Drugs

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 900 comments
  • 44,466 views
Red Eye Racer
I'm a hard-working, tax-paying, yard-cleaning, charity-giving, non-offending American citizen who can rationalize the responsibilities that come with putting myself under the influence of controlled substances....... why should I be forced to pay the consiquences of others in regards to not being allowed to consume them just becuase someone else cant do it responsibly?

Even if it means the betterment of society as a whole, you're telling me you would not be willing to forego a few so-called "entitlements"? 👎
 
MrktMkr1986
Even if it means the betterment of society as a whole, you're telling me you would not be willing to forego a few so-called "entitlements"? 👎

I'll put it this way:

Im FOR ideas such as banning smoking in public; I dont feel as though its right to subject folks to stuff like second hand smoke in public places (amongst other similar ideals).

BUT dont tell me I cant smoke a joint in the confines and security of my own house just becuase some teen got their hands on some and wrecked a car. This discussion should be about presonal freedom and individual liberty; NOT communistic ideals and how we can make the world as black and white as possible as a preventitive maininance.

I live for ME; I have respect for others but that respect doesnt and should extend to sacrificing my right to liberty so that I can go to sleep knowing that I'm forcing some idiot into being responsible.
 
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 doctor’s 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.

What they did when they didn't know the effects is different from now. Now we're well aware the drugs have negative side effects.

In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state could not interfere with an adult’s 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 state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used pot at more than 2x the national average for their age group. Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay.

So you want to make one thing a crime in order to make fighting a different crime easier right? That doesn't make sense. It's like saying, let's make buying handguns illegal so that we can stop criminals from getting handguns. All you end up doing is preventing the law abiding citizens from getting handguns.

The same thing applies here. If you want to prevent teens from getting pot, you don't prevent adults from getting it. You restrict it from teens heavily. You lay heavy penalties on teens and parents of teens who use it. You punish the crime not related things.

Besides, how do they know that there pot use went up to 2x the national average? They had an unbaised survey? Where is the study?

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.

Again, how do you know the figures?

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.

Again, how do they know the numbers? Where is the study? Secondly, is this really such a bad thing? Is it really terrible if the number of people who use heroin goes up? These people WANT to use heroin. They WANT to purchase a substance and put it in their body. Why can you tell them what to do with their body?

The relationship between legalization and increased use becomes evident by considering two current “legal drugs,” tobacco and alcohol.

Again, when alcohol was illegal, how did they know how many people were using it? Perhaps the numbers were much larger but they didn't know about those people BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL.

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.


"unreasonably" is awfully flimsy. What is reasonable? Does caffeine count as a drug? If so then many Americans are addicted. What about smoking? It's your opinion that a high number of addicts = the break down of society.


Again, it's my body. Why am I not allowed to put chemicals of my own choosing into it?
 
MrktMkr1986
Sure... but because drugs are illegal for minors, you'll end up creating a new black market -- and you'll still have criminals walking the streets trying to peddle a dope to your children. What an exciting world that be to live in! :dopey:


Nonsense. Is there a black market for selling beer to minors now? No. Criminals aren't trying to sell beer to your children, because children have enough sense to ask someone old enough to go buy the beer for them in a store. When weed is legalized you will have minors smoking it, yes, but it's illegal now and they also smoke it. So I don't see your point why legalizing would make matters worse. As a matter of fact it will create a barrier for kids, a store owner could be obliged to ask for identification, a drugsdealer on the corner of a street doesn't give a damn who he sells it to.



Seriously, in that topic where macro economics were discussed you were very on point, but in this topic most of your arguments aren't valid.
 
Seriously, in that topic where macro economics were discussed you were very on point, but in this topic most of your arguments aren't valid.

He was off on the macro economics discussion when he didn't take supply and demand or government tools for monetary regulation into account when considering inflation.

You just didn't notice. You were off in that topic, but your arguments are valid here.
 
danoff
What they did when they didn't know the effects is different from now. Now we're well aware the drugs have negative side effects.

So despite the fact that we now know that these drugs are harmful, we should make them legal anyway?

So you want to make one thing a crime in order to make fighting a different crime easier right? That doesn't make sense. It's like saying, let's make buying handguns illegal so that we can stop criminals from getting handguns. All you end up doing is preventing the law abiding citizens from getting handguns.

People usually don't buy handguns for their own [destructive] personal pleasure. That is not a "fair" comparison.

The same thing applies here. If you want to prevent teens from getting pot, you don't prevent adults from getting it. You restrict it from teens heavily. You lay heavy penalties on teens and parents of teens who use it. You punish the crime not related things.

You've just created a black market.


Again, how do you know the figures?

I'll cite my sources later -- but I'm not "making up" these figures.

Secondly, is this really such a bad thing? Is it really terrible if the number of people who use heroin goes up? These people WANT to use heroin. They WANT to purchase a substance and put it in their body. Why can you tell them what to do with their body?

Drug use increases crime. If you're all for individual liberty, having an increasing number of people sitting in jail isn't exactly what I would call "free" society. How about the effects of drugs on pregnant woman (assuming they are over the age 18)? Is it fair to put thousands of unborn children every year at risk because you believe "it's their body, and they can do what they want with it"? Drug use is also a major factor in child abuse. Should we put millions of children at risk with abusive drug-abusing parents? You yourself don't believe in big government... so there would be no Child Protective Services (since that's a government operation). Drug use also plays a huge part in accidents (both vehicular and work-related). Is it fair to have someone get crushed to death because of the incompetance of somone else who was "under the influence"? Saying that it's OK to allow people to use drugs because it's their choice is like saying it's OK for rapists to rape because it's their choice.

Again, when alcohol was illegal, how did they know how many people were using it? Perhaps the numbers were much larger but they didn't know about those people BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL.

That's a bad thing.


"unreasonably" is awfully flimsy. What is reasonable?

Reasonable in my book would be little or none.

Does caffeine count as a drug? If so then many Americans are addicted.

Which is why steps need to be taken to regulate the amount of caffeine in food products.

What about smoking?

Very bad. Nearly 1/2 million people gone because of a stick.

It's your opinion that a high number of addicts = the break down of society.

Unless you live in an isolated part of the United States (or in an area where drug use/crime is low), you should be able to see the affect ANY addictive controlled substance has on society.

Again, it's my body. Why am I not allowed to put chemicals of my own choosing into it?

As stated before, you wouldn't ONLY be hurting yourself -- unless you lived in complete isolation. If you can find a nice island where you know you'll be by yourself with a year's supply of dope, I could care less. We both know, however, that that will never happen. Drug addicts have no choice but to live in our society (otherwise, how else are they suppose to get their fix?)...
 
Dan
He was off on the macro economics discussion when he didn't take supply and demand or government tools for monetary regulation into account when considering inflation.

Acutally, I did. I mentioned interest rates skyrocketing. That's a government tool to regulate the money supply.

*edit*
I will say this, though:

You know this world has gone awry when an 18-year old "kid" is advocating the criminalization of drugs and adults are saying there's nothing wrong with legalization. Usually it's the adults that are telling young people that drugs are bad. :dopey:
 
Red Eye Racer
I'll put it this way:

Im FOR ideas such as banning smoking in public; I dont feel as though its right to subject folks to stuff like second hand smoke in public places (amongst other similar ideals).

BUT dont tell me I cant smoke a joint in the confines and security of my own house just becuase some teen got their hands on some and wrecked a car. This discussion should be about presonal freedom and individual liberty; NOT communistic ideals and how we can make the world as black and white as possible as a preventitive maininance.

I live for ME; I have respect for others but that respect doesnt and should extend to sacrificing my right to liberty so that I can go to sleep knowing that I'm forcing some idiot into being responsible.
WELCOME BACK :)
I'm still waiting to see the "proof" btw that smoking pot will lead to using other drugs..all I see so far is the recycling of all the failed and bogus arguments of the past.
Pot should be as legal as beer . for it to be otherwise makes absolutly no friggin sense . As long as its illegal you are turning millions of otherwise law abiding Americans into criminals for a stupid bogus law.
 
ledhed
WELCOME BACK :)
I'm still waiting to see the "proof" btw that smoking pot will lead to using other drugs..all I see so far is the recycling of all the failed and bogus arguments of the past.
Pot should be as legal as beer . for it to be otherwise makes absolutly no friggin sense . As long as its illegal you are turning millions of otherwise law abiding Americans into criminals for a stupid bogus law.

It is a gateway drug and it has been proven. Just because some dangerous substances are legal does not mean that all dangerous substances should be legal.
 
WTF is a " gateway " drug ? Some nitwits idea of a sound bite ? Show just one little tiny teeny bit of proof that NUMBER ONE there is actually something that exist thats a " gateway drug " And NUMBER TWO - That somehow pot can make you want to or be forced to use other drugs...otherwise aspirins a gateway friggin drug. go ahead break out all the studies that prove it. This figment of the imagination of the head propaganda minister. no ones EVER proved it because its like proving the egg came before the chicken ..its POINTLESS.
Mothers milk is gateway drug. We are all doomed unless we had a bottle.
 
ledhed
WTF is a " gateway " drug ? Some nitwits idea of a sound bite ? Show just one little tiny teeny bit of proof that NUMBER ONE there is actually something that exist thats a " gateway drug " And NUMBER TWO - That somehow pot can make you want to or be forced to use other drugs...otherwise aspirins a gateway friggin drug. go ahead break out all the studies that prove it. This figment of the imagination of the head propaganda minister. no ones EVER proved it because its like proving the egg came before the chicken ..its POINTLESS.
Mothers milk is gateway drug. We are all doomed unless we had a bottle.

The psychoactive drugs children use first are called "Gateway Drugs" because children learn to accept and embrace the "high". They learn drug-acquisition skills and drug-taking habits such as how to lie, cheat, sneak, steal, roll, plant etc... The use of any "Gateway Drug" is a strong predictor for future use of other drugs. Examples of gateway drugs:

  • INHALANTS
  • TOBACCO
  • ALCOHOL
  • MARIJUANA

Several studies have found that, if society can prevent an person from using any of the above until age 21, the chances are 93-7 that that person will not use illegal drugs or use alcohol in a high-risk manner. Young people don't just wake up one morning and decide to do a line of coke. Once a young person gives himself/herself permission to use ANY of the above, it is so much easier the next time to do the same, and the next time after that, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time. <<< addiction must be a 🤬 ! All that repetition! :dopey:
 
MrktMkr1986
Young people don't just wake up one morning and decide to do a line of coke.
I find that funny because that was more or less how both me and several of my friends have had our first experiences of weed. However, every one of us knows better than to do anything harder. Every one of us knows better than to let anyone drive when we're stoned. We all make sure to keep each other from letting our grades suffer. We also make sure we don't get high when we're with people who don't plan on smoking up with us - it's just bad courtesy. This is a group of close to 20 people - 20 people, most of whom have been smoking it since early in high school. None of them have plans or the slightest desire to try anything other than weed.

These people are in some of the hardest to get into university programs in Canada or have high ambitions for where they plan on taking their lives. And almost every one of the engineers in this group is getting at least a 2.5 GPA (not an easy feat) and the non-engineers are getting 3.0+.

Show me hard and conclusive evidence that it's a gateway drug. The only gateway drug I know of is the half truths and lies against marijuana taught in the drug awareness classes at schools. They say marijuana can kill you, it's evil, it'll destroy your life, etc, etc. In the end, when kids try it for the first time, they find out that it was all a lie. They take the assumption that everything else was also a lie. That is where the majority it starts.
 
Ass is a gateway drug. Once you get some of it, you just want more. Nothing stops the craving. Something's wrong with me. I need rehab. :\
 
Look face it . The gateway drug nonsense is the best they can come up with because they still cant explain how pot can be illegal when beer is not. When you cant make any sense you have to make stuff up ..like I said a sound bite..Hmmmm gateway drug...sounds like a plan. by your own logic ...beer is illegal for minors ...so if they are drinking beer it makes them want to go on and do other illegal things like other drugs ...but beer is legal...even though it to is a gateway drug..like asprin and coffee but wait...there legal . what are we gonna dooooooo .
 
emad
We also make sure we don't get high when we're with people who don't plan on smoking up with us - it's just bad courtesy.
Almost every single one of my friends who smoke are this way. As a non-smoker, I appreciate the effort they make. 👍

emad
Show me hard and conclusive evidence that it's a gateway drug. The only gateway drug I know of is the half truths and lies against marijuana taught in the drug awareness classes at schools. They say marijuana can kill you, it's evil, it'll destroy your life, etc, etc. In the end, when kids try it for the first time, they find out that it was all a lie. They take the assumption that everything else was also a lie. That is where the majority it starts.
Not that I doubt you, but I've never been taught that marijuana can kill you. As for the "gateway" thing, I don't know. I'll just say, that I've seen evidence that suggests that marijuana is a gateway drug. At the same time, I do know marijuana users who never got into other illegal drugs.
 
MrktMkr1986
You know this world has gone awry when an 18-year old "kid" is advocating the criminalization of drugs and adults are saying there's nothing wrong with legalization. Usually it's the adults that are telling young people that drugs are bad. :dopey:


I never said drugs aren't bad, even if they aren't bad... they definitely aren't good for you either. But just because something is bad doesn't mean making it illegal is the solution to the problems caused by it. As a matter of fact, illegalization makes many problems worse and indirectly creates new indirect problems, which I explained before.


Candy is "bad" as well... should we make that illegal? Hell, with all the chemicals in candy kids are getting hyperactive after eating too much. Should we ban candy now?
 
the government aint supposed to be your daddy. When you leave the house your on your own.Adults are supposed to make descisions for themselves. It all boils down to that one thing. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
 
smellysocks12
Candy is "bad" as well... should we make that illegal? Hell, with all the chemicals in candy kids are getting hyperactive after eating too much. Should we ban candy now?

That's ridiculous -- since when is candy mind-altering?

ledhed
the government aint supposed to be your daddy.

Depends on who you ask... if you see your child about to fall out of a window, where does personal freedom and personal responsibilty come in? (As long as we're making up silly analogies, I figured I'd throw this in).

How about a suicidal friend of yours. You would "allow" them to kill themselves?

When you leave the house your on your own.Adults are supposed to make descisions for themselves. It all boils down to that one thing. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Adults are suppose to make decisions for themselves and damn everybody else. If my parents suddenly "decided" to leave my sister and I, I guess that means they'll only be affecting "themselves", right?
 
MrktMkr1986
It is a gateway drug and it has been proven. Just because some dangerous substances are legal does not mean that all dangerous substances should be legal.


It is not proven. Show me the proof if there is any. There's proof that people who used harddrugs used marijuana before they started with hard drugs. I'll believe that without even seeing any statistics, but what these numbers don't show is whether marijuana caused their urge for stronger drugs.

My opinion is still based on the fact that it depends on the type of person. There are people who are more likely to experiment with things. Someone who would give heroin a try would also have given weed a try. Yet someone with enough common sense to see the dangers of heroin, and isn't stubborn enough to believe that they can resist any addiction, would smoke weed but not go for any other drugs. Yet the first one I mentioned would have given heroin a try if marijuana wouldn't have existed.
 
MrktMkr1986
That's ridiculous -- since when is candy mind-altering?


Actually it is, it makes children hyperactive. Sugar might give them too much energy and the color substance in it also gives side effects.


But I don't get your point, what makes something that's mind altering bad? Beer changes your mindstate, yet most people drink it. Valium does and it gets prescribed to patients every day. Loads of people are on anti-depressants, those are mind altering. Someone who is high on weed knows exactly what is going on, only they can't always react to it. I know that from 2nd hand experience.
 
smellysocks12
Actually it is, it makes children hyperactive. Sugar might give them too much energy and the color substance in it also gives side effects.

Hyperactivity is one thing. Memory loss and paranoia are another.

But I don't get your point, what makes something that's mind altering bad? Beer changes your mindstate, yet most people drink it. Valium does and it gets prescribed to patients every day. Loads of people are on anti-depressants, those are mind altering. Someone who is high on weed knows exactly what is going on, only they can't always react to it. I know that from 2nd hand experience.

You missed my point.
 
MrktMkr1986
Hyperactivity is one thing. Memory loss and paranoia are another.

Memory loss and paranoia shouldn't bother you if someone else has that. Besides that some people only get those problems after they used marijuana excessively.

If you use big macs excessively you will die of a heart attack eventually. BAN BIG MACS! (no)

MrktMkr1986
You missed my point.

What is your point then? Drugs are bad, that's my opinion so it's true?
 
smellysocks12
Memory loss and paranoia shouldn't bother you if someone else has that. Besides that some people only get those problems after they used marijuana excessively.

If you use big macs excessively you will die of a heart attack eventually. BAN BIG MACS! (no)

What is your point then? Drugs are bad, that's my opinion so it's true?

What is the real reason why you want drugs to be legalized? Perhaps I am not understanding your motives (which is why we keep getting into these trivial quote wars).
 
MrktMkr1986
What is the real reason why you want drugs to be legalized? Perhaps I am not understanding your motives (which is why we keep getting into these trivial quote wars).

Marijuana:

My opinion is that marijuana, even though it doesn't have a positive effect on health, isn't dangerous.

1. Legalizing it will take it off the streets, into businesses/instances which can be controlled to make sure the quality will not be harmful to people and put limits on the amount a person is allowed to buy at once.


2. The coolness factor will reduce, so less people will be interested in it (eventually, when everyone tried it out and found out that it isn't as great as they expected it to be), and those who do want to use it can do it comfortably at home (also in the Netherlands, where it is legalized, you're not allowed to smoke weed or drink alcohol in public).

Harder drugs:

These are dangerous in my opinion, that's why I believe they definitely shouldn't be freely available for everyone, they should only be distributed to someone after a doctor confirmed that one is a drug addict. Anyone who is diagnosed to be an addict will get his or her drugs for a cheap price from a pharmacy, making it less attractive for criminals to make more addicts by offering them a free shot, simply because once someone is addicted they'll buy their drugs cheap at the pharmacy. If it's impossible to make money by illegal dealing, then it'll be gone quickly.



Though some hard drugs are a problem, especially the party drugs since they aren't addictive. XTC for example isn't addictive, yet dangerous, so that is a problem case. Those type of drugs should be illegal everywhere. I guess the police that aren't going after marijuana users or coke/heroin addicts anymore can spend their time on busting XTC dealers / importers.



I'm not pro-using drugs, but people do, that's how simple it is and I don't believe that making all illegal will stop that, so you might as well reduce problems by legalizing it in a controlled way. That's my view.
 
smellysocks12
I'm not pro-using drugs, but people do, that's how simple it is and I don't believe that making all illegal will stop that, so you might as well reduce problems by legalizing it in a controlled way. That's my view.
I hear you, but you'd be surprised by how a lot of people didn't touch drugs, because it was illegal. My mom(parents divorced) told me not to smoke(cigarettes) and advised against drinking. I ended up trying both, because they were legal.
 
MrktMkr1986
That's ridiculous -- since when is candy mind-altering?



Depends on who you ask... if you see your child about to fall out of a window, where does personal freedom and personal responsibilty come in? (As long as we're making up silly analogies, I figured I'd throw this in).

How about a suicidal friend of yours. You would "allow" them to kill themselves?



Adults are suppose to make decisions for themselves and damn everybody else. If my parents suddenly "decided" to leave my sister and I, I guess that means they'll only be affecting "themselves", right?
This whole freedom thing is new to you right ? How would the US has ever been formed if everyone thought as you do ? :)
 
MrktMkr1986
The psychoactive drugs children use first are called "Gateway Drugs" because children learn to accept and embrace the "high". They learn drug-acquisition skills and drug-taking habits such as how to lie, cheat, sneak, steal, roll, plant etc... The use of any "Gateway Drug" is a strong predictor for future use of other drugs. Examples of gateway drugs:

  • INHALANTS
  • TOBACCO
  • ALCOHOL
  • MARIJUANA

Several studies have found that, if society can prevent an person from using any of the above until age 21, the chances are 93-7 that that person will not use illegal drugs or use alcohol in a high-risk manner. Young people don't just wake up one morning and decide to do a line of coke. Once a young person gives himself/herself permission to use ANY of the above, it is so much easier the next time to do the same, and the next time after that, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time. <<< addiction must be a 🤬 ! All that repetition! :dopey:


Study Says Marijuana Does Not Lead To Hard Drugs

Countering a basic principle of American anti-drug policies, an independent U.S. study concluded on Monday that marijuana use does not lead teenagers to experiment with hard drugs like heroin or cocaine.
The study by the private, nonprofit RAND Drug Policy Research Center rebutted the theory that marijuana acts as a so-called gateway drug to more harmful narcotics, a key argument against legalizing pot in the United States.

The researchers did not advocate easing restrictions in marijuana, but questioned the focus on this substance in drug control efforts.

Using data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse between 1982 and 1994, the study concluded teenagers who took hard drugs were predisposed to do so whether they tried marijuana first or not.

"Kids get their first opportunity to use marijuana years before they get their first exposure to hard drugs," said Andrew Morral, lead author of the RAND study.

"Marijuana is not a gateway drug. It's just the first thing kids often come across."

Morral said 50 percent of U.S. teenagers had access to marijuana by the age of 16, while the majority had no exposure to cocaine, heroin or hallucinogens until they were 20.

The study, published in the British journal Addiction, does not advocate legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, which has been linked to side-effects including short-term memory loss.

But given limited resources, Morral said the U.S. government should reconsider the prominence of marijuana in its much-publicized "war on drugs."

"To a certain extent we are diverting resources away from hard drug problems," he said. "Spending money on marijuana control may not be having downstream consequences on the use of hard drugs."

Researchers say predisposition to drug use has been linked to genetic factors and one's environment, including family dynamics and the availability of drugs in the neighborhood.

Source: Reuters
 
ANOTHER VIEW: LEGALIZED POT WOULD SAVE MONEY
by Dick Startz, (Source:Bellingham Herald)
Regional News

17 Apr 2005

Washington
-------
Washington State Would Save About $105 Million A Year If We Legalized Marijuana.

Economics isn't the first issue that comes to mind when talking about illegal drugs, but perhaps we can talk about the economic aspects of marijuana without tempers flaring. Let's talk numbers first, and then bring a little economic theory into the discussion.

The $105 million figure comes from a study by Boston University economist Jeff Miron. Miron put together two numbers: the savings to government from not locking people up for marijuana-related offenses, and the increased revenue from taxes we could collect if marijuana were treated just like coffee or chocolate.

Most of the money, about $88 million a year, comes from the reduction in law enforcement costs.

Locking people up is expensive. About one in 20 arrests in Washington is for marijuana use or sales. Using this number and the average cost per arrest for police, prosecution and incarceration, Miron computed Washington marijuana enforcement costs are about $88 million. Of course, many marijuana busts are incidental to arrests for some other violation. In such cases, the marijuana arrest doesn't really cost anything extra - the arrest was going to happen anyway - so Miron did the best he could to exclude any cost savings from these multiple-arrest arrests.

The rest of the $105 million comes in the form of collecting taxes on the production and sale of marijuana. This $17 million is a softer number than the $88 million because there aren't good state-by-state data on marijuana production and consumption. So $17 million is a conservative guesstimate. There's some evidence that marijuana use is a little higher in Washington than the national average. If so, state revenue might pick up another $5 million a year. However, tax revenue could be even higher. Miron assumed a standard sales tax level in his estimate, but Washington imposes very high "sin" taxes on tobacco and alcohol. If we did the same for marijuana, tax revenue might well increase by $35 million or $40 million, rather than "only" $17 million.

Turning from numbers to ideas, the key to understanding what economic theory tells us about marijuana legalization is the word "substitution."

When we prohibit marijuana, people make one of three decisions: they use marijuana anyhow and risk getting caught; they spend the money that would have gone for pot on something relatively innocuous, like chocolate or lattes or booze; or they spend the money on harder drugs. In other words, people "substitute" something else in place of marijuana use.

The question is, if we chose to make marijuana legal again, what would pot replace? An intriguing possibility is that if we legalized marijuana while keeping the rules against meth and crack, a fair number of people might get the feeling they want from pot - which is pretty safe - and stay away from really dangerous drugs. Call the substitution of marijuana in place of harder drugs a "reverse gateway" effect.

My two most faithful readers are my teenage daughters. The first reason I tell my girls to stay away from marijuana is that when you buy pot you risk associating with people who sell some much nastier things. Not every casual dope seller is an evil fiend, but if you buy dope regularly you're eventually going to end up around some not-real-high-class folks.

An extra $100-plus million would be nice for the state budget. But an even better economic argument for legalizing marijuana is that it would move the legal line, so that relatively safe drugs like caffeine, alcohol and marijuana are all on one side of the law and the truly dangerous drugs, such as crack and meth, are on the other.
 
So despite the fact that we now know that these drugs are harmful, we should make them legal anyway?

Define harmful. Yes despite the fact that they are addictive I think they should be legal.


You've just created a black market.

No I didn't. That black market already existed. It exists now and there's nothing you can do to stop it.


Drug use increases crime. If you're all for individual liberty, having an increasing number of people sitting in jail isn't exactly what I would call "free" society.

Actually legalizing drugs would decrease the number of people in jail, since lots of people are in jail for drug use.


How about the effects of drugs on pregnant woman (assuming they are over the age 18)? Is it fair to put thousands of unborn children every year at risk because you believe "it's their body, and they can do what they want with it"? Drug use is also a major factor in child abuse. Should we put millions of children at risk with abusive drug-abusing parents?

Direct parallels with alcohol here. By this reasoning alcohol should be illegal. But it's not, because people have to take responsibility for their actions.

You yourself don't believe in big government... so there would be no Child Protective Services (since that's a government operation).

Nope. You're off on this one. Children are not capable of protecting themselves from their parents.

Drug use also plays a huge part in accidents (both vehicular and work-related). Is it fair to have someone get crushed to death because of the incompetence of someone else who was "under the influence"? Saying that it's OK to allow people to use drugs because it's their choice is like saying it's OK for rapists to rape because it's their choice.

TOTALLY OFF!!!!

Using drugs does not inherently infringe someone else's rights. If I go sit in a room somewhere and get high, that does not infringe your rights at all. If I rape you, that infringes your rights. See the difference? This is an easy one. I'm really surprised you would make this argument. It's completely absurd. You can't seem to separate the crime of crushing someone to death from the non-crime of getting high. Dope does not inspire people to crush other people. It doesn't even inspire them to get in a car. People choose to get in cars while they're drunk and crush someone - that's the person's fault and they should be penalized for it. I in no way, on any of these boards have advocated making it ok to crush someone with their car and I would not advocate that it is ok to rape or shoot someone. It's completely ridiculous. That quote pissed me off.


That's a bad thing.

Yes, it's a bad thing that we don't know how many people use drugs when they're illegal. But it casts a shadow over your numbers that say more people use it when they are legal. The fact is that nobody knew how many were using it when it was illegal.



Reasonable in my book would be little or none.

That's your choice.


Which is why steps need to be taken to regulate the amount of caffeine in food products.

That doesn't sound a little over the top to you?

Very bad. Nearly 1/2 million people gone because of a stick.

Of their own free will.

Unless you live in an isolated part of the United States (or in an area where drug use/crime is low), you should be able to see the affect ANY addictive controlled substance has on society.

I don't see crime rising because of cigarettes. Why would pot be any different? Pot isn't even addictive. I've already explained why legalizing drugs would reduce crime, you agree with it and now you're trying to link them again.

As stated before, you wouldn't ONLY be hurting yourself -- unless you lived in complete isolation. If you can find a nice island where you know you'll be by yourself with a year's supply of dope, I could care less. We both know, however, that that will never happen. Drug addicts have no choice but to live in our society (otherwise, how else are they suppose to get their fix?)...

Addicts are ONLY hurting themselves. Nobody has a right to control someone else's behavior (because everyone has rights). Just because she's your wife or mother, doesn't mean you're entitled for her to behave a certain way, it's her life. Now, as a child, there are a few things that your parents are obligated to provide - like food, clothing, and education. If they don't provide that then they can't maintain custody of you.

You know this world has gone awry when an 18-year old "kid" is advocating the criminalization of drugs and adults are saying there's nothing wrong with legalization. Usually it's the adults that are telling young people that drugs are bad.

It should tell you something that the adults are advocating legalization and the kids are not.
 
Back