danoff
I'm really not sure that any of that is true. I need to see a strong case for the argument that legalized drugs will increase use.
During the 19th Century, morphine was legally refined from opium and considered a miracle drug. Many soldiers on both sides of the Civil War who were given morphine for their wounds became addicted to it, and this increased level of addiction continued throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal -- and, like some drugs today, were seen as medicine not requiring a doctors care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many
per capita as there are today.
In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state could not interfere with an
adults possession of marijuana for personal consumption in their own home. Although the ruling was limited to people 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the states 12 to 17-year-olds used pot at more than 2x the national average for their age group. Alaskas residents voted in 1990 to
recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay.
By 1979, following Alaska's lead, 11 states
decriminalized marijuana and the Carter administration even went so far as to consider
federal decriminalization. The problem? Marijuana use increased dramatically among teens. That year, almost 51 percent of 12th graders reported they used marijuana within the last 12 months. By 1992,
with tougher laws and increased attention to the risks of drug abuse, that figure had been reduced to
22 percent,
a 57 percent decline.
The British have also had their own failed experiments with legalization. Studies show that use and addiction
increase with legalization. Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts, resulting in an explosion of heroin use, and by the mid-1980s, known addiction rates were
increasing by about 30 percent a year.
The relationship between legalization and increased use becomes evident by considering two current legal drugs, tobacco and alcohol.
It is
clear that there
is a relationship between legalization and increasing drug use, and that legalization would only result in an unreasonably high number of drug-addicted Americans. High number of addicts = break down of society.
I also need to see a case for a corresponsing increase in insurance, accidents, crime, and addicts as well as a decrease in productivity.
Drug abuse leads to some of the USs most expensive social problems -- domestic violence, child abuse, chronic mental illness, the spread of AIDS, and homelessness. Drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, and treatment of the consequences of family violence burden our already strapped health care system.
In 2000, productivity losses due to drug abuse cost the economy $110 billion. Drug use by workers leads not only to more unexcused absences but also presents an
enormous safety problem in the workplace. Studies have confirmed what common sense dictates: Employees who abuse drugs are 5x more likely than other workers to injure themselves or coworkers and they cause
40% of all industrial fatalities.
Department of Justice
A study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse surveyed 6,000 teenage drivers. It studied those who drove more than six times a month after using marijuana. The study found that they were about twoand-a-half times more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than those who didnt smoke before driving.
As for the increase in accidents and crime, I just explained how it would decrease crime (and you agreed).
I only agreed to the fact that it would decrease crime ONLY for that particular drug
assuming it is available to all people of all ages. If there is an age restriction on the use of any drugs, it'll only create a new black market for those drug users and we will still have more crime.
The accident argument is also pretty weak considering that most hard drug users use them while sitting on a pile of pillows.
Assuming they bought their illegal drugs online and had it shipped via UPS.
Obviously drug users have to GO OUT to buy drugs. If they don't take the bus/train/taxi, they're most likely going to use a car.
...on the other hand. You would see fewer deaths from drugs since companies would handle them a little more responsibly than people who make them in their garage.
So you want corporate drug production... that's just what we need. More stock traders high on crack.
You would see a huge reduction in crime associated with black market drugs, especially as the prices dropped.
If the price of drugs is low, many more people will be able to afford them and the demand for drugs will explode. For example, the cost of cocaine production is now as low as $3 per gram. At a market price of, say, $10 a gram, cocaine could retail for as little as ten cents a hit. That means a young person could buy six hits of cocaine for the price of a candy bar. On the other hand, if legal drugs are priced too high, through excise taxes, for example, illegal traffickers will be able to find ways around it. Some people do that cigarettes today.
You'd see safer versions of cocaine as companies invest in how to give you the best high without side effects.
If a company ever tries to market cocaine in the future, I'll be sure to short sell.
I don't see it being anything but good.
This question is for ALL PROPONENTS (not just you Dan):
Will you even acknowledge ANY potential negative aspects of legalization? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I
know the potential pros and cons of legalization -- which is why I have come to the conclusion that the CONS
outweigh the pros. All I've heard from proponents of legalization is that it's
the solution to all of our drug-related problems -- without any concessions to the proven facts that it is not.
Dude, are you making fun of my user name? 
Why?
) to introduce a new perspective on the situation.
