For those in favor of drug legalization: Meth?

[cybrsage]

The differences between drug use and smallpox make this question idiotic.

Why do you insist on telling people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies?



Yes, I did this to expose the idiocy of that line of thinking. It is a stupid reason to say something should be legal.

 

[zsdersw]

Why do you insist on telling people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies?

The principle is "affecting other people". Putting smallpox into your body makes you a spreader of the disease. Consuming drugs does not spread the ill-effects to anyone else.

Yes, I did this to expose the idiocy of that line of thinking. It is a stupid reason to say something should be legal.

We need to justify why something should be illegal, not why something should be legal.

In all cases the justification must be rooted in whether the activity will cause harm to someone else and the likelihood of that harm occurring.

 

[cybrsage]

The principle is "affecting other people". Putting smallpox into your body makes you a spreader of the disease. Consuming drugs does not spread the ill-effects to anyone else.

Sure it does. Take a look at Columbia and say it does not affect people.

We need to justify why something should be illegal, not why something should be legal.

Incorrect. We need to justify why the current status of something should be changed. If currently legal, justify why it should be illegal. If illegal, justify why it should be legal.

In either case, using a stupid line of reasoning is not a good idea.

 

[Atreus21]

Like the title says. Meth seems to have the worst image of all drugs that are abused.

Is it worse than drugs like heroin or cocaine? Lots of people want to legalize marijuana, but what about cocaine, heroin, or meth?

I've been watching breaking bad lately so I'm curious.

The question is: What harms society more? Addicts voluntarily ruining their lives, or addicts ruining their lives and that of innocent bystanders in the illegal attempt to get their drug?

That is only the very tip of the ice berg.

 

[zsdersw]

Sure it does. Take a look at Columbia and say it does not affect people.

Of what relevance is Columbia to matters in the US on this issue? Our laws do not apply to Columbia.

Drug use creates a supply-and-demand dynamic just like any other consumed product or service. In all instances, under our constitution, both buyer and seller are free to choose to make or not make a transaction. In other countries, Columbia for example, that is not necessarily the case. Sometimes the buyer and/or the seller are threatened with violence into either buying or selling. That is never right. In order to justify keeping drug use illegal in this country, though, you'd have to demonstrate that legalization would increase demand for the drug and, therefore, increase the harm caused by threats of violence in the country that supplies the drug. The facts and evidence point to drug use being not at all consistent with whether it is legal or not.

Incorrect. We need to justify why the current status of something should be changed. If currently legal, justify why it should be illegal. If illegal, justify why it should be legal.

In either case, using a stupid line of reasoning is not a good idea.

Wrong. Many things are currently illegal that should be legal, because they do not violate the basic constitutional principle of "free so long as you do not violate the freedom of someone else".

"Current status" != constitutionally right and justified.

 

[TechBoyJK]

but given meth's toxicity, there is a compelling interest in prohibiting it.

Ahhh No.

Given meth's toxicity and the government's proven track record of a blatent inability to stop it's use, there is a compelling interest in regulating it.

 

[cybrsage]

The question is: What harms society more? Addicts voluntarily ruining their lives, or addicts ruining their lives and that of innocent bystanders in the illegal attempt to get their drug?

That is only the very tip of the ice berg.

Addicts voluntarily ruining their lives and that of innocent bystanders in the events which transpire after they get their drug.

 

[fskimospy]

All drugs should be legal.

 

[cybrsage]

Of what relevance is Columbia to matters in the US on this issue? Our laws do not apply to Columbia.

It demolishes the idea that no one gets hurt but the user. You know, the statement you made.

Wrong. Many things are currently illegal that should be legal, because they do not violate the basic constitutional principle of "free so long as you do not violate the freedom of someone else".

"Current status" != constitutionally right and justified.

No one, except you just now, ever made any connection between illegal and justified to be illegal.

The statement I made is still correct. If the status of something is to be changed, rational reasons for changing it need to be made. This goes for making something legall become illegal and making something illegal become legal. It is simply how things work. Your like or dislike of it is irrelevant to the actuality of how things work. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it...even if that means accepting it while wailing about how it should not be that way.

 

[zsdersw]

It demolishes the idea that no one gets hurt but the user. You know, the statement you made.

It demolishes nothing. See the additional paragraph in that post.

No one, except you just now, ever made any connection between illegal and justified to be illegal.

The statement I made is still correct. If the status of something is to be changed, rational reasons for changing it need to be made. This goes for making something legall become illegal and making something illegal become legal. It is simply how things work. Your like or dislike of it is irrelevant to the actuality of how things work. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it...even if that means accepting it while wailing about how it should not be that way.

It appears we're talking about two different things. You're talking about the obvious (and never disputed) process by which we change our laws. I'm talking about the justification that would be used in that process.

 

[cybrsage]

It demolishes nothing. See the additional paragraph in that post.

Ah, yes, I see what you are saying.

My personal reason for not wanting legalization is that our DUI laws are way to soft. People can actually have multiple DUIs and still be allowed out on the street to do it again.

If a drug is legalized, its use will increase. This is based on the knowledge that there are people who do not use any specific drug simply because the damage done to them if caught is too high a price to pay. Truck drivers cannot do drugs even if they are on vacation because it will show up weeks later during a drug test, for an easy example. Some of these people will use the newly legalized drug. Some of them will then use it and drive, increasing the number of DUIs.

If we make it life in prison without parole for three DUIs, then I can back legalizing select drugs (some are still way to harmful to ever legalize). Pot being the first of them, as it is about as harmful as tobacco, which is fully legal. It would have to be regulated by age, of course.

It appears we're talking about two different things. You're talking about the obvious (and never disputed) process by which we change our laws. I'm talking about the justification that would be used in that process.

Quite possibly correct. Since these drugs are currently illegal, to make them legal would require justification for the change.

 

[Hugo Drax]

It should be legal. But open up drug centers. You can go to one and smoke all the free meth you want until you die. Then have a back door where the meth addicts who die get stacked and placed on a conveyor belt to be picked up by freight trucks. The trucks then send them to incinerators to burn the large volumes of bodies in an efficient manner.

You can even use that heat from the incinerators to provide power to the power grid. (green energy)

It would be like the Roach Motel once you check in you never check out.

We would save millions on crime and jails and over time you will remove the population of meth addicts and clean out gene pool over time.

 

[xj0hnx]

This really isn't the issue that I was raising. Heroin is spectacularly dangerous and easy to OD on. Simply botching a little and taking 1.5 or 2x the "normal" dose can cause death. This isn't akin to taking 4 aspirin instead of 2, or smoking twice the meth (lots of nasty addicts do meth for weeks on end anyway, horrible).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967031/

The fatality statistics for Heroin are unrelated to long-term toxicity, but rather the incredible ease with which it can accidentally (or intentionally in the case of suicide) kill.

http://heroin.net/about/vital-heroin-statistics/

In short, heroin by a quite sizable order is dramatically more likely to kill an average abuser than any other common drug. About the only things comparable are other pharmaceutical products of similar natures, but even that isn't truly equal. A heroin abuser might buy a particular type of heroin for a period of time, and he could either switch dealers or the dealer could get a different supplier, and end up dying because he/she gets something a bit stronger than normal.

The entire reason, 100% of why there are groups of OD's is because it is illegal. Because it is illegal, there's no regulation over it's potency, therefore when a batch comes through that is really pure, it kills people because they are used to using shit that's cut to 30% or less, and do the same amount of the 90% shit and die. If it were legal users would be able to get a true pharmaceutical grade product, and know how much they are doing every time.

Also if it were legal the government wouldn't be able to hold the monopoly on treatment, leaving methadone to be the number one "cure" even though it is as bad addiction wise as heroin. Things like suboxone, and other treatments would be more accessible. This along with the social stigma being lessened would lead to more people being able to get treatment.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ah, yes, I see what you are saying.

My personal reason for not wanting legalization is that our DUI laws are way to soft. People can actually have multiple DUIs and still be allowed out on the street to do it again.

If a drug is legalized, its use will increase. This is based on the knowledge that there are people who do not use any specific drug simply because the damage done to them if caught is too high a price to pay. Truck drivers cannot do drugs even if they are on vacation because it will show up weeks later during a drug test, for an easy example. Some of these people will use the newly legalized drug. Some of them will then use it and drive, increasing the number of DUIs.

If we make it life in prison without parole for three DUIs, then I can back legalizing select drugs (some are still way to harmful to ever legalize). Pot being the first of them, as it is about as harmful as tobacco, which is fully legal. It would have to be regulated by age, of course.

It's pretty ignorant to think that people don't use and drive because it's illegal. If you want, we can stiffen the DUI laws to go with legalization, but the fact is that there's a lot of drugs that don't effect driving nearly as bad as alcohol.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

We should legalize all drugs for a short period of time and make them incredibly potent and cheap and easy to access. the problem should rid itself rather quickly. The ones left over are the responsible users and they shouldn't be a bother to anyone.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why do you insist on telling people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies?



Yes, I did this to expose the idiocy of that line of thinking. It is a stupid reason to say something should be legal.

You didn't "expose" anything, one is a fucking disease, the other is a chemical taken for recreational use, there is no comparison whatsoever.

 

[zsdersw]

If a drug is legalized, its use will increase. This is based on the knowledge that there are people who do not use any specific drug simply because the damage done to them if caught is too high a price to pay. Truck drivers cannot do drugs even if they are on vacation because it will show up weeks later during a drug test, for an easy example. Some of these people will use the newly legalized drug. Some of them will then use it and drive, increasing the number of DUIs.

Not necessarily, especially over time. The consequences to one's health and the disapproval of family/friends are very often significant enough to keep them from using the drug, particularly ones like meth, cocaine/crack, and heroin. In a brief time from the date of legalization usage may increase slightly, but it would likely come back down to either pre-legalization usage levels or lower.

The people who don't use drugs only because they're illegal and the associated consequences may try the drugs that are legalized, but they will soon learn what they do and don't want or like, and many (if not most) will decide to stop using them.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

"between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Employers are and should remain free to issue drug tests as condition of employment, but government bans/illegalization cannot always be constitutionally justified.

Quite possibly correct. Since these drugs are currently illegal, to make them legal would require justification for the change.

... hence the justifications I mentioned.

 

[cybrsage]

It's pretty ignorant to think that people don't use and drive because it's illegal.

If people do not use because it is illegal, they also do not use and drive. It is impossible to use and drive if you do not use in the first place.

That is the point I was making. Since there are people who do not use due to it being illegal, making it legal will increase the number of users. How much is unknown, but it will certainly go up. If there are more users, there will be more who use and drive. It is a guarentee. How many more is unknowable.

If you want, we can stiffen the DUI laws to go with legalization, but the fact is that there's a lot of drugs that don't effect driving nearly as bad as alcohol.

I think they should be stiffened right now, as DUI is a blight on humanity. The horrors it causes to the innocent should never be allowed by any society. Increasing the number of DUIs by legalizing drugs is like increasing the flow of oil to the furnace.

Of course, we also need a good roadside test for DUI for drugs, as the current drug tests do not actually check to see if you are currently under their influence. No need for that currently, since even using it yesterday is illegal...yet you are certainly not under the influence the next day (for pot as an example).

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If people do not use because it is illegal, they also do not use and drive. It is impossible to use and drive if you do not use in the first place.

That is the point I was making. Since there are people who do not use due to it being illegal, making it legal will increase the number of users. How much is unknown, but it will certainly go up. If there are more users, there will be more who use and drive. It is a guarentee. How many more is unknowable.




I think they should be stiffened right now, as DUI is a blight on humanity. The horrors it causes to the innocent should never be allowed by any society. Increasing the number of DUIs by legalizing drugs is like increasing the flow of oil to the furnace.

Of course, we also need a good roadside test for DUI for drugs, as the current drug tests do not actually check to see if you are currently under their influence. No need for that currently, since even using it yesterday is illegal...yet you are certainly not under the influence the next day (for pot as an example).

texting and driving is more deadly.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Ah, yes, I see what you are saying.

My personal reason for not wanting legalization is that our DUI laws are way to soft. People can actually have multiple DUIs and still be allowed out on the street to do it again.

If a drug is legalized, its use will increase. This is based on the knowledge that there are people who do not use any specific drug simply because the damage done to them if caught is too high a price to pay. Truck drivers cannot do drugs even if they are on vacation because it will show up weeks later during a drug test, for an easy example. Some of these people will use the newly legalized drug. Some of them will then use it and drive, increasing the number of DUIs.

If we make it life in prison without parole for three DUIs, then I can back legalizing select drugs (some are still way to harmful to ever legalize). Pot being the first of them, as it is about as harmful as tobacco, which is fully legal. It would have to be regulated by age, of course.





Quite possibly correct. Since these drugs are currently illegal, to make them legal would require justification for the change.

Well you are trying to make good points but you're not dealing with an accurate deck of cards.

1. To say pot is 'about as harmful' as tobacco is like saying koolaid is about as harmful as vodka. All things considered pot isn't even close to as harmful.

2. It's disingenuous to say if we legalize drugs use will go up. In the several countries that have decriminalized/legalized drug, use has actually gone down. It seems counter intuitive but the results are there.

Keep these things in mind in the future. If you continue to make those claims you are going to continuously have them refuted.

 

[TechBoyJK]

If people do not use because it is illegal, they also do not use and drive. It is impossible to use and drive if you do not use in the first place.

That is the point I was making. Since there are people who do not use due to it being illegal, making it legal will increase the number of users. How much is unknown, but it will certainly go up. If there are more users, there will be more who use and drive. It is a guarentee. How many more is unknowable.

I think they should be stiffened right now, as DUI is a blight on humanity. The horrors it causes to the innocent should never be allowed by any society. Increasing the number of DUIs by legalizing drugs is like increasing the flow of oil to the furnace.

Of course, we also need a good roadside test for DUI for drugs, as the current drug tests do not actually check to see if you are currently under their influence. No need for that currently, since even using it yesterday is illegal...yet you are certainly not under the influence the next day (for pot as an example).

Considering how infiltrated the underground market is into our society, do you honestly expect to see a spike in drug usage if it is legalized?

1. OMG meth is legal now, let's go on a binge? No. It's safe to assume most people who would use drugs either already do, or have tried it already and stopped using.

2. Also consider this, even if use did go up, legalization would allow for 'safer' drugs, and users could make better 'use' choices in their doses. So even if use goes up, harm will go down. In which case, would using 'regulated' and safer meth really be that much worse than going on an alcohol binge, or eating caffeine pills? Part of what makes 'caffiene' safe is that it's regulated, and people know what kind of doses you are taking. Ever look up the effects of a caffeine overdose? It's not pretty. This is EXACTLY where much of the harm in heroin comes from. It's easy to OD, and because the market isn't regulated, it's hard to know your doses. I could easily OD on the oxycottons my doctor prescribed, but I don't because he told me how much I needed to take, and the pills are clearly labeled to their dose.

 

[cybrsage]

Well you are trying to make good points but you're not dealing with an accurate deck of cards.

1. To say pot is 'about as harmful' as tobacco is like saying koolaid is about as harmful as vodka. All things considered pot isn't even close to as harmful.

I am speaking from the effect on society at large.

2. It's disingenuous to say if we legalize drugs use will go up. In the several countries that have decriminalized/legalized drug, use has actually gone down. It seems counter intuitive but the results are there.

We actually have proof of it. The number of people drinking alcohol increased when the amendment was canceled. Americans are different than Europeans in many fundamental ways.

However, if if you are correct, we must plan on its use increasing and be happy if it does not. Planning for the opposite and then being taken by surprise would be terrible.

Keep these things in mind in the future. If you continue to make those claims you are going to continuously have them refuted.

You actually refuted nothing, you simply stated opinions.

 

[airdata]

It's illegal and people still do it. Are you saying if you un-illegalize meth that usage will go up?

Alot of ignorant people do think this... When in fact it's been proven that this is incorrect in places that have legalized certain drugs.

The steps that we've taken to make it harder to manufacture meth in the US has only given mexican drug cartels a huge financial boost. Legalization and regulation of drugs would only make things safer and keep money out of the hands of criminals.

What you do w\ prohibition of any substance is drastically increase the value and thereby give huge profits to the criminal element... so you think you're doing the right thing by opposing legalization but you're really supporting giving the 'bad guys' more money.

 

[cybrsage]

Considering how infiltrated the underground market is into our society, do you honestly expect to see a spike in drug usage if it is legalized?

1. OMG meth is legal now, let's go on a binge? No. It's safe to assume most people who would use drugs either already do, or have tried it already and stopped using.

No one said binge, other than you of course.

Do you think that every single truck driver would never use drugs if he would no longer lose his license to drive truck when he does them while not driving?

When the punishment is too severe to risk the crime, many people do not commit the crime.

 

[Craig234]

Then not only should it be legalized, it should be subsidized. I wouldn't mind my tax dollars funding a faster way to kill idiots. They already are funding the WoD which is a lot more expensive but tries to keep idiots alive.

YASP (Yet another sociopath posting).