Drugs

[windjammer]

Hmmmm, I might evolve in the future about this future.

Considering this forum is full of people who seem to constantly get high, could you explain why you're supporting drugs decriminalization???

[Deus Naturae]

The default state of things is to be non-criminalized, so if you support the criminalization of anything, the onus is on you to justify it. It would make more sense for you to first give your reasons for why you think drugs should be criminalized, and then have people respond to that.

[windjammer]

The default state of things is to be non-criminalized, so if you support the criminalization of anything, the onus is on you to justify it. It would make more sense for you to first give your reasons for why you think drugs should be criminalized, and then people have people respond to that.

You don't understand. I might change my mind on this issue. But I need to understand why it would improve things!

[Deus Naturae]

The default state of things is to be non-criminalized, so if you support the criminalization of anything, the onus is on you to justify it. It would make more sense for you to first give your reasons for why you think drugs should be criminalized, and then people have people respond to that.

You don't understand. I might change my mind on this issue. But I need to understand why it would improve things!

If the criminalization side of this issue can't provide any reasons for criminalizing drugs, than by default the decriminalization side wins, because there is no reason to criminalize something that there is no reason to criminalize. If you can't think of any reasons why drugs should be criminalized, that in itself should be the only argument necessary to get you to support decriminalization

[windjammer]

The default state of things is to be non-criminalized, so if you support the criminalization of anything, the onus is on you to justify it. It would make more sense for you to first give your reasons for why you think drugs should be criminalized, and then people have people respond to that.

You don't understand. I might change my mind on this issue. But I need to understand why it would improve things!

If the criminalization side of this issue can't provide any reasons for criminalizing drugs, than by default the decriminalization side wins, because there is no reason to criminalize something that there is no reason to criminalize. If you can't think of any reasons why drugs should be criminalized, that in itself should be the only argument necessary to get you to support decriminalization

I'm not trying to defend the criminalization side. I'm trying to understand the decriminalization side!

[Deus Naturae]

I'm not trying to defend the criminalization side. I'm trying to understand the decriminalization side!

What I'm trying to say is that drugs should be decriminalized because there's no reason for them to be criminalized in the first place. Things should only be criminalized if there's an actual reason to do so.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm no way as bullish on the issue as many feel about drugs, but I do feel:

1) Drug criminalisation affects the poor and ethnic minorities disproportionately. (How many yuppies get done for cocaine? compare with arrest rates (especially in the US) of young blacks). It's just a way for the police to throw the book at you if they just "don't really like you".

2) In the case of the hardest drugs, criminalisation pushes extremely vulnerable people under the radar. A progressive policy shouldn't involve sweeping people under the rug. The lack of regulation also means drugs can be tainted with all sorts of crap - how many heroin deaths would be precented, if people could control their dosage?

3) The criminal underworld is kept afloat by drugs. Gangs and organised crime will seep into even the most well-policed area, and sales of soft drugs can keep them with a steady revenue stream that also allows them to fund their other nefarious activities. On a wider scale, the organised rackets that ship these drugs illegally are unregulated and promote enormous instability in Latin America etc.

4) In many cases drug scheduling is arbitrary and poorly applied.

[AggregateDemand]

The argument against drugs is relatively simple. Drugs provide no net societal utility. The time spent using drugs or the capital spent investing in drugs could be spent elsewhere with better results. Therefore, ban. It's a sound argument, but maintaining prohibition requires willful ignorance of the economics of vice and the consequences (economic and social) of prohibition.

Drugs are not like incandescent light bulbs. Once banned, people do not simply buy a substitute good. Instead, prohibition of drugs creates black markets, and since demand is fueled by addiction or vice, black markets are often economically lucrative. Black markets are exploited by crime syndicates, which means violence and corruption are not far away. Criminals also expand addiction by using underhanded marketing techniques that would make the most contemptible tobacco advertisers blanch.

War is waged on black market drugs. Government raises new armies of law enforcement personnel, and passes new laws to restrict individual rights. Incarceration rates skyrocket, and the casualties (literal and figurative) mount quickly. In short, the social cost of prohibition is much higher than the social cost of legalization and decriminalization.

Furthermore, vice is a political topic. The morality of foreign substances like drugs is acutely political. Add a multi-billion dollar Rx drug industry, and drug policy becomes a matter of public hysteria. Most of our drug policies are not rooted in science. LSD and ecstasy are both non-toxic, yet they remain in the top tier of many drug classification rules because they are culturally scary. Marijuana is the same in some countries (US is one of them). Hysteria is not policy.

[Flake]

I'm no way as bullish on the issue as many feel about drugs, but I do feel:

1) Drug criminalisation affects the poor and ethnic minorities disproportionately. (How many yuppies get done for cocaine? compare with arrest rates (especially in the US) of young blacks). It's just a way for the police to throw the book at you if they just "don't really like you".

2) In the case of the hardest drugs, criminalisation pushes extremely vulnerable people under the radar. A progressive policy shouldn't involve sweeping people under the rug. The lack of regulation also means drugs can be tainted with all sorts of crap - how many heroin deaths would be precented, if people could control their dosage?

3) The criminal underworld is kept afloat by drugs. Gangs and organised crime will seep into even the most well-policed area, and sales of soft drugs can keep them with a steady revenue stream that also allows them to fund their other nefarious activities. On a wider scale, the organised rackets that ship these drugs illegally are unregulated and promote enormous instability in Latin America etc.

4) In many cases drug scheduling is arbitrary and poorly applied.

^ Exactly this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hmmmm, I might evolve in the future about this future.

Considering this forum is full of people who seem to constantly get high, could you explain why you're supporting drugs decriminalization???

I'm not one who gets high on even an irregular basis.  But beyond the awful side effects on our own society caused by criminalization of a social ill that has already been mentioned, there is the fact that terrorists and/or revolutionaries in most places get a considerable chunk of their funding from illicit drugs, and even where it isn't an inherently political motive, there are quite a few places where narco-traffickers cause a considerable destabilization of shaky governments in less developed countries.

However, because I do recognize that those drugs that have been made illicit do carry considerable potential for harm, I'm not in favor of scrapping all drug bans, just those on marihuana, opioids, cocaine, and other drugs that have a horticultural source.  We'll never be able to control them to the degree more synthetic drugs can be controlled.  Also, it would be easier to deal with meth if it weren't lumped in with all the other drugs, plus if cocaine were legal, I'd think there would be less demand for meth simply because fewer people would start using it.

[TDAS04]

I'm no way as bullish on the issue as many feel about drugs, but I do feel:

1) Drug criminalisation affects the poor and ethnic minorities disproportionately. (How many yuppies get done for cocaine? compare with arrest rates (especially in the US) of young blacks). It's just a way for the police to throw the book at you if they just "don't really like you".

2) In the case of the hardest drugs, criminalisation pushes extremely vulnerable people under the radar. A progressive policy shouldn't involve sweeping people under the rug. The lack of regulation also means drugs can be tainted with all sorts of crap - how many heroin deaths would be precented, if people could control their dosage?

3) The criminal underworld is kept afloat by drugs. Gangs and organised crime will seep into even the most well-policed area, and sales of soft drugs can keep them with a steady revenue stream that also allows them to fund their other nefarious activities. On a wider scale, the organised rackets that ship these drugs illegally are unregulated and promote enormous instability in Latin America etc.

4) In many cases drug scheduling is arbitrary and poorly applied.

^ Exactly this.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Flo done did it.  I'll throw out the "my body" principle on top of it, but nothing more needs to be said.