Why The USA Must End Drug Prohibition

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

You can't do it. Look what happened when the Krauts got into drugs and the Nazis's made it an essential part of society and their military.......................... the Shoah

Okay, but I'm not advocating for the nation to embrace drug use, or for drug use to become an essential part of military activity, which some veterans have claimed is already the case in certain fields of military activity. I'm advocating for an end to drug prohibition.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

I agree.

And I do wish we could legalize drugs and that people who used them were responsible.

But I feel that if we were hard on illegal activities and soft on drug use, our jails would fill up rapidly.

Well you could introduce strict penalties for drug possession. This would ensure that jails (and prisons!) would fill up rapidly, what with the new addition of inmates, 25% of which would be there for drug charges alone, if Texas is any indicator as to how such an approach might turn out.

I think this large percentage of the prison population that was there for drug crimes alone is the reason that many states have reduced penalties. Oklahoma, one of those states, has been known historically to have very high incarceration rates. It's probably a bit less now.

Why is this still a matter of debate, did Canada burn down yet?
Always the same with the Boomers...

Canada trials decriminalising coc aine, MDMA and other drugs

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Those substances, while habit forming, are not known to be addictive. Addictive products should be illegal.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Newsflash from Oregon:

insufficient direction and resources

What if there's nothing left for anything else than military budgets? Seems to be a rather 'addictive product' that erodes all sorts of progress we could've made happen decades ago, as a society.

a reply to: Insurrectile

High and wide.

And just plain agenda driven drivel.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Unlike your garbage, of course.

High morale ground, low empathy vibe.

a reply to: Insurrectile

At least my garbage is on topic.

originally posted by: Insurrectile
Why is this still a matter of debate, did Canada burn down yet?
Always the same with the Boomers...

Canada trials decriminalising coc aine, MDMA and other drugs

Well British Columbia decriminalized hard drugs in the opioid class but the drug users are not left in a vacuum. I also read in another source they have teams of counsellors that go out into the streets to do what they can to help people. Youth under 17 yrs are exempt from this and if caught will be sent for counselling and treatment under the Youth Criminal Justice Act where they will not have any type of criminal record when released.

BC’s monitoring and evaluation plan aims to generate timely findings to inform ongoing implementation adjustments over time.

The BC Centre for Disease Control is conducting studies and surveys of people who use drugs to better understand their experiences with decriminalization.

Distinct from BC’s efforts, the federal government, through the Canadian Institutes for Health Research is funding third-party research to help assess the impact of the exemption on addressing substance use harms.

www2.gov.bc.ca...

The more we know about how these drugs impact people and their lives, the better able we are to find real solutions. As I said before, first comes psychological trauma then comes alcohol/drug use/abuse for some, not all. It's those some that we need to learn more about.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Just to provide my unasked for two cents.
You guys are talking past each other...

Practically everyone here seems more interested at attacking political rivals than the topic....

Quite sad to me, to be honest.

a reply to: JinMI

Well, I'd say that those highly addictive drugs should be restricted for medical purposes only. Although I'm not sure if meth has any medical purpose

For example though, if someone is dying of a terminal illness, they should have the option to request heroin. Hell, pharma companies already basically sold heroin to people for bumps or bruises. At least just be honest with the public and allow people to obtain drugs when they are dying.

My main concern though is non-highly addictive drugs. Psychedlics should all be legal. We don't need the gov. babysitting us.

We need to stop only legalizing drugs because big pharma says so. Imagine how much better people might feel if they were dying and had access to any drug available. Death might be a lot easier for them.

Furthermore, legalization of 99% of drugs (with restrictions) allows for companies to do research and improve drugs. They can make drugs better. Less addicting, less side-effects, ect...

Researchers are finding huge benefits of MDMA and magic mushrooms for people with PTSD. And this is just the start of it. If we legalize drugs and allow research to open up we will find so many more benefits and improvements.

If anyone is for smaller government then they should be for legalization of drugs.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Turquosie

Puddin' I'm seeing the practical applications of legalized drug use.

You can spout any damned thing you want, but I'm living in it.

I don't understand what you're living in? Researchers have found many benefits of MDMA and Psylocibin mushrooms with PTSD. Imagine all the great uses we can find if we legalize drugs and allow research to go unrestricted.

We don't allow alcoholics and drunk drivers to criminalize the use of alcohol. Therefore, we should not use the excuse of junkies existing to criminalize other drugs.

originally posted by: Turquosie

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Turquosie

Puddin' I'm seeing the practical applications of legalized drug use.

You can spout any damned thing you want, but I'm living in it.

I don't understand what you're living in? Researchers have found many benefits of MDMA and Psylocibin mushrooms with PTSD. Imagine all the great uses we can find if we legalize drugs and allow research to go unrestricted.

We don't allow alcoholics and drunk drivers to criminalize the use of alcohol. Therefore, we should not use the excuse of junkies existing to criminalize other drugs.

If you get busted with a DUI, you're toast. Jail, fines, may lose your job.

If you are high on drugs, you can loot, steal, rob, beat people, and never see a day in jail.

a reply to: Turquosie

For example though, if someone is dying of a terminal illness, they should have the option to request heroin. Hell, pharma companies already basically sold heroin to people for bumps or bruises. At least just be honest with the public and allow people to obtain drugs when they are dying.

Morphine. Ive seen it too many times with my own eyes, sadly.

You're starting to dig in to where my argument lies here.

I can see plenty of not only good things from some "drugs" but also a stance on liberty. I brought up heroin and meth as that seems to be the largest number of troubling drugs along with coke/crack that provide zero positive benefit for the user.

Yet, there is a liberty argument there as well.

Times Change People Don't - My Mom warned me -

a reply to: JinMI

And people tried to flee this wretched reality since it's perception, hence the debate shifted to facts. Actual facts, with crime rates going down due to social programs, and people picking up "regular normie lives", once they've got a forking roof above their heads again.

There's no reason to deny the reality of capitalist relations, is it?

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Those substances, while habit forming, are not known to be addictive. Addictive products should be illegal.

Addictive...habit forming...that's funny. Careful now, your semantics are showing. Regardless though, that's beside the point. Your argument was:

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Cool.. just don't expect the rest of us to pay for your health care if you wish to indulge in harmful addictions.

I have made no argument for or against the provision of health care for anyone in this thread or anywhere on this forum, regardless of what substances they do or don't put in their bodies.

That being said, it seems odd to me that you seem to be okay with providing health care for those who destroy their health by consuming too much bread, pork, sugar, or baked potatoes, but apparently would not be okay with it if the health destructor was an intoxicating substance. Weird.

Alternatively, if we were to ban pork, bread, sugar, and/or baked potatoes, I expect these would be very unpopular laws, even though these substances can be very harmful when not used in moderation.

originally posted by: The GUT
I thought the OP text was gonna be like: Because. Dude.

Managed to do a little better than that I guess, though I think there are still plenty of missing pieces to this debate. What do you think?

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Irishhaf

Sure but the mail man? If he wants to do some coke on the weekend or in the evenings why should that matter, provided he performs his job well enough?

So the mailman delivering mail to the Supreme court justices has a drug addiction, who says he only need a snort now and again, if it gets out of control he becomes a liability.

Lotta people hate justices, or congressional people, guy with a drug addiction gets promised a ticket to a non-extradition country and all the drugs they can do if they just slip this special package in the mail.

I don't think I adequately addressed this argument, except perhaps to say that it didn't make sense. Let's revisit this for a moment then.

In a post prohibition USA, "all the drugs he could do" wouldn't be very expensive. In that context there's really no incentive for him to mess up like that.

a reply to: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

Crazy idea here guys. What if, while continuing to keep drugs decriminalized, we actually punished people for other criminal activity like theft, robbery, assault, rape, murder, etc. Remained lax on victimless "crimes", while actually doing something about actual crimes with actual victims.

Crazy, I know, but it just might be crazy enough to work!

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Sure, I even alluded to as much in your thread here.

Problem being, with some drugs there is absolutely zero benefit to the user.

I think to discuss it seriously it would be on a drug by drug basis.