For decades, the US has fought a "War on Drugs", intended to stop the shipment and use of psychoactive substances in the country. This costs the government billions of dollars each year, and is in my opinion wholly unnecessary. Putting drug offenders in prison with violent criminals is ridiculous in my opinion.
From an ideological standpoint, I would rather see all drugs be legalized and regulated, giving people the choice of whether to use them or not. Now I understand that such a stance could be harmful in reality, but I definitely believe that money is better spent on teaching people the harmful effects of drug use and setting up rehabilitation clinics. The dollars spent fighting, prosecuting, and detaining drug users should be instead spent on these measures.
Using drugs can certainly be unhealthy (obviously in varying levels depending on the drug) but I don't really believe that the government should ban people from doing something simply because it is unhealthy. I guess I believe that drug use is a "victimless crime". There should at least be lesser penalties for drug users, simply because they aren't really hurting anyone but themselves, and that is punishment enough. People that are addicts have trouble getting help because they are criminals to the government. It also doesn't make sense that some unhealthy, addictive activities like drinking, smoking and eating junk food not punished while drug use is. I think that most people that will do drugs will do them regardless of their legality.
As Ron Paul said on the subject "The government can't make you a better person".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
It's an established opinion by every single government that I've ever heard of that drugs are bad, whether it's cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or whatever. So, it would actually be ridiculous if the U.S. suddenly stopped trying to prosecute drug traffickers and drug users. And the thing is, money is already spent on teaching people about the harmful effects of drugs and setting up rehab centers. But this is not enough, because the drug world is so huge. I don't think that the "War on Drugs" will ever end, but it can come close to ending if the big drug lords are taken down. Also, I don't believe that drug use is a victimless crime because there is a victim: the user. It's the same with suicide-- when someone commits suicide, that person is actually committing a crime. Lastly, eating junk food and drinking alcohol is not even as close as dangerous as using heroin or cocaine.
How would it be ridiculous if the US stopped prosecuting drug users and traffickers? By not prosecuting these people, the US would save tons of money that could be used to fund rehab centers, to help the people that have drug problems. People with drug problems are unable to get treatment for their addictions because they are considered criminals.
Drug users are not "victims" because they choose to do drugs, hopefully knowing the consequences of their actions. People should be free to do what they want with their own bodies.
The same logic of government preventing people from harming themselves can be applied to alcohol and junk food. Whether or not those activities are as dangerous as using heroin or cocaine, it is certain that they are unhealthy.
I disagree that drug use is a "victimless crime" because the user is hurting himself and could possibly put others in danger. If some one is under the influence of drugs they may be more likely to get in a car crash or become abusive & abuse their spouse or child. Although it may seem the money spent on the war on drugs is a waste, if we didn't fight drug use I think the use of drugs would increase a lot because people would think 'if theres no government punishment and it makes me feel good, then why not do it?' I think the knowledge that drugs are bad for you is not enough to keep people from doing it. As it is, people know alcohol is bad for you but millions of people still drink it. Also, suddenly making all illicit drugs legal may counteract all the money spent educating children about being 'drug free'. Children may think using drugs isn't that bad because its not illegal.
I agree 100% with Justin in that people should be able to chose what they put in their bodies without the government looking over their shoulder. It would be ridiculous for the government to ban fat or cars, both of which kill many more people than drugs do.
I think the real problem with drugs and the reason government sees fit to outlaw it is the lucrative money there is to be made in the business. When people are physiologically dependent on a substance, they do crazy things to get more of it, including more crime and violence. With legalization of drugs comes increase in victimization of innocent people. Remember The Godfather? "Drugs is a dirty business..."
I think the opposite would be true. Legalization would eliminate the black market and criminal aspect of drugs, drive down the prices, and prevent many violent crimes that happen because of shady drug deals and the like.
The people that commit crimes to support their drug habit would do so anyway, and they would be able to get help more easily if drugs were legal.
Drugs is a dirty business because drugs are illegal. Selling alcohol and cough medicine (legal drugs) is not a "dirty business", because they are legal.
One possible arguement against the legalization of all drugs is that like justin said, prices would be greatly lowered. the problem with this is that a drug addict would be able to purchase much more for their dollar, and would therefore take more drugs than they would if drugs were illegal. While this does seem like a problem, when compared with alcohal, it doesnt seem like such a big deal. During prohibition, people feared that legalizing alcohal would lead to too much drinking and immoral activity, but prohibition was eventually repealed and our soceity survived. it is wrong to argue that drugs should remain illegal becuase they are harmful to your body, becuase as many people have already argued, there are much more harmful things that people are legally allowed to do to themselves. another faulty argument is that drug users are a huge danger to others. this doesnt really make sense becuase alcohal causes countless brawls and beatings and other harmful activities, and it is legal. therefore there are not really any arguments against the legalization of drugs that make sense, yet there are countless arguements in favor of drug legalization that do make sense.
First of all, i love that quote and I totally agree with it. The drug regulations are an attempt by the government to create a more innocent and perfect social community. but, nevertheless i think that drug trafficking should be fought. the us had to stand up for what is right and wrong. but i think we could do a better job of not being to impossing on drug use and restriction.
I think both sides have strong arguments, however I think there is a middle ground- Legalize marijuana. In comparison to drugs like cocaine and heroin, as Paul mentioned, marijuana is much less harmful. I agree that drugs like coke and heroin should be kept illegal because they are among the most dangerous drugs, but to hold marijuana to the same standard is absurd. As Justin pointed out, our govt. would save tons of money by not trafficking marijuana, also it would force drug dealers to find real jobs and do their part in helping the economy. The govt. could even tax marijuana like cigarettes and use that money towards community programs or the construction of a new library. What do you guys think?
I agree with marc. I think that not all drugs should be legalized such as lsd, cocaine, heroine, etc. But that some drugs should be legalized to a certain age group such is how alchol and tobacco is. Legalizing marijuana could be beneficial because the govt could tax it and help the community. I just believe taht some drugs should be legalized but with restrictions on them
Several places have decriminalized pot (Germany, Holland, British Columbia Canada, maybe others) and lo and behold, life goes on. Holland, however, is rethinking its light approach to other drugs:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57618
On a related matter, I heard Ed Rosenthal on the radio this morning. He is a major pro-pot advocate and contributor to High Times magazine that was busted by the Feds a few years ago after he started supplying clones to medical pot clubs. His answers were interesting, but punctuated by longish pauses, as if he was, well, not as sharp as he could have been, kinda forgetting stuff. Yah, you know it bro.
CA has a rehabilitation strategy (no jail until 3 strikes) passed via an initiative that avoids crowding the jails with non-violent users without being a permanent free pass for people who can't get it together and become contributing members of society.
Several places have decriminalized pot (Germany, Holland, British Columbia Canada, maybe others) and lo and behold, life goes on. Holland, however, is rethinking its light approach to other drugs:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57618
On a related matter, I heard Ed Rosenthal on the radio this morning. He is a major pro-pot advocate and contributor to High Times magazine that was busted by the Feds a few years ago after he started supplying clones to medical pot clubs. His answers were interesting, but punctuated by longish pauses, as if he was, well, not as sharp as he could have been, kinda forgetting stuff. Yah, you know it bro.
CA has a rehabilitation strategy (no jail until 3 strikes) passed via an initiative that avoids crowding the jails with non-violent users without being a permanent free pass for people who can't get it together and become contributing members of society.
I think that the legalizing drugs arguement that argues that the government shouldn't control what people do is a very slippery slope to go down. It sounds very liberterian to me - and I just wanted to point out that it goes both ways. Sure, the government shouldn't interfere with drugs, but then the same logic can me made with the government not interfering with the poor and helping out the poor and homeless, or even with healthcare for the elderly - if they can't afford it and can't get healthy, it's not the government's problem! You could also apply it to civil rights - the government shouldn't get involved with racial segregation - if people believe that blacks are inferior, then that's what they believe - no government interference.
So as far as the government legalizing drugs, I think that this logic is faulty.
I'm sure some people just do drugs for the heck of it. They just want to feel "bad," breaking the law and such. It's like a button with the sign "do not press" on it, and it makes you want to press it all the more. It's the curiosity that killed the cat. But satisfaction brought it back... The negative aspects of drugs could be emphasized instead of the legality; people once thought that smoking was "cool," but as time passed, and the health affects were revealed to the public, less and less people started smoking (maybe?).
To counter what wilson said there being negatives. almost anything that you do can have negatives to it. also for the drug that i feel that should be legalized, marijuana, it is less harmful than cigarettes and alchol which are bothlegal. also in 2006 scientific studies have shown that it doesnt increase the risk of lung cancer, so it has less risk than other things out there. just to point that out to you guys.
I agree with Justin that something seems a little off when drug offenders are placed in the same catagory as violent criminals...I think lesser penalties are needed here.
However, I also agree with Vicki in that drugs are not a victimless crime. Drug users lead to more drug users which lead to more drug users...getting other people hooked on drugs is a crime that no longer lacks a victim. Perhaps pouring money into rehab programs is a mediocre solution to this...or maybe the whole country should just adopt California's 3-strike system because that sounds like its striking a good balance.
I wanted to point out first that LSD is less physically harmful than cigarrettes, alcohol, and possibly even marijuana.
In response to Max, I think that there is a pretty big difference between the government making something illegal (preventing people from doing something) and the government helping the poor or whatever.
Drugs like LSD, Cocaine, and heroin are bad for your health. Alcohol is bad for developing brains. Ecstasy will kill your brain cells. And LSD will permanently damage some of your nerve receptors. If the government wants to protect it's people, which it does, then in some cases, putting repeated drug users in jail is appropriate. If there are no punishments, why would anyone adhere to the laws?
Post a Comment