Why should drugs be outlawed?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK - I've been debating this for some time.  I've heard ample reasoning for why they should be legalized - so I need some War on Drugs/Reagan fan to argue the side of why drug outlawing is the gov't's job.

[John Dibble]

You're probably in the wrong forum for that - most members here support legalization of at least marijuana.

[Јas]

[tik 🪀✨]

Because the ramifications of their illegality disproportionately harm minorities. Hurray!

[Gabu]

Support for keeping drugs illegal and for prosecuting their users is generally done out of the philosophy of deterrence.  Supporters maintain that drugs are bad because they can screw up lives and ruin families (and the harder ones certainly can), so the obvious route is to clamp down on their use.  Keeping drugs illegal and punishing those who break this law, supporters say, will result in fewer people using drugs, which is a positive outcome for us all.

The only problem with this is that it's pretty much false on all fronts.  Making drugs illegal might reduce the number of users (although it is quite evident that it does not eliminate usage of the drugs by any means), but it comes at a number of costs.

First, drugs being illegal makes supply of drugs heavily constrained and reduces the likelihood of competition in the market turning up, which makes dealers able to sell them at astronomical prices - and since junkies are apt to be willing to pay most any cost, this increased price hits addicts exactly where they need to be protected - their wallets.  Less money makes an addict much more likely to turn to crime, especially if they're aware that their addiction is already illegal - they may well feel that they haven't got much to lose.  It also makes it harder for them to get on their feet if they have no money, as well.

Second, drugs being illegal ensures that no health regulations whatsoever can be applied on them.  Use of dirty needles is rampant, causing increased spread of diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV, and many drugs taken in an oral form can be tainted and diluted with many harmful substances.  Though it may seem strange to say, it is in the best interest of the health and well-being of addicts for drugs to be legal.

In short, while you may have a reduced pool of users through the interdiction of drugs, the users who do exist are both much more prone to crime and much more prone to serious and often terminal diseases.  A person who is addicted to a drug needs help, not punishment.  Time in jail is not going to convince a person not to do any more drugs once that person gets out.  In fact, it might even make it harder for the person to get off drugs and more likely to commit other crimes, since it will be even harder for the person to find a job once out of prison with a criminal record under their belt.

The war on drugs is a noble venture with the purest of intentions, but it is a calamitous failure on all fronts.  Its only effect has been to hurt the very people it was intended to help.

[dead0man]

Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Second, drugs being illegal ensures that no health regulations whatsoever can be applied on them.  Use of dirty needles is rampant, causing increased spread of diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV, and many drugs taken in an oral form can be tainted and diluted with many harmful substances.  Though it may seem strange to say, it is in the best interest of the health and well-being of addicts for drugs to be legal.

Honestly, if injectable drugs were legal, I doubt you'd see much change at all in IV infection rates. The people who lay on the floor all day ed up on heroin aren't exactly the type to make sure they have a stock of clean needles on hand.

Besides, getting the syringes now is easier than getting the drugs themselves.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Although I don't support the War on Drugs, I also don't support the legalization of any drugs, other than allowing for doctor-prescribed medical marijuana.  The possible negative effects of drugs are just too great to allow them to be distributed freely.  A person no drugs is a danger to themself and everyone around them.

[dead0man]

A person no drugs is a danger to themself and everyone around them.

No, some people on some drugs are a danger to themselves and everyone around them.  Other people, on other drugs aren't bothering themselves or anybody else.

[Ebowed]

People should be able to make educated decisions about what they can and cannot put into their body.

The fact is that our drug laws are riddled with contradictions.  Drugs with legitimate medical purposes like marijuana and MDMA are classified as 'hard drugs.'  Alcohol kills more people every year than all other drugs combined (excluding tobacco), yet it is relatively easy to obtain legally while less intoxicating drugs will land you a prison sentence.  Non-addictive drugs such as ibogaine, LSD, and 'magic' mushrooms are classified as hard drugs while tobacco and alcohol, which are extremely addictive, are legal.

Someone who self medicates with heroin is a junkie, but the nearly equally addictive oxycodone opiate is legal if you are prescribed with OxyContin (Rudy Giuliani was involved in representing the firm defending the producers of OxyContin, who hid the details of its extreme addictive potential from the public).  Methamphetamine is also prescribed to children with ADHD (although decreasingly so, due to the stigma associated), but someone who uses methamphetamine illegally is considered a criminal.

Certain drug use should be discouraged, of course, but the War on Drugs is the wrong policy for that.  Drug addiction treatment should be free, and research restrictions should be lifted so that scientists can explore the full potential of these drugs which have been banned due to prohibition.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Although I don't support the War on Drugs, I also don't support the legalization of any drugs, other than allowing for doctor-prescribed medical marijuana.  The possible negative effects of drugs are just too great to allow them to be distributed freely.  A person no drugs is a danger to themself and everyone around them.

What about alcohol?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

They should be outlawed and will be outlawed until the Government finds a way to tax their sale.

[Gabu]

They should be outlawed and will be outlawed until the Government finds a way to tax their sale.

Um, it's called "legalization".  It'd be pretty hard for the government to tax cigarette sales if they weren't legal.

[dead0man]

They should be outlawed and will be outlawed until the Government finds a way to tax their sale.

Um, it's called "legalization".  It'd be pretty hard for the government to tax cigarette sales if they weren't legal.

Right, the govt isn't waiting for a tax.  They've already got the the money from drugs, it's called The War on Drugs.  The people who's job is the War on Drugs don't exactly what to give that up.  People that sell drugs don't want to give that up, that's how they can charge such ridiculous prices.  A lot of different agencies take a large chunk of their work from the War on Drugs.

From wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The War on Drugs puts a LOT of Americans to work, none of them want to give that up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HardRCafé]

Because people who smoke enough dope do stuff like vote for Ron Paul.

[ottermax]

It is an easy way for the government to say they are protecting citizens, but the real change in drug use will come with education and eliminating extreme poverty.

[dead0man]

Right, because people with money don't do drugs

[Gabu]

Right, because people with money don't do drugs

There is a definite link, however, between quality of life and likelihood of doing drugs.  People do drugs to escape.  They won't do that if their reality is pleasant enough that they don't want to escape.

Money, however, certainly does not by itself buy quality of life.

[dead0man]

People with a pleasent life don't do drugs?

[Gabu]

People with a pleasent life don't do drugs?

In general, no, not on a routine basis, and they certainly don't tend to get addicted to drugs.  Find anyone who is perfectly content with his life and ask him if he wants to go get high.  Chances are he won't.

There was an experiment a while back called Rat Park that was rather interesting.  Many experiments prior to it had rats in a cage with two things of water, one normal, and one laced with morphine.  The rats always went for the one with morphine in it, leading many researchers to conclude that people will always do drugs if given the option, so we must remove the presence of drugs.

However, one researcher theorized that maybe this was due to the fact that life in a cage sucked ass.  So he developed a giant enclosure he dubbed "Rat Park", with all of the amenities a rat could want.  He then, again, provided the rats with the same two things of water.  The rats all went for the normal water.  He then made both of the things of water have morphine in them to get the rats addicted, and then reverted back to usual.  Nearly all of the rats went back to the normal water, despite the fact that doing so put them through withdrawal.

His conclusion from this was that poor quality of life leads to people seeking the use of drugs to cope, and that if we want to get people off drugs, their quality of life must be improved to the point where they no longer want to take the drugs.

[David S]

People with a pleasent life don't do drugs?

In general, no, not on a routine basis, and they certainly don't tend to get addicted to drugs.  Find anyone who is perfectly content with his life and ask him if he wants to go get high.  Chances are he won't.

There was an experiment a while back called Rat Park that was rather interesting.  Many experiments prior to it had rats in a cage with two things of water, one normal, and one laced with morphine.  The rats always went for the one with morphine in it, leading many researchers to conclude that people will always do drugs if given the option, so we must remove the presence of drugs.

However, one researcher theorized that maybe this was due to the fact that life in a cage sucked ass.  So he developed a giant enclosure he dubbed "Rat Park", with all of the amenities a rat could want.  He then, again, provided the rats with the same two things of water.  The rats all went for the normal water.  He then made both of the things of water have morphine in them to get the rats addicted, and then reverted back to usual.  Nearly all of the rats went back to the normal water, despite the fact that doing so put them through withdrawal.

His conclusion from this was that poor quality of life leads to people seeking the use of drugs to cope, and that if we want to get people off drugs, their quality of life must be improved to the point where they no longer want to take the drugs.

That's one study I'd like to see peer-reviewed. I have a hard time believing that rats once addicted to morphine would voluntarily go back to straight water.

Addictions are very difficult to break. When I was in college I was  a heavy smoker. Quitting was extremely difficult. It took many tries and all the will-power I could muster to finally kick the habit. I had the benefit of knowing that smoking was a health hazard. Would the rats have that kind of knowledge? And would they have the will power to overcome their addiction even if their tiny rat brains understood the dangers? I doubt it.

[Ebowed]

Right, because people with money don't do drugs

There is a definite link, however, between quality of life and likelihood of doing drugs.  People do drugs to escape.  They won't do that if their reality is pleasant enough that they don't want to escape.

Addicts to cocaine, oxycodone, etc. tend to be higher-up professionals like lawyers.

And how many rich college students get wasted twice a weekend, or take ecstacy in clubs or at concerts?

The idea that only poor, depressed, hopeless people take drugs is a stupid stereotype.

[Person Man]

I think it is a cost/benefit analysis. I think it also strokes the adolled mind of middle-aged emo rightists who would be made miserable if they couldn't stop something that they hated so much. Sure, there is an economic issue attached, but the reason why we have failed to get that far is because people need to feel safe and that they can control someone/have power.