Potential problem with making all drugs legal

[Nikia]

Although some OTC and prescription drugs seem to be more protected than others, there have been a number of drugs pulled because they are deamed as harmful and a cause of death in users. I am not sure if drug manufactureres can be held legally responsible for people's death or disability either. These factors could make it difficult for any company to sell such drugs as heroin, cocaine, ecstacy, or a number of other drugs. Marijuana is relatively safe, but some of those other drugs have been linked to a number of deaths. I am not sure if any company would be willing to sell them or that the FDA would consider tham safe enough.
One problem with having dealers sell them as they do now is that those dealers don't have legitamate (legal) businesses. Things would change for them too if they had to do business as other legal, non black market, businesses do.

[Tafiti]

1. I don't think American society could cope...

...with such a major change in drug policy like that. In fact, I think it would be downright chaotic. I'm not sure I would advocate the legalization of ALL drugs anyway - some are just too dangerous. Marijuana is the only legitimate candidate in my opinion. No more dangerous (probably much less dangerous) than alcohol or tobacco. Only alcohol and tobacco don't have such a stigma attached. At any rate, it would have to be a very gradual change. First step: decriminalization.

[flyingfysh]

2. Heroin should be legalized in special cases

It should be legalized for terminal cancer patients. Except for the well-known addiction problem, it works well for patients with severe, intractable pain. As long as someone is going to die anyway, what difference does it make if he becomes addicted? If heroin makes the end of his life more tolerable, it is worth it.

The UK uses heroin as part of a cocktail of pain killers for exactly this purpose, and it works just fine.

[skypilot]

3. I'm not sure I understand all...

...the ramifications of making all drugs legal (as some people say they should be) but your post reflects exactly the way I think. I've heard so many people say that the government could regulate currently illegal drugs the same way they regulate all other drugs but part of "regulating" those other drugs means pulling them off the market if they are determined to have negative health effects. Well, we already know that drugs like heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, etc. have negative health effects, so...

[renaissanceguy]

15. Hmmm...

True, but remember that many other legal drugs out there have side effects. Look at Vioxx (sp?).

[Djinn]

19. When legalized

the drugs you cite would come in safe dosages...some people would take more than the recommended dose but then again some people do that now with Valium. Pure medical grade heroin has the side effects of addiction and repressing the respiratory system - that's about it, clean heroin is better for you than regulated alcohol.

The vast majority of the "negative effects" of drugs are due to their illegality, some people will continue to abuse drugs if they were made illegal, some would continue to die of overdoses - but just like with alcohol and prescription medicine we tend to make laws for the majority of society not those who no matter what the law says will find some way of writing themselves off.

When accessed in their "clean" state there's really no justification to the belief that cocaine or heroin is any more dangerous than marijuana.

[SweetLeftFoot]

24. I like your avatar.

150th anniversay last week.

[theorist]

4. Education.

People know not to drink Drain-O, right? If drugs are legalized, the population will need to be taught (not sure how we would go about this) that you don't use heroin everyday. A side effect of this would be to remove the current stigma of drug addiction and turn it into a public health issue.

The problem with the black market, is that there are no official regulations that dictate purity, prices, etc. It's always a gamble, but with gov't regulation, it would be much safer to purchase drugs.

Remember that there are current recreational substances that are heavily regulated, but still kill people. The thing is that the industry is so profitable that you'd never see supermarkets pulling Budweiser off its shelves because a college kid died of alcohol poisoning.

[skypilot]

5. "...with gov't regulation, it would be safer to purchase drugs."

I don't know about this. Especially when I look at the government we currently have. If I did drugs I'd probably feel about as safe buying them from a street dealer as from a vendor being "regulated" by our current government.

[theorist]

6. I was thinking of optimistic times.

There is really no chance that elicit drugs will be legalized anytime in the next 15 years or so. I completely agree with you, but it's beyond far-fetched that, even if 98% of the population wanted it, that this administration would extend personal liberties.

[skypilot]

7. optimistic times

I almost wish I did do drugs. They do have a tendency to make the times look more optimistic.:)

[theorist]

9. Oh yes, but it's only temporary.

Reality always comes back with a vengeance. Maybe if we just passed out MDMA tablets in heavily Republican areas, the world would be a much better place. (Not that I would know what Ecstacy is like.) :)

[SweetLeftFoot]

25. Nice idea but as The Streets sing

... "Imagine the worlds leaders on pills and then imagine the morning after, wars causing disaster"

[Ready4Change]

8. You'd at least get a consistent dosage.

One reason (not the only one) that some people die of illegal drugs is getting an accidental overdose. If they were legal and regulated, you'd know how strong a dose you were are about to get.

Methods might also be put in place to monitor how much people are taking, and get some attention to people who have become addicted enough that, to get high, they need take a near lethal dose.

[Liberal Classic]

10. Who wants to legalize everything

Other than the libertarians? I'm libertarian-leaning and I don't support outright legalization. What I think most people around here do support is a change in public policy from prohibition to regulation.

[skypilot]

11. That's probably what most people probably mean...

...but, I swear, I have heard a good number of people say that they think all drugs should be legal. I also started a thread like this one quite a while back and a couple people said it then. If drugs could be regulated, legalized, decriminalized, whatever, without causing problems and chaos I'd be all for it. I have a problem when people just blithely say drugs should be legal or that they can be "regulated the same as other drugs" without really thinking it out.

[Nikia]

12. I've seen it posted on on DU threads

That some people think that all drugs should be legal which is why I posted this. I do think that no simple drug users should go to prision, at least regular prision, but rather treatment. I think that that treatment should be carefully monitored and in some cases, especially repeat cases be residential. There is no reason though that people whose only crime is drug use should be put in prision with people who will teach them how to be real criminals. As I said though, there could be problems with legalyzing post illegal drugs.

[Djinn]

20. I have thought about it

and as far as I'm concerned they should be legalised, in the same way that prescription drugs are legalised, ie you can't just buy them at the supermarket but they are still legal.

The health effects of drugs are mostly caused by illegality which effects the purity of a drug and the ability to judge how much one is taking. Pure amphetamines or heroin aren't harmful in and of themselves - that's why they're still prescribed in some places. What's dangerous is having your speed cut with something malign meaning when you finally get some decent stuff you take too much and overdose or it's cut with something not so malign which itself kills you or (most commonly) as it's made up in some dodgy warehouse by a chem student and some bikies the equipment used isn't very sophisticated and when one mixes chemical A with chem B to make chemical C (speed) you also get chemicals D, E, F etc - regulated companies use expensive machines to filter out extraneous (sometimes dangerous) chemicals out of their products - bikies don't.

There really isn't ANY logical argument for the government to decide why some drugs are legal and others aren't. Overdosing and side effects (including fatal ones) and addiction can occur with almost ALL drugs, drugs have no moral value.

[cattleman22]

13. Total Legalization

I support total legalization of every self ingested or self administered compound, with the following provisions.


1. The manufacturer has to list every known side effect, wether it is death or the munchies.


2. If the manufacturer lists every known side effect, neither the manufacturer nor the store, nor the government can be held liable.


3. Anyone who commits a crime while using a mind altering substance faces an automatic doubling of the sentence.

[akwapez]

14. agreed

I agree with your provisions, the 3rd one may be up to a little reworking. Legalized drugs sold in "drug stores" means tax money which goes toward the eduaction of problems associated with said drugs.
Those who choose to use the drugs will be safer than they are now because the ingredients will be a constant. This will take away the most common causes of drug related fatalities.

[Fire]

29. I agree

I totally support this position

[BBradley]

30. Triply Agreed.

[sweetheart]

41. No on 3

Realizing that alcohol is the drug behind most crimes today, and that
it is a mind altering substance, it follows that people who misreport
their income on their tax forms after drinking a glass of wine, should
pay doubly.

As much as your 3 is good rhetoric for the war on drugs indoctrinated
audience, it is a bad idea.

I think we should let judges do their jobs, and not legislate sentencing
with any mandatory rules. The judge in the court has already the tools
to do that job given the criminal statutes... and the judge can do it
better being directly able to determine needs in specific cases.

[K-W]

43. Number 3 is massively too general.

But you are on the right track.

[Pepperbelly]

16. A strong case can be made for accross-the-board legalization.

Friedman makes a very good case for it.

[sportndandy]

17. The issue is Choice not Drugs

The legality of drugs is not the issue. The question is to what extent should the government be allowed to police the substances which any individual might choose to ingest. Once you let the government start regulating the individual, you open the pandora's box - you begin the war on drugs, and that war has proven to be open-ended, rascist and impossible to "win". Any discussion should flow from this point.

[Pushed To The Left]

21. Maybe the term "Pro-choice" can be expanded

to include progressive stances on drug policy as well as reproductive freedom!

[mosin]

22. I agree with your perspective...

on the issue. We have gone too far in regulating matters of personal choice. In the name of "winning" the "War on Drugs" the government has gone further and further in justifying infringements on civil liberties. So thanks to a puritanical desire to end drug use we have civil forfeiture statutes, widespread use of no-knock warrants, and inner city war zones.

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. All drugs should be legal, and it should be the responsiblity of the user,

to ensure their own health.

The FDA should be more informative and educational.

Yes give warnings when its appropriate but ultimately it should be up to the individual to decide what is best for them.

So what if some people choose not to heed warnings or abuse drugs, its entirely thier own fault.

Freedom means risks.

I would rather live in a free society even with all its risks than one with no risks, which would imply no freedom.

[VelvetMonkeyWrench]

36. Caveat Emptor

I have no problem with complete legalization of everything.

I do think the legal system would need account for various personal/criminal liability issues that would arise though.

For example, if you're stoned and cut your hand off using table saw, all medical costs involved should be entirely on your head, and any manufacturer of a product involved in your injury should be off the hook.

[Cowboy Joe2k]

23. Kickthis to everyone as fast as you can!!

Kick this. This is all we hoped for this is what the world needs tied up in a bow. For the holiday this is what the world needs now. entire world Peace. Kick this if you ever thought you were free. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=79652

Kick this every chance you get least you wined up kicking the damn thing for ever. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=79652

Kick this. this is the one little bit of information that can save the world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=79652

I may have bargained a solid argument to avoid getting stuck in this damn contraption.

[slowroll]

26. Can't say I agree with legalizing ALL drugs.

Antibiotics would be a prime example-if overused, they lose their potency and affect the general welfare. I think some recreational drugs are addictive enough to similarly pose enough of a possibility of harm to the public thru individual use to merit prohibition. Specifically I'm thinking of smack, meth/ice, PCP, and crack cocaine.

What I'd like to see would be complete legalization of marijauna, putting it on par with alcohol and tobacco. Call these Class I drugs, 21+ to buy. Selling Class I drugs to minors is a very light felony or misdemeanor.

Class II drugs include powder cocaine (I know, you can't stop people from buying baking soda), LSD/mushrooms/peyote/mescalin, opium, x, and hashish. These drugs would require a Recreational Drug Card to buy, renewed yearly. Applicants would have to be 21+ with no substantial criminal or medical history. They would have to get a yearly checkup from a doctor, who's responsibility is waivered by the applicant, for signs of destructive addiction. Then they would have to get a sign-off from the local PD and social services. If one can clear all these hurdles, one can buy a set amount of drugs per year from a licensed, appropriately waivered pharmicist. Sale of Class II drugs to a minor would be punishable by a substantial rap-mandatory jail time.

Class III drugs are heroin, meth, the really bad shit. Possession, distribution, etc are illegal with fairly substantial penalties. Sale of Class III drugs to a minor gets you 25 years, first offense.

'Course, it would never happen. Society's too litigious.

[cattleman22]

27. RE: Society's too litigious.

I agree about that point. I am amazed that there are still any alcohol producing companies left in business.

[Fire]

28. In my opinion

I say keep perscriptions and the FDA but don't require consumers to get them. Anyone who prescribes drugs to themselves has a fool for a doctor and shouldn't be able to sue.

That said, these drug ads have got to go.

[SHRED]

31. My ideas as far as herb goes

No commercial production except industrial.
Barter and grow your own only.

More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=218&mesg_id=218

[SoCalifer]

32. Good Thread

Some of the main problems with making any drug illegal is that the law itself is more damaging than the drug. It creates crime, police corruption, and an added attraction to using the drug. It also wastes money and other resources because history has shown time after time after time that it is useless to try and stop drug use with laws.

It is not therefore any coincidence that the country with the most anal-retentive laws against drug use, has the highest percentage of it's population using drugs, the highest incarceration rate and the highest rate of crime.

But as long as we have a government of and for special money interests, a corporate whore news media and a large segment of our population being made up of puritans who know what's better for you than you do yourself. Legalizing drugs will be an extremely difficult proposition.


BTW.. I am a member of California's Compassion Club.. :)

[DrGonzoLives]

33. Well

They would be regulated like alcohol and nictoine - that is to say, their manufacture will fall under FDA cGMP guidelines, but not their effects, since they are not subject to the controlled substances act. In effect, they fall under the category of herbal-type stuff - no proven health effect, thus not under the scope of the FDA in that regard.

[Dark]

34. Alcohol has been linked to more deaths than any other drug.n/t

[Dark]

35. Except nicotine.

[sweetheart]

37. You can always drink radiator fluid

If we're going to criminalize dangerous chemicals that "could" kill you,
there's a lot of work to do. At some point, we have to trust the
sovereign individual to make wise choices. It is the basis of a
democratic society and the core intelligence behind legallizing drugs.

It focuses 100% on the choice of the indivdiual to take drugs, and as
well, the choice of the individual to moderate or quit using drugs that
affect them wrong. You can go out in a field right now, and stuff your
face with all sorts of poisonous plants that are not regulated by the
law... some that will kill you.

It is not the government's job to be the nanny, even if a drug has been
proven to be dangerous (radiator fluid). It might have warnings and
advise about dosages of such things, but really, it is the indivdiual's
choice. ALL thigns are drugs, foods, and it is not the responsibility
of the state to moderate your consumption.

[Asgaya Dihi]

38. Comparative damage

I think a good part of the problem is that too many people think that legal means free use, and it doesn't have to and probably shouldn't. It just means that we don't imprison as a policy for use, it can be regulated and controlled past that.

A few details came up in another board that might add a little light to the subject, the concern was over the danger of the drugs and potential damage, right? Here's some perspective on that.

While they tell us on the "tough on crime" commercials that use is down, they mean regular users. Lifetime use is actually up with most drugs, add abuse of legal prescribed ones and it's even worse. Even Limbaugh got addicted to ocycotin, and valium has been "mothers little helper" since the 70's.

Take cocaine for example since it's a common one, in 1979 only 8.6% of the population had tried it, but by 2003 that had gone up to 14.7% of us. We aren't slowing that any. Most quit on their own, if we spent more on treatment and less on prisons we could improve that.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/cocaine.htm

Of those who do try it here's a detail they forgot to mention in their "use is down" commercials, the death rate for cocaine has climbed from 123 for a rate of 0.1 in 1979 to 1802 deaths for a rate of 0.7 by 1998. What we've got there is slightly lowered regular use, but more people trying it and 7 times as many dieing for it. How do you measure success?

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cdc/cocaine-yr.htm

Other drugs such as heroin are similar, browse the site and look for yourselves.

We're worried that legalizing will increase the damage? Addictive ones can be distributed through clinics and only to current addicts, if that method spreads widely enough it can strangle the streets of customers for dealers to hook new victims so actually improve the problem rather than just fill prisons. What we need to do is to take hysteria out of the mix and try some science, and take a real look at the results of our current policies.

Here's two links to think about. The first is a international imprisonment report from The Sentencing Project that shows the most notable result of our current approach, and the second two shows an option to both the drug war and to free use that may make more sense than either. We're the most imprisoned nation in the world, by a long shot compared to most nations. This isn't a successful policy, dollar for dollar we get more from treatment and education and we know it even if some can't admit it. Sure drugs are bad, especially with some. But, what we're doing now is worse.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/pub9036.pdf

http://www.dpft.org/heroin.htm
http://www.dpft.org/anaddictsstory.htm

[Dez]

39. If they legalized drugs,

what would happen to all the drug warriors? It's a HUGE business, and they'd all be put out of work.. all them Repug drug warriors.. no, it will never happen.. although it could cut crime in half, at least, in America..

[Asgaya Dihi]

40. They'd have to get honest work ;)

It can be done, look at how much the nation changed when we decided to fight racism. All we need is to be right, and we are. Now we need to let others know, the facts are on our side. Prices adjusted for inflation are generally as good or better than ever, in some cases such as with heroin much better. Purity at the street level with small sales amounts has climbed over the years, it's better than when we started. Put the two together and drugs are a better buy than ever. Death is up, we've filled prisons, broken families, have thousands of preventable HIV and hepatitis cases, and so on. And, to accomplish all of that we're now spending more in a year or two than we used to in a decade, it nears the yearly spending in Iraq and we'll do it every year with no end in sight.

At some point it stopped being policy and became religion. Policies are reviewed and adjusted, religion becomes a cause it's blasphemy to question. A good part of the cause of that I think is the death of real debate in the nation, everything has been reduced to the sound-bite on the evening news and to the 30 second tough on crime commercial with no real thought or fact checking anymore.

Two more links to think about ;) The first is a look at who the reform movement really is, or a glimpse of it at least. New groups pop up all the time, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition for example grew from about a dozen to thousands in just a few years. Look at the job history on some of them, they are posted and linked through the first link below. We're growing and more reputable by the day, now we just need to let people know that and tell them what we've got to say.

Voices For Reform
http://www.dpft.org/voices.htm

The second is what we're up against, it's not the only driving force but it's a main one and one that's behind many of the commercials, laws, and supposedly independent groups. Main point is the link to an hour long audio in the resources near the lower left side, links to related topics at the bottom.

American Radioworks Documentary, Corrections Inc.
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/corrections/index.html

[sweetheart]

42. with prohibition, there is always more money in more concentrated drugs

As one is taking a risk anyways to distribute drugs, the suppliers
choose the most concentrated forms because of the economics of prohibition.

It is very likely that cocaine usage will drop with legallization as
proper labelling and economics will bring the supply chains in to line.

[K-W]

44. The story of heroin and designer drugs.

Society was far better off with morphine addicts getting doctors perscriptions.

[Dez]

45. I agree. Prohibition created

all these problems.. the crime, disease, etc. Prohibition kills!