Drug legalization poll

[Loyal]

Poll question: Drug legalization poll

Tell me how you feel about drug legalization. Respond below if you want.

Let me clarify the difference between decriminalization and legalization:

With decriminalization, you can usually get off the hook for your first drug offense, but subsequent offenses could land you in jail. Maybe you will pay fines.

With legalization, there is no penalty for using or buying/selling drugs.

I tried to grade the options as best I could so to include almost every possible option.

Respond below if you wish to.

[Loyal]

1. I'll start

I am for full legalization of drugs, so we can rid the prisons of non-violent offenders and start making rapists and murderers serve full sentences. It's also wrong to punish someone for a consensual crime. Obviously, violent drug dealers, etc. would stay in prison if they are there for a violent crime.

[Dagaz]

10. My thoughts as well

It costs serious money to imprison people so unless they are violent drug dealers let's get some sanity.

[Djinn]

15. my only hesitation

would be that some of the worlds biggest scumbags would control the market - if it's a choice between criminals and bikies and large pharma companies I think I'd rather deal with the crims!

[SadEagle]

2. Diffficult question for me to answer.

Since I feel that drug use is not a crime, but selling drugs is (as the former pretty much only hurts one person, while the latter hurts others). It'd be weird to legalize the former but not the latter, though, since supposedly many drug users are pushed to sell to get the money...

[Loyal]

3. It's consensual

No one is forced to buy drugs. That would be like blaming a retail store because you bought cigarettes. :shrug:

[SadEagle]

8. It's only concensual the first few times...

...It just feels that it's highly unethical for someone to be selling something addicitive (and yes, that includes cigarettes)

[Loyal]

9. Personal responsibility

Whatever happened to that in America? :shrug:

[SadEagle]

11. Oh, I am not saying the addict is not responsible.

Just that the other side is, too.

[TacticalPeek]

14. But you would not jail cigarette sellers or bartenders, right?

[Loyal]

4. I took the "other" option out.

I don't know how people feel when they check that one, because they aren't responding.

[alexwcovington]

5. It's a tough call

and heavily dependent on the type of drugs you're dealing with... there isn't marijuana and -- everything else. And there can also be varying degrees of legal/illegal...

[ant]

6. complete legalization

Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal one.

[NinetySix]

21. The most sensible method

While addiction is certainly a problem, it should clearly not be a criminal one.

Addictive drugs, like cocaine and heroin, along with a number of addictive prescription drugs, should be completely medicalized and thoroughly subsidized by the government. If the government were to make these available to addicts for a nominal fee, it would ensure that a) all profit motive would be removed from the illicit narcotics trade for these substances, and b) that a relatively safe standard of usage could be maintained (quality, purity, dosage, etc.) to protect the health of the users. The groups who now control these would find their industry essentially 'nationalized,' and would have to find a new means of income, since absolute medical control would make it impossible to either maintain an existing black market or create a new one.

Non-addictive drugs, like cannabis, LSD, and others, could be legalized, regulated, and heavily taxed. Much like alcohol, the restriction of outlets for these substances would reduce their availability to minors (note that a 6th grader has much more access to pot, which he can buy at school, than to beer or liquor), while at the same time assuring increased revenues, again, like alcohol (consider: would you buy pot from some sleazy dealer if you could buy it at your local liquor store?).

In addition to the increased flow of revenue to state and federal coffers, the billions spent yearly to finance the feckless and socially destructive war on drugs would be saved, and could be diverted to finance education or the social programs which cling to their ever-dwindling existence, always in the shadow of the chopping block.

To see through the folly of the drug war, one need only clearly see the motives behind the participants on both sides of the narcotics industry. Dealers don't hate children; their only motive, the bottom line, compels them to sell to anyone who'll buy, the same as any other businessman. Like alcohol bootleggers, they sell to children because they are not restricted by any regulation which would force them to refrain from doing so. Buyers do not wish to bring about the downfall of society, but simply wish to either alter their consciousness, like beer drinkers do legally, or if addicts, to avoid the agony of withdrawal. Understanding these facts and shaping policy accordingly is the way to bring this industry, socially destructive in its current form, under control, while at the same time reducing the proliferation of addiction.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi NinetySix!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Nevernose]

7. Please define "decriminalization"

I, for one, think law enforcement plays a vital role in keeping down the number of drug addicts. I also think that pot should be legalized, and the others "decriminalized" -- if by "decriminalization" one means that they're still illegal, but instead of prison, drug addicts should get help.

Is that what's meant, in this discussion, by "decriminalizing" drugs?

[Loyal]

12. No,

I was referring to laws like in NY, for marijuana. If you have under an ounce(I think) of pot, and it's your first offense, you pay a fine($100). If it's your second offense, you pay a heftier fine($250). On your third offense you can spend a maximum of 15 days in jail and/or a bigger fine($500). But 15 days is the maximum you can spend in prison for possessing under an ounce. I consider that decriminalization.

[Nevernose]

18. That's essentially what Nevada's got, too

For pot under an ounce, it's a $50 fine, but after the third offense, it becomes a class "E" felony (the mandatory puinishment for a class E is one year's probation, so really a class E doesn't do anything except fuck up all possiblity of ever getting a good job). I was a pretty heavy pot-smoker for years, and never got busted for anything drug-related, so I think that's pretty fair. A fine for under an ounce might be just enough motivation to keep it on the down low, if you see what I mean. Even cultivation in this state is usually plea-bargained pretty lowly, so long as the defendant doesn't have a string of felonious behavior.

Also speaking from a Nevadan's standpoint, at least in Las Vegas, harder drugs are decriminalized. First and sometimes second offenses of possession of harder drugs are punished with drug court. Daily therapy, weekly random UA's, bi-weekly mettings with the judge -- Las Vegas was one of the five pilot cities for the drug-court program, and it has a much higher recovery rate than most poor addicts can achieve alone. Sometimes, even other crimes can be taken to drug court if they were committed to feed a drug habit (e.g., Las Vegas is the forgery capital of the world). Meth, crack, sherm, and heroin fuck up way more than the user -- they fuck up families and communities, and it would be totally irresopnsible to allow them free reign.

For the record, matijuana possession by a minor is usually treated much more seriously than possession by adults.

What we NEED to figure out is how to better control alcohol and alcohol-related crime.

[Clark Can WIN]

13. Decriminalize use, free up space for the dealers

Treat the addicted. Not jail. Jail the predators.

We need to expend more energy in this country on helping people achieve their full productive potential so that they can enjoy a full and happy life. That way you cut drastically the numbers of people who have to self medicate themselves away from hopeless circumstances.

[IranianDemocrat]

16. I have a question for people who advocate full legalization.

If all drugs are legalized, won't that lead to total chaos with people stoned 24/7 on the streets leading to more societal problems and deaths because of people doing stupid shit under the influence of narcotics?

[Loyal]

17. You gotta be shitting me, right?

Are you this naive, ID? I've always enjoyed reading your other posts, but this one is just ridiculous, no offense. We had legalized drugs up until this past century, and there were no real problems up till about the early 1970s, when the real drug war started under Nixon, and intensified under Reagan. It wasn't so long ago that you could walk into a convenience store and buy heroin. It was produced by Bayer, and a lot safer than the shit you find on the street today. Kids could buy it, and you didn't have all of the problems that we have right now. I have read that half the murders in America are a result of gangs/drugs. And gangs sell drugs, so you get the picture. Think of what drug legalization could do for America. No candidate in the Prez race advocates this, but I will. Think about how much more money we will have left over to push for death sentences for murderers.

[Nevernose]

19. Most murers are alcohol related, actually

And are usually domestic.

The problem with hard drugs (crack, meth, sherm, heroin) is that they're bad for the user -- they DESTROY families, children, and whole communities.

Most murders are not drug-related, but most street level crime is. Legalizing it won't help solve that problem, nor will our insane "war on drugs." Only a controlled decriminaliztion, with active law enforcement and mandatory rehabilitation, can come close to helping prevent the destruction wrought by both drugs and our "war" on them.

[Fuzz]

20. Legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of all others

with treatment for addiction instead of incarceration unless there are other crimes involved.