong. By clinical definition, if you are having a drink or two every day, you are an alcohol abuser, period. alcohol and nicotine have greater addictive qualities then most "hard" drugs. It is the effect of the drug on the body after long-term use that determines wether a drug is "soft" or "hard", not it's addictive quality. Of course by that standard, Alcohol is a "hard" drug.
Reed

[Bill Moore]

First, the argument isn't over the merit of drug abuse, the argument is over the so the war on drugs strategy. Uboat, you keep taking the argument back to the Puritian argument that drugs are bad. Most of us would agree with you, but I also agree with Reed, that a lot of information out there is simply propaganda to justify the war, because those fighting the war have established their own industry/economic system, and they need to keep it going.

The education against drugs is grossly underfunded, so assuming you can shift some of the wasted millions from the front line effort to the demand side, it may have more effect. The key is make it culturally unacceptable, and that means recruiting some shallow pop stars to help sell that message.

Alcohol is still legal in the military, but is is much less culturally acceptable than when I first joined a few years ago. It takes time, but it can be done. Admittedly my argument for legalizing drugs shouldn't include all drugs, but you have to yet to challenge any of my points regarding strategy. That is the normal response, and that is why we continue to go down the same old road.

[Uboat509]

First, the argument isn't over the merit of drug abuse, the argument is over the so the war on drugs strategy. Uboat, you keep taking the argument back to the Puritian argument that drugs are bad.

That's because the center of your argument is that benefits of legalizing drugs is greater risks associated with that course of action. I am disagreeing with that point. I have no doubts that if many of these drugs were legalized that it would drive most of the narco-terrorists out of business. My disagreement is with the idea that once drugs became cheaper and easier to obtain legally that the demand would go down.

Most of us would agree with you, but I also agree with Reed, that a lot of information out there is simply propaganda to justify the war, because those fighting the war have established their own industry/economic system, and they need to keep it going.

The education against drugs is grossly underfunded, so assuming you can shift some of the wasted millions from the front line effort to the demand side, it may have more effect. The key is make it culturally unacceptable, and that means recruiting some shallow pop stars to help sell that message.

Certainly there is a lot of propaganda on both sides of the marijuana issue but I don't think that there is a whole lot of that with most of the harder drugs. Now I would wholeheartedly agree that it is a cultural problem as much as anything else but I don't think that pouring more money into education at the cost of enforcement is going to make a huge difference.

Alcohol is still legal in the military, but is is much less culturally acceptable than when I first joined a few years ago. It takes time, but it can be done. Admittedly my argument for legalizing drugs shouldn't include all drugs, but you have to yet to challenge any of my points regarding strategy. That is the normal response, and that is why we continue to go down the same old road.

Honestly that has not been my experience since I have been in. I have seen a lot less tolerance for DUIs and other alcohol related incidences but I haven't really noticed any change in the tolerance for drinking, just so long as you stay off the blotter.

SFC W

[Uboat509]

Wrong. By clinical definition, if you are having a drink or two every day, you are an alcohol abuser, period.

That's interesting because most of the literature that I have read states that one drink a day is beneficial and is, in fact, suggested. I'm having trouble making the jump from one drink a day is beneficial to two is abuse. Both of my parents were alcoholics. I would have loved for them to only have had one or two drinks a day. I'm not sure that just having x number of drinks per day is as useful a definition of abuse as a need to have those drinks.

alcohol and nicotine have greater addictive qualities then most "hard" drugs. It is the effect of the drug on the body after long-term use that determines wether a drug is "soft" or "hard", not it's addictive quality. Of course by that standard, Alcohol is a "hard" drug.
Reed

I did not say that addictive quality was what determines whether a drug is hard or soft. I was only stating that many hard drugs, cocaine and its derivatives, meth and opiates in particular, are highly addictive. And yes they are highly damaging to the body, even over the short term.

Nicotine is not really relevant to this discussion. While it is addictive it doesn't really have any mind altering properties.

SFC W

[reed11b]

That's interesting because most of the literature that I have read states that one drink a day is beneficial and is, in fact, suggested. I'm having trouble making the jump from one drink a day is beneficial to two is abuse. Both of my parents were alcoholics. I would have loved for them to only have had one or two drinks a day. I'm not sure that just having x number of drinks per day is as useful a definition of abuse as a need to have those drinks.
SFC W

First off, let me apologize for my tone. On reading what I typed, I can see where I could be interpreted as being rude. My point on the "clinical" definition of abuse has little to do with my personal feelings on what is healthy or unhealthy, but an example to caution you on buying to much into the current definitions of drug abuse. Can a person drink 1 or 2 drinks a day and be OK? Yep. They could probably to a "hit" or two of hard drugs a day and still function too. Drugs ARE bad for people, no doubt, but the language of some of these posts seem to be based on assumptions and misinformation. Drugs have been demonized beyond recognition to justify the on-going "war on drugs" despite the cost to society as mentioned above. Over a Billion a year to incarcerate marijuana users? There are greater needs for that money. Crime for drugs is based on cost of drugs. Cost of drugs is based on supply and demand (and risk). De-criminalizing drugs (different then legalizing) has a potential to pay big dividends. But don't just take my word for it, talk to police officers and correctional officers. Most of Ken's kids seem to have gravitated LE or correctional work, perhaps he will weigh in on this.
Reed

[Uboat509]

First off, let me apologize for my tone. On reading what I typed, I can see where I could be interpreted as being rude.

No Problem.

Can a person drink 1 or 2 drinks a day and be OK? Yep. They could probably to a "hit" or two of hard drugs a day and still function too.

This is the crux of my issue with all this right here. I'm not sure that that statement is true. Perhaps the problem is that when I think of hard drugs I automatically think of Crack, Meth and Heroin. With those drugs there is no safe dose. They are incredibly addictive and incredibly destructive, whereas other drugs that are considered hard drugs such as X are less so.

SFC W