Why Am I Wrong for Wanting to Legalize Drugs?

Drugs should remain Illegal, but be decriminalized.

Let me explain. Doing hard time for doing drugs is costing us time and money better spent on on hardened criminals. For example, when a John is arrested for picking up a prostitute, he is given bail and, depending on the jurisdiction he has to attend public health classes, and pay a fine. It really would NOT make sense to imprison the John. I believe similar treatment for drug abusers would make more sense. UNLESS it is a DUI type situation. but DUI offenders are usually commuted to community service for 1st offender or if jail time is involved they go to county jail not a penitentiary.

However, the Drug distribute rs and dealers should be aggressively pursued. The heat should be notched up on them tenfold.

So, that is the difference between decriminalizing and Legalizing.

I hope I helped give you an insight.

I believe this method would FAR more effective.

:)

Marijuana looks fantastically harmless and undeserving of the extreme conflict against it, because of the fact that is not addictive. in assessment to the different banned drugs, it reasons no dopamine reaction interior the concepts, that's the middle of habit. it may replace into an emotional or social habit, yet not a actual, habit. informal use alongside the strains of a lager on the weekend would not deserve the demonization its won. in spite of the shown fact that, all the others have extreme drawbacks. Illegals like ecstasy and cocaine can perform a little surprising harm and pharmaceuticals require an in intensity information of their working mechanisms, besides as how plenty each and every guy or woman might decide for in accordance to their scientific difficulty. purely somewhat too plenty or too little can cripple or kill you, or purely be ineffective the place therapy is mandatory. as nicely, with each and every new drug a guy or woman provides to their checklist, there's a cumulative result. some will cancel others out or have interactions that could bring about new issues. Its a complicated technology and the final guy or woman isn't even remotely equipped to make such fee judgements. Many are so used to easily popping an aspirin or different over the counter pills, they wrongfully assume drugs are all extra or much less the comparable. not actual via a mile. evaluate blood rigidity pills. docs nonetheless have no theory of what reasons it to circulate up or down previous a minimum factor, purely that express compounds could make it happen. Too little and the rigidity maintains to be dangerously extreme; one notch too plenty and it may reason a stroke or loss of existence. Guaging that may not something you may study from a pamphlet. area of being an grownup is understanding the place your limitations are. maximum persons are not any further equipped to self-prescribe than we are to pilot a jet. the flair for "harm" is gigantic. Be clever sufficient to enable a experienced professional handle the heavy lifting. in spite of each and every thing, informal thinking like it incredibly is why its below criminal regulations at the start. The prohibition against marijuana looks to reason extra social harm than its use via a ways, yet interior the case of harder or pharmaceuticals, the form is appropriately. It has technology and good judgment in the back of it.

Drugs ARE legal, they just happen to be the Republican drugs of choice, ie. Nicotine and Alcohol. And to infinite_cold: are you saying that you have never had a sip of alcohol? "sober up and read this in a few years..." Illegal drugs are by far not the only way to compromise sobriety.

YES, they should all be made legal, but the only way that is going to happen is if the government can continue to profit from them. Legalizing drugs would make them more affordable and that would be bad for business, (not columbia's business, since they already pay an arm and a leg to the government to continue to be allowed to traffic drugs in to this country)

Leonard C: You DO live in a country where everyone is drug addicted: addicted to alcohol, addicted to nicotine, addicted to anti-depressants, addicted to pain killers...

And to you "har": would you want some surgeon who is under the influence of ANYTHING operating on you? The fact is, the argument against drugs will never be valid as long as there are some that are legal.

We" don't want a bunch of half-baked retards walking around killing themselves and hitting each other with cars because they're high.", so it's okay if they're drunk? I don't get it?

I am all for legalizing certain drugs. I don't think the stigma of being an illegal drug necessarily makes the drug automatically dangerous to society.

However, I DO think there are certain drugs that are very dangerous to society. Specifically I'm thinking of the really hard ones, like cocaine and heroin, which actually have the ability to completely overpower the free will of individuals. THOSE drugs do actually play significant roles in murders, theft, robbery, etc.--unlike certain other drugs like marijuana.

So I half agree with you, but I think you ought to look more at the effects of certain drugs as far as their actual impact on society. They can't all be lumped into one category, for better or for worse.

I should also note that it's illegal to sell prescription medications or herbal supplements that have the potential to cause lethal side affects; marijuana doesn't fall under this category, but a lot of others do. I would think that for this reason the sale of the more harmful drugs should fall under the same legislation, even if their use doesn't.

Your not... true, true... good rant... I agree...

Liberty in law... let God guide your conscience...

There has to be some kind of room for laws that protect our pursuit of happiness as well as others... As long as you don't hurt anyone else... We as inidividuals have to seek Truth and have to find what is right and what is wrong... What is gray...

I am sure that we can sum it up in a phrase "do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" not as others do to you... do not reciprocate others actions toward you... There are some tricky things when it comes to liberty that's for sure... but when it comes to government interjecting it's fat self into that liberty you are right on bro... It's one thing to screw up your own life if you choose to do so... It's another thing to screw many others in the process... Now... we probably all know that the action of smoking herb in and of itself bears very little consequences on the experimenter and those who surround them... However, there are certainly many consequences of a lifestyle of chronic use that some people's temperament just can't handle. It's proven... And the user in his use not only affects himself... but those around him... I think the bottom line is we have to know each individual case to say whether or not someone is guilty of some wrong... or alot of harm for that matter... I say... everything in moderation... (Not including excessive types of drugs like anything plastic (processed, re-formulated/concentrated) types of recreation. However, everything in moderation usually has respect for oneself and those surrounding them. Therefore the consequences may be minimal (At least the govt's laws rarely make this person's life totally miserable, besides they usually keep there noses clean.... In that sense I guess liberty is limited... I any case as a free society we should be able to err on the side of liberty... If we were to legalize unconcentrated portions of natural substances we could probably help the economy a bit... It would also cut off terrorist funding (many drug cartels finance terrorism in some way shape or form)... I don't know of any great answer to the question... But it's a good one... Politicians should do something about that...

Maybe I will start writing my congressman for that... As well as a host of oher things... Like building oil refineries to fix our economy and end our terrorist threat once and for all... Yeah... that's right... the terrorist nation of islam needs to fall... These people really want to take all of our freedoms away... there is no such thing as liberty in law in islam... Ok... I guess I'm ranting now too...

You are not wrong but absolutely. right. The War on Drug is an expensive failure. Money wasted on Courts, prisons, eradication, cops.It doesn't work. Drugs could be taxed and revenue generated. In addition those who have or develop problems with drugs could get voluntary rehab.The War is alo cruel, because Physicians are intimidated from prescribing adequate pain medication by the DEA. Also Marijuana has medicinal uses, for pain, nausea, glaucoma, and thus not available.In addition hemp fiber could be used for industrial purposes.So the police is totally ridiculous

Your rite we used to be a free nation not anymore we have some of the most strict laws for the land of the free.

Also since people will continue to use drugs no matter what as you said if you can get them in prison how hard can it be get them. It would be smart for the government to just legalize them then tax them like cigarettes we could start to pay back all this country's debt with the money

No, you're not wrong. The idea that vice is something that could or should be legislated away is just plain stupid. The Dutch have the right idea, and I defy *ANYONE* to provide *ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that the percentage of Dutch people addicted to drugs is any higher than it is here. Anyone at all. For the sake of disclosure, I don't do drugs, by the way- but I find this country's "war on drugs" to be a colossal waste of time and resources for a number of reasons.

You aren't, they should treat it like they do alcohol.....its legal in the confines of your own home so long as you aren't 'intoxicated in public' or 'driving under the influence.'

Nobody is saying 'yes you're wrong, here's why...." because there isn't a justifiable reason to exclude legal, honest adults from doing something in their own homes that doesn't hurt another person....

'i dont want a bunch of addicts' drug laws don't solve that problem, there already are a bunch of addicts running around. Would it not be smarter to regulate the distribution and sale of these drugs, rather than an ineffective ban? All a ban does is enrich gangs, cartels and paramilitary groups....it actually hurts society more to keep going the route we are going.

jdw, why is our government in the position of allowing adults to do anything that doesn't harm others? It always goes back to money and control though...always. Drugs were the boogeyman of the early 20th century......they hadn't been able to properly villify communism at that time.

Maybe it would be okay, if it was just legal for you, but would you want a doctor on drugs to operate on you? Do you think you could hold down a job that requires decisions, if you were high? How about drugged-up cops with weapons? Suppose firemen sat around smoking weed? It's would create unbelievable chaos and until you grow up and understand the negative side, you'll be asking this question. This country needs more education, not more users! As to the "freedom", as a druggie, you infringe upon my right to expect a person who performs a service to be ABLE to perform that service! And, it would leave that person wide open for litigation against them.

No, you are not wrong to want to legalize drugs--you're entitled to your opinion no matter what. But here are some pragmatic reasons why Americans might want to consider legalize drugs:

1. Cost to the taxpayer: Half the prisoners currently in jail are there for NON-violent, drug-related crimes. In 2005, there were approx. 2.2 million prisoners incarcerated in the US, so figure 1.1 million were there for non-violent drug-related offenses. At an average of $50,000/yr cost of incarcerating each criminal that comes to $55 BILLION/YEAR for US taxpayers, or an average of $1.1 BILLION per STATE.

That's a LOT $$$ for each tax-paying citizens to pay for non-violent crimes, where no one else was harmed.

2. The US gov't. is spending $millions, maybe $billions in our US drug war by dispersing anti-drug compounds, similar to agent orange, by helicopter or planes in countries that are known to make drugs for the US drug market.

a. We, the taxpayers, are paying for the cost of this too.

b. Innocent citizens of these foreign countries are developing cancer, lung and eye injuries, and show an increase in the # of birth defects. Although the anti-drug compound company's manufacturer denies causing any injuries, doctors and world health organizations are saying that they believe there is a definite link.

Do we Americans want this on our conscience? I don't.

3. We taxpayers are also paying for borderline enforcement of illegal drugs, at high cost to the taxpayer here, too, and at high cost to human life agaiin--including our own US border agents.

Ie: If you LEGALIZE DRUGS [BUT for safety, apply the SAME DUI laws that apply to alcohol consumption]:

a. You cut the prison population almost in half and spare the tax payers the heavy burden of prison costs [the US, by the way, has the highest incarceration rate in the Western wordl].

b. You reduce taxpayer cost by reducing costs of the so-called "War on Drugs."--because once drugs are legalized there will be NO INCENTIVE for drug smuggliing and illegal drug trade (in fact, this is the very reason why so many are against legalizing drugs--some people have huge profits to make from their illegal trade).

This also means you will reduce VIOLENCE and the MURDER RATE in the US.

c. You will decrease anti-American hostility caused by the harm we do to other nations when we spray 'agent-orange' like substances on their farmland to kill off the growth of marijuana and poppies (unfortunately, this makes the land unable to produce other crops as efficiently, either--and are those crops safe to eat?) IE., our anti-drug policies are only hurting the US in others' eyes.