Global Leaders call for reform of Drug Policy

[shira]

But if you're one of those people that wants to to argue that hard drugs aren't necessarily bad for you we can stop right here. To me you're in the same category as birthers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

I don't know what this term "hard drugs" is supposed to designate. There are some drugs - heroin is one - that can be taken for decades with very little health risk. In fact, the biggest health risks from many drugs is a consequence of their illegality: When the black market controls the quality of the product, there's no way to control purity and adulterants. Drug overdoses are often a consequence of the widely-varying quality of the drug being taken.

But the best argument against the statement "drugs are dangerous" is the statement "keeping drugs illegal is even more dangerous."

Ask yourself the question: How many people die as a direct consequence of smoking pot? The answer is, almost no one. Now, ask yourself the question: How many people die because marijuana is illegal. The answer is, thousands and thousands who are involved in the drug trade.

I'm not even getting into the monetary costs of the war on drugs and how much money would be saved if drugs were legalized, controlled, and taxed.

There are many more benefits to legalization, which have been written about by me and others in many other threads. The bottom line is that the WoD is a failed policy that can't be justified by any objective analysis.

 

[fskimospy]

Says who? It's the government's job to take actions toward the general welfare of the population. I'd argue that deterring crime when possible is even more important than punishing it.

If that addiction will result in harm to others in society (undoubtedly the case), then preventing addiction -- or at least helping reduce it and providing avenues for ending addiction most certainly falls within the purview of govt.

Careful there PokerGuy, you're about to come to an uncomfortable realization.

You're basically saying that people are making health decisions that are negatively affecting other members of society, and you want government to undertake legislation to change that. I wonder what other things could fall under that idea?

 

[ShawnD1]

Careful there PokerGuy, you're about to come to an uncomfortable realization.

You're basically saying that people are making health decisions that are negatively affecting other members of society, and you want government to undertake legislation to change that. I wonder what other things could fall under that idea?

Sugar tax?

 

[xj0hnx]

If that addiction will result in harm to others in society (undoubtedly the case), then preventing addiction -- or at least helping reduce it and providing avenues for ending addiction most certainly falls within the purview of govt.

You do realize that in the real world most problems with addiction are because it's illegal? A majority of the "crime" is simply because it's illegal and violent gangs control the drug supply, and the prices are artificially inflated.

Also as ahenkel pointed out, the actual percentage of Americans that are actually addicted to illegal drugs is very low.

 

[fskimospy]

You do realize that in the real world most problems with addiction are because it's illegal? A majority of the "crime" is simply because it's illegal and violent gangs control the drug supply, and the prices are artificially inflated.

Also as ahenkel pointed out, the actual percentage of Americans that are actually addicted to illegal drugs is very low.

The war on drugs is a perfect case of 'the cure is worse than the disease'. Sure the world would be better off if we didn't have any drug addicts but the measures we undertake to try and meet that goal are so much worse than what we are preventing, it makes the entire enterprise worthless.