Opinion of decriminalizing all drugs

[HillGoose]

Hell yeah brah let's roll, I think this is a great idea.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Make cocaine mandatory for all adults.

[dead0man]

prohibition doesn't work

[RI]

prohibition doesn't work

That people choose to break a law is not an argument against the law's existence.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Prohibition does "work" in the sense that it does cause less people to recreationally take the abused substance (including in actual prohibition), but it doesn't work in the sense that the social and financial costs of maintaining the prohibition are significantly more than the benefits gained from this reduced drug usage.

Recreational and safe drug usage should be allowed; harmful and abusive drug usage should be treated (preferably not just at sympton level, but through a societal examination of why so many end up heading down a path of self-medicating).

[Very Legal & Very Cool]

Bad idea. Bring back the asylums.

[Sirius_]

What kind of decriminalize are we talking about?

[dead0man]

prohibition doesn't work

That people choose to break a law is not an argument against the law's existence.

sure, unless enough people do it.  Then it very much is.

And a law's existence isn't an argument that it's a law worth having.



how's about another little catchy phrase... victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes

[Torie]

This is one of those questions where the answer is all about results. I remember when Switzerland changed its policies regarding heroin in particular. When I saw this thread, I thought I would look up how its approach has worked out. It is not a legalization policy per se, but it is close to it in many ways. I guess I would call it highly regulated legalization. The article I found is here.

In my hood, the death rate from opioids is spinning out of control. The daughter of one of the guys who does contracting work for me died of a heroin overdose a week ago. She was 34. A half block away from me is a vending spot on the alley were all kinds of hard drugs are sold (right in back of the house Dan and I lived in until a little over a year ago). The heroin addicts show up early in the morning in their hoodies even when it is hot because addicts feel cold even when it is hot. Then in the mid morning the crack addicts show up for what for them is the equivalent of their morning coffee. Later in the afternoon it becomes party central, I guess with everyone being high. Beyond the curtain, I am pulling strings as it were to shut it all down.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Related: one of the worst current drug policies is giving methadone to junkies rather than heroin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just because you do something to yourself doesn't mean that there is no one else who is a victim.

That said, I feel that natural drugs such as marihuana, opioids, and cocaine should be legalized. That's not because of their effects on the users but because their production is a major source of income for criminal and terrorist organizations. We might be able to halt synthetic drugs, but there's no chance of really halting natural drugs.

[dead0man]

Just because you do something to yourself doesn't mean that there is no one else who is a victim.

of course, there are lots of drunk parents out there.  That's what spurred all those prudish women 100 years ago to ban the drink.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Legalize, regulate, sell in a controlled fashion and tax it to eliminate/reduce other taxes like income or property (if by state).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Surely, the effectiveness of “prohibition” is dependent on what is being prohibited.

[Ohioguy29]

What's meant by decriminalization? The failed response to the crack epidemic shows that addiction isn't a problem we can jail our way out of, so I favor the focus being on getting people into treatment rather than throwing them in jail. Drugs like heroin, etc. should still be illegal though, I'd just like to see law enforcement respond differently. And dealers should be treated the same as they are now.

[Free Bird]

If it meant putting people caught using the harder substances into treatment rather than jail (really, what does putting a druggie in jail do for them?), then absolutely.

[DC Al Fine]

prohibition doesn't work

That people choose to break a law is not an argument against the law's existence.

sure, unless enough people do it.  Then it very much is.

And a law's existence isn't an argument that it's a law worth having.



how's about another little catchy phrase... victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes

Unless the crime in question is masturbation, that's just libertines being obtuse. All sorts of so called victimless crimes have nasty impacts. Drug addicts steal to feed their habit, gambling addicts burn through their life's savings, drunks abuse their families  etc etc.

[dead0man]

I'm not saying it's impossible to have victims in victimless crimes, and a ton of non crimes have victims too.  Donuts cause more victims than pot.  Drug addicts would need to steal a lot less (or never) if drugs were appropriately priced.

You can't take away a freedom because a minority of people are kind of dicks to their families when they abuse that freedom.  Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't ever solve the original problem and creates numerous other side problems.  Often violent ones that affect all of society.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm not saying it's impossible to have victims in victimless crimes, and a ton of non crimes have victims too.  Donuts cause more victims than pot.  Drug addicts would need to steal a lot less (or never) if drugs were appropriately priced.

You can't take away a freedom because a minority of people are kind of dicks to their families when they abuse that freedom.  Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't ever solve the original problem and creates numerous other side problems.  Often violent ones that affect all of society.

Putting hard drugs like heroin in the same "victimless crime" category as marijuana and donuts is asinine.

Surely, the effectiveness of “prohibition” is dependent on what is being prohibited.

This.

Different substances will have different "profiles" depending on their addictiveness, cultural impact, difficulty to make etc. Policy should be based on the profile of each substance. Marijuana is fairly low impact, booze is a major part of our culture, and both are quite easy to grow/make, which drives the social costs of prohibition too high. Drugs that have much larger negative impacts like heroin, or require a laboratory to manufacture are quite different. In those cases, the benefits of prohibition far outweigh the costs IMO.

[dead0man]

If you want to legalize all the fun ones and keep opioids harder to get, I'm certainly down with that.  We should be able to buy a pack of weed cigs, a couple of bumps of coke, a fifth of Jack and bottle of aspirin at the local gas station.  Keep the Vicadin and Oxy at the pharmacy.

[Lechasseur]

I'm not saying it's impossible to have victims in victimless crimes, and a ton of non crimes have victims too.  Donuts cause more victims than pot.  Drug addicts would need to steal a lot less (or never) if drugs were appropriately priced.

You can't take away a freedom because a minority of people are kind of dicks to their families when they abuse that freedom.  Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't ever solve the original problem and creates numerous other side problems.  Often violent ones that affect all of society.

Putting hard drugs like heroin in the same "victimless crime" category as marijuana and donuts is asinine.

Surely, the effectiveness of “prohibition” is dependent on what is being prohibited.

This.

Different substances will have different "profiles" depending on their addictiveness, cultural impact, difficulty to make etc. Policy should be based on the profile of each substance. Marijuana is fairly low impact, booze is a major part of our culture, and both are quite easy to grow/make, which drives the social costs of prohibition too high. Drugs that have much larger negative impacts like heroin, or require a laboratory to manufacture are quite different. In those cases, the benefits of prohibition far outweigh the costs IMO.

This

[DavidB.]

Related: one of the worst current drug policies is giving methadone to junkies rather than heroin.

Why? I think we do this in NL. What are the negatives?

[Person Man]

prohibition doesn't work

That people choose to break a law is not an argument against the law's existence.

sure, unless enough people do it.  Then it very much is.

And a law's existence isn't an argument that it's a law worth having.



how's about another little catchy phrase... victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes

Wow. Slow down there, buddy. Might make someone's head 'asplode!

Generally, I think we should do things one by one. Once the marijuana thing is done with, then we can see about 'shrooms and LSD and what have you. I definitely think individual possession of no more than a few sessions' use for an individual shouldn't be a felony for any drug.

[RINO Tom]

Went "neutral" on the whole.  College kids being caught possessing marijuana or even something more extreme (like cocaine and the like) should not have their lives ruined, period.  I also don't think anyone sitting in his or her house trying some drug that I personally would be afraid to touch should necessarily face any prison time.  However, selling is an entirely different animal.  People selling certain drugs should absolutely face criminal charges.

[Mike88]

I voted good idea because here in Portugal, it seems to have worked quite well. However, i'm not really into the overall way it works or the details.