The War on Drugs

• gut

  Bigred1995;787847 wrote: Answer this question for me and then maybe you'll understand the point I was trying to make. If drugs are legalized (not decriminalized), how likely are you to partake in the usage?

  
  I'd probably smoke some marijuana. I might try something else, although I'd probably not partake of any hard drugs. To quote Carlin, think how stupid the average person is and then realize half of 'em are dumber that that (and posting in this thread) - but what you're not grasping is many people associate legalization with safe, and seeing it on a Walmart shelf they assume it's safe to trial. Again, why do I have to continue to address a point that has been validated millions of times in the business world?
  
  Also, cocaine and heroine use has been decreasing in the US (while it appears to be increasing in Europe). One of the factors cited is an increase in use of prescription drugs....Now think long and hard why that might be and you might be starting to understand what I'm saying.
• gut

  Bigred1995;787847 wrote:You want to know what common sense tells me? That of course usage and addiction will go up with the legalization of drugs, because the data for tracking such things will be more accurate; more people would be more honest about their usage, but that still doesn't give the government the right to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.
  But you want facts?
  Fact: The US has some of the toughest drug laws in the world, but leads the world in Illegal Drug Use!
  
  Hows that drug war working for ya?

  Another point that has been repeated several times. That people use drugs is not proof of an ineffective policy. Your claim that legalization will increase use because it can be measured better is laughably ignorant of economics and doesn't remotely hint at the presence of common sense, and I'm constantly reminded on message boards that most people are clueless when it comes to economics (including the Commander in Chief).
• gut

  Bigred1995;787446 wrote: I don't have to "fashion a guess", it's about $428 Billion** The only one that isn't making a logical argument is you! Based on your logic, we should just abolish tobacco and alcohol! Hell, while we're at it, trans fats, excess sugar, and salt etc...

  
  Fantastic. $428 BILLION. And what is the cost associated with drug users? And what's the war on drugs cost? Do you need me to connect the dots for you from the beginning when I was talking ROI and the social costs of legalization?
  
  I've read the debates. I've not been searching out data that only supports my view. Even the results in Portugal and reason why are subject to debate. But none of that is really relevant to the topic because IT'S NOT LEGAL anywhere.
  
  Knock yourself out:
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=28&ved=0CEwQFjAHOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wodc.nl%2Fimages%2F1902_volledige_tekst_tcm44-273520.pdf&rct=j&q=historical%20drug%20trends%20in%20amsterdam&ei=eZ3mTd65D4PW0QH5-aWBCw&usg=AFQjCNG_lslL1YnBmetpuW8Lm7vTI5tzaA&sig2=_DRAgaXS9xddl_MD5fBS_Q&cad=rja
  http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/creech/051122
  http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf
  http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010211271&userGroupName=rale94036&jsid=1e030a2bce87456ae31bedf26aa4e8be
• I Wear Pants

  Yes gut, everyone but you is clueless...
  
  And I'd disagree with the premise of a lot of the things you've linked. Especially the ones that seem to think that prohibition and then the repeal of it of alcohol somehow proves that repealing the prohibition of marijuana or anything else would be ruinous.
  
  Also, "common sense" doesn't exist.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;787954 wrote:Yes gut, everyone but you is clueless...
  
  And I'd disagree with the premise of a lot of the things you've linked. Especially the ones that seem to think that prohibition and then the repeal of it of alcohol somehow proves that repealing the prohibition of marijuana or anything else would be ruinous.
  
  Also, "common sense" doesn't exist.

  Yes, I'm clueless and yet you're the one who completely missed the point on prohibition - use/disease/alcoholism WENT DOWN during prohibition and spiked after appeal, but took years to recover to pre-prohibition levels. You keep arguing legalization won't increase use, when there are numerous examples (tough enforcement is also cited as a reason for getting the heroine problem under control in Asia) legalization will result in an increase. Common sense and basic business sense say it will, history bears that out, and you have NO EXAMPLES to refute it.
  
  You disagree with the premise....In other words, "I reject that which refutes my views and continue to grasp onto my opinion based on no facts or supporting evidence but a twisting of Portugal which, even as a lone example, is apples-to-oranges in a discussion of legalization"
• I Wear Pants

  I am arguing not that legalization won't increase use. I don't care if it does or doesn't because I do not have a problem with drug use at all. I have a problem with crime. Prohibition increases crime, especially of the violent sort.
  
  http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/drugs_and_violence/Drugs_and_violence.html
• gut

  I Wear Pants;787980 wrote:I am arguing not that legalization won't increase use. I don't care if it does or doesn't because I do not have a problem with drug use at all. I have a problem with crime. Prohibition increases crime, especially of the violent sort.
  
  http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/drugs_and_violence/Drugs_and_violence.html

  
  Interesting, of course other benefits such as decreased use, alcoholism and related diseases decreased. So it seems a trade-off of one social ill for another (although, murders were already increasing before both periods of prohibition). My preference is to tolerate the crime and continue to find more effective ways of dealing with it - and note the murder rate has peaked and bounced around an average for about 20+ years.
  
  Now for a little perpsective. 10 murders per 100k, equates to, what about 33,000 annually? That's less than deaths from DUI. Acceptable, no, but 38,000 drug induced deaths in 2007 so, in fact, legalization merely doubling use could yield a net INCREASE in drug-related deaths (oh-oh, the argument for legalization is unraveling). And then there is the healthcare costs...something like $400B+ annually for smoking and alcohol related disease. I want to say drug-related healthcare costs are something like $100B, but more than 6X fewer users. So, again, merely a doubling or tripling in use under legalization results in a significant increase in healthcare costs, as well (doh!). From a pure ROI perspective, legalization sure looks the more costly choice of two bad options (game over).
  
  And you'll also note that marijuana continued to be illegal, so if the crime rates are attributable to prohibition, why for alcohol and not marijuana? One explanation should be readily obvious - a huge disparity vs. demand for alcohol. Less obvious might be the cultural and historical acceptance of alcohol meaning you couldn't put the horse back in the barn.
• I Wear Pants

  So again, if you could craft society you would make alcohol illegal?
• Bigred1995

  

  gut;787944 wrote:I'd probably smoke some marijuana. I might try something else, although I'd probably not partake of any hard drugs. To quote Carlin, think how stupid the average person is and then realize half of 'em are dumber that that (and posting in this thread) - but what you're not grasping is many people associate legalization with safe, and seeing it on a Walmart shelf they assume it's safe to trial. Again, why do I have to continue to address a point that has been validated millions of times in the business world?

  It's been asked of you once before, but what halfway intelligent person actually believes that if legalized, drugs will actually sold on Wal-Mart shelves? When you first brought up Wal-Mart I thought you were speaking figuratively! Any proposal for the legalization of drugs has always maintained they be sold in specialized locations such as dispensaries!

  gut;787944 wrote: Also, cocaine and heroine use has been decreasing in the US (while it appears to be increasing in Europe). One of the factors cited is an increase in use of prescription drugs....Now think long and hard why that might be and you might be starting to understand what I'm saying.

  But crack and meth has been increasing in the US (while it appears to be decreasing in Europe) When I think about it, I think people get drugs the easiest and cheapest way possible and there are some people that will do anything to take advantage of that situation like writing prescriptions when those prescriptions aren't needed!
  

  gut;787947 wrote:Another point that has been repeated several times. That people use drugs is not proof of an ineffective policy. Your claim that legalization will increase use because it can be measured better is laughably ignorant of economics and doesn't remotely hint at the presence of common sense, and I'm constantly reminded on message boards that most people are clueless when it comes to economics (including the Commander in Chief).

  The fact that we have the toughest drug laws, but are the biggest users of illegal drugs show that the war on drugs is a joke!
  
  Look at you the most intelligent economist around! You keep touting the economics of it all, but the Harvard Economist referenced in this article seems to think the economics say to legalize!
  http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-31/politics/cafferty.legal.drugs_1_drug-trials-cartels-drug-suppliers?_s=PMOLITICS
  
  Where do you teach economics?
  
  

  gut;787953 wrote:Fantastic. $428 BILLION. And what is the cost associated with drug users? And what's the war on drugs cost? Do you need me to connect the dots for you from the beginning when I was talking ROI and the social costs of legalization?
  
  I've read the debates. I've not been searching out data that only supports my view. Even the results in Portugal and reason why are subject to debate. But none of that is really relevant to the topic because IT'S NOT LEGAL anywhere.
  
  Knock yourself out:
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=28&ved=0CEwQFjAHOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wodc.nl%2Fimages%2F1902_volledige_tekst_tcm44-273520.pdf&rct=j&q=historical%20drug%20trends%20in%20amsterdam&ei=eZ3mTd65D4PW0QH5-aWBCw&usg=AFQjCNG_lslL1YnBmetpuW8Lm7vTI5tzaA&sig2=_DRAgaXS9xddl_MD5fBS_Q&cad=rja
  http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/creech/051122
  http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf
  http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010211271&userGroupName=rale94036&jsid=1e030a2bce87456ae31bedf26aa4e8be

  
  From the article post above...

  How many police officers and sheriff's deputies are involved in investigating and solving crimes involving illegal drugs? And arresting and transporting and interrogating and jailing the suspects?
  
  How many prosecutors and their staffs spend time prosecuting drug cases? How many defense lawyers spend their time defending drug suspects?
  
  How many hours of courtroom time are devoted to drug trials? How many judges, bailiffs, courtroom security officers, stenographers, etc., spend their time on drug trials?
  
  How many prison cells are filled with drug offenders? And how many corrections officers does it take to guard them? How much food do these convicts consume?
  
  And when they get out, how many parole and probation officers does it take to supervise their release? And how many ex-offenders turn right around and do it again?
  
  So how's this war on drugs going?
  
  http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-31/politics/cafferty.legal.drugs_1_drug-trials-cartels-drug-suppliers?_s=PMOLITICS

• majorspark

  

  Bigred1995;788127 wrote:ike writing persecutions when those persecutions aren't needed!

  Damn that spell check.
• Bigred1995

  

  majorspark;788205 wrote:Damn that spell check.

  LOL, thanks!
• O-Trap

  

  gut;788037 wrote:Interesting, of course other benefits such as decreased use, alcoholism and related diseases decreased.

  I'm genuinely curious, so please don't take this as an attack. You suggest that [drug] use is a "social ill." How is it any more or less a social ill than the use of anything else that can be addictive, such as caffeine?
  

  gut;788037 wrote:Now for a little perpsective. 10 murders per 100k, equates to, what about 33,000 annually? That's less than deaths from DUI. Acceptable, no, but 38,000 drug induced deaths in 2007 so, in fact, legalization merely doubling use could yield a net INCREASE in drug-related deaths (oh-oh, the argument for legalization is unraveling).

  Nothing is unraveling. It is not anyone's responsibility to protect me from ruining my life ... or even killing myself through some vice ... except for my own. Just because more people might/will/whichever kill themselves through its abuse does not suggest that its use should be illegal. That's neither the purpose of the government nor the intended power given to it.
  

  gut;788037 wrote:And then there is the healthcare costs...something like $400B+ annually for smoking and alcohol related disease. I want to say drug-related healthcare costs are something like $100B, but more than 6X fewer users. So, again, merely a doubling or tripling in use under legalization results in a significant increase in healthcare costs, as well (doh!).

  Yes, increased healthcare costs that, under a free system, they will pay, whether through the sales tax on such substances or through a higher cost to them personally for that healthcare.
  
  Also, it's worth noting that the demographic of drug users would likely be different, and the usage might be different as well. That doesn't even account for the notion that it will be less hidden (along with complications as a result of it being less hidden). As such, to suggest that the healthcare cost will be equitable per capita is presumptuous in the least.
  

  gut;788037 wrote:From a pure ROI perspective, legalization sure looks the more costly choice of two bad options (game over).

  Only for those using it, and it's not even a foregone conclusion that the cost will be proportionally higher to the number of drug users (which I'd place a hefty sum of money wouldn't even rise by 30% of the current user population).
  

  gut;788037 wrote:And you'll also note that marijuana continued to be illegal, so if the crime rates are attributable to prohibition, why for alcohol and not marijuana? One explanation should be readily obvious - a huge disparity vs. demand for alcohol.

  I don't know how in touch you are contemporarily, but there is an equitable demand for marijuana currently. I'd actually say that the failure to enforce Prohibition is not all that dissimilar to the current failure to enforce the illegality of marijuana. I've never consumed or smoked any, but it's almost a joke how easy it would be for me, or anyone, to get some without being caught.
  

  gut;788037 wrote:Less obvious might be the cultural and historical acceptance of alcohol meaning you couldn't put the horse back in the barn.

  
  At the time, I might have agreed with this, but as the time has changed, the global acceptance of marijuana use is virtually on par with the acceptance of alcohol, with only small pockets of people objecting to one, the other, or both. Thus, if this was once the reason, it's no longer applicable, because its foundation was that of a changing culture that no longer reflects that basis.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;788074 wrote:So again, if you could craft society you would make alcohol illegal?

  Probably not, since alcohol has been around since pretty much the beginning time and is generally socially accepted, which is part of why prohibition failed. People wanted their alcohol, and they didn't want the crime. What the vast majority are telling you with legalization is they'll tolerate the crime because they don't want more addiction and the associated societal costs. And if you want to base it purely on body count, there's an argument to be made that legalization is the greater of the two evils.
  
  But the better question is should those costs be borne by everyone? No, it shouldn't, but failing that then it becomes an issue of can society afford it. Also begs the question of how many poisons people need the option of putting in their body. It may be an acceptable trade-off for society to tolerate the consequences of a few drugs while being unacceptable to tolerate all drugs. I'd agree it's no business of society to tell you how to get high, if addiction didn't subsequently become society's problem.
  
  And because we have to deal with and accept the problems associated with alcohol, that's your justification for legaliizng drugs? Really, you're going to make that argument now?
  
  I think it's also interesting when you consider what's happening with tobacco. We've successfully created a social stigma that has resulted in a dramatic decrease in smoking. Probably even more effective is what might be termed a gradual form of prohibition, taking away opportunities and options to smoke little by little. And those are both powerful arguments against legalization of other drugs because it involves doing the exact opposite of what is proving effective with tobacco.
• gut

  O-Trap;788217 wrote:
  At the time, I might have agreed with this, but as the time has changed, the global acceptance of marijuana use is virtually on par with the acceptance of alcohol, with only small pockets of people objecting to one, the other, or both. Thus, if this was once the reason, it's no longer applicable, because its foundation was that of a changing culture that no longer reflects that basis.

  
  I don't disagree with that, but is this debate just about marijuana or all drugs? The violent crime people are using as an argument for legalization is not really related to marijuana, no?
• gut

  O-Trap;788217 wrote: Nothing is unraveling. It is not anyone's responsibility to protect me from ruining my life ... or even killing myself through some vice ... except for my own. Just because more people might/will/whichever kill themselves through its abuse does not suggest that its use should be illegal. That's neither the purpose of the government nor the intended power given to it..

  
  Again, I don't disagree. But when addiction starts infringing on the rights of others, then society has the right to take steps to protect their interests. And I suspect anyone who's had a family member struggle with addiction would strongly disagree with you. I'm not even sure whether someone should be able to kill themself through addiction or other means is a question of liberty
  
  As for use rising with legalization, I guarantee it, and there's no reason to think it won't be multiples of current use. Again, look at how many more users there are of tobacco and alcohol. You also mention marijuana has gained mainstream social acceptance. I don't think you're fully grasping the impact on both the stigma and ease of purchasing through increased availability will do to usage. You're also ignoring the fact that many drugs don't come with the same dehibilitating effects as tobacco and alcohol (hangovers), meaning you're likely to see a lot of people trial and switch to other drugs - I can't speak from experience but I don't think one needs to "recover" from a cocaine or painkiller high. Alongside alcohol, many of these drugs are going to be more attractive.
• dwccrew

  

  gut;788454 wrote:I don't disagree with that, but is this debate just about marijuana or all drugs? The violent crime people are using as an argument for legalization is not really related to marijuana, no?

  
  I think violent crime involves all drugs including marijuana. Especially down by the mexican border. If big money is to be made of an illegal substance, shady characters will do whatever they need to to maintain control of the sales and distribution of that substance.
• gut

  Bigred1995;788127 wrote: The fact that we have the toughest drug laws, but are the biggest users of illegal drugs show that the war on drugs is a joke!
  
  Look at you the most intelligent economist around! You keep touting the economics of it all, but the Harvard Economist referenced in this article seems to think the economics say to legalize!
  http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-31/politics/cafferty.legal.drugs_1_drug-trials-cartels-drug-suppliers?_s=PMOLITICS

  
  The US also has higher rates of alcohol us and addiction than other countries. And, as you said, high drug rates (higher than other countries with also tough laws on drugs). So the reasonable person might look for reasons other than the war on drugs, because there are clearly confounding factors and other explanations at work here.
  
  And the Walmart example is because short of that, you don't have true legalization and black markets and street dealers still exist, cartels still exist (they do in Amsterdam and Portugal). Regardless, it's basic economics that usage increases because increases supply/availability causes movement along the demand curve. LOL, who taught you economics. Obviously no one, or they didn't do it very well.
  
  I think your Harvard economist is Jeffrey Miron, and I might check out his book (ummm, red flag) because if all he did was eliminate spending on the War on Drugs and slap a tax on it while ignoring the externalities it's junk science. Perhaps you're familiar with another Harvard economist Lawrence Kotlikoff who's "fairtax" analysis has been pretty much summarily dismissed as bad science by just about every noteable economist. If you had any famiiliarity with research in general, even Harvard economists are capable of bad theories and junk science. Maybe it's not, but I'd love to see how he tries to explain that drug related deaths and healthcare costs don't more than offset his little tax gain.
• gut

  dwccrew;788472 wrote:I think violent crime involves all drugs including marijuana. Especially down by the mexican border. If big money is to be made of an illegal substance, shady characters will do whatever they need to to maintain control of the sales and distribution of that substance.

  
  But if you look at a chart posted earlier, marijuana was illegal since like 1937 and there's no correlation with violent crimes. It wasn't until the influx of other drugs that the violent crimes started increasing in the 60's/70's. So either it's not true of marijuana, or there or other confounding factors at works here.
• gut

  O-Trap;788217 wrote:I'm genuinely curious, so please don't take this as an attack. You suggest that [drug] use is a "social ill." How is it any more or less a social ill than the use of anything else that can be addictive, such as caffeine?

  
  It's not a justification to invite more problems by making more harmful substances available. And where are all the dead bodies and social ills from caffeine? I mean, seriously?
  
  You legaliize just marijuana, and nothing substantial is going to change. You legalize everything, and you're making a trade-off inviting a whole host of other issues and praying there's a net benefit.
• Glory Days

  

  +1 gut.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  So gut are you saying that marijuana should be the only drug prohibition that could reasonably be lifted?
• O-Trap

  

  gut;788454 wrote:I don't disagree with that, but is this debate just about marijuana or all drugs? The violent crime people are using as an argument for legalization is not really related to marijuana, no?

  If you venture down to a state sharing a border with Mexico (such as the one I was born in - California), you come to realize that there is a LOT of violent crime surrounding marijuana.
  

  gut;788460 wrote:Again, I don't disagree. But when addiction starts infringing on the rights of others, then society has the right to take steps to protect their interests.

  
  I agree. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. However, I don't think that the "fist swinging" should be illegal.
  
  One's rights ought not be permitted to infringe on another's. However, drug "use" (not referring to addiction here), in and of itself, infringes on the rights of nobody. It is the actions that are either committed or neglected that infringe on the rights of others.
  
  Hence, it's the action that should be (and in most cases already is) illegal. If I smoke, shoot up, snort, or swallow a drug currently deemed illegal, but I do so in my own home, by myself, I have infringed on the rights of nobody. If I jump in my car and go for a drive, and I T-bone a vehicle, then I have. The infringement on someone else's rights, in this case, is not the result of drug use, but the operating of a vehicle while under the influence. Thus, the latter is what should be (and is) illegal, and not the former.
  

  gut;788460 wrote:And I suspect anyone who's had a family member struggle with addiction would strongly disagree with you. I'm not even sure whether someone should be able to kill themself through addiction or other means is a question of liberty

  
  I've had a relative and a few close friends who have either died, or have been hospitalized, because of drug or alcohol abuse. I currently have an uncle who is running from police because of actions he committed while high. Moreover, I live and volunteer in an area where drug use is incredibly prevalent (a shed used as a meth lab on the property behind my home blew up about a year ago, for example). I have seen the effects, and I know the dangers. It's why even if they were legal, I would never use them.
  
  However, my own anecdotes and emotions should not play into my belief on what should be permitted.
  

  gut;788460 wrote:As for use rising with legalization, I guarantee it, and there's no reason to think it won't be multiples of current use.

  
  I would disagree. Given the prevalence of drug use currently, and the ineffectiveness of the attempted enforcement of laws prohibiting use, it would seem that the only people who don't currently use, but who would if drugs were made legal, would be the people whose sole reason for not using is the legality of it. I sincerely doubt that would be such a large percentage of people.
  
  In this respect, I would probably compare it to speeding. There are a LOT of people who drive dangerously above the speed limit, because the odds of being nailed for speeding are small. There are others who would never do so, because it increases the danger of driving. Still, there are others whose only reason for not going above the speed limit would be the legality of it. These people would likely speed if the speed limit were done away, but I daresay this percentage of drivers is likely very small.
  

  gut;788460 wrote:Again, look at how many more users there are of tobacco and alcohol. You also mention marijuana has gained mainstream social acceptance. I don't think you're fully grasping the impact on both the stigma and ease of purchasing through increased availability will do to usage.

  
  "How many more" users would be difficult to quantify in today's time, because we don't have a modern comparison. Additionally, we've gone through ages where such things were social statuses, which likely contributed to usage FAR MORE than merely the legalization.
  
  Moreover, those eras which saw smoking and drinking as social statuses took place during a time when the dangers of such activities were hardly known. We don't have that issue today with drugs. IF that was the case, I would agree with you that usage would likely spike far more, but it's NOT the case.
  

  gut;788460 wrote:You're also ignoring the fact that many drugs don't come with the same dehibilitating effects as tobacco and alcohol (hangovers), meaning you're likely to see a lot of people trial and switch to other drugs - I can't speak from experience but I don't think one needs to "recover" from a cocaine or painkiller high. Alongside alcohol, many of these drugs are going to be more attractive.

  However, again, we also have knowledge of the dangers of such use. You may not have a hangover from cocaine, but we have been educated on the long-term effects of regular use of cocaine.
  

  gut;788495 wrote:It's not a justification to invite more problems by making more harmful substances available.

  
  My contention is that a substance shouldn't need a justification for being legalized. Rather, a substance should need a justification (one that is in line with concept of individual rights) in order to be ILLEGAL. As such, I see no reason to make drug use, in and of itself, illegal, as use of drugs ... any drugs really ... does not necessarily perpetuate an infringement on the rights of anyone else.
  

  gut;788495 wrote:And where are all the dead bodies and social ills from caffeine? I mean, seriously?

  
  The example of caffeine is that it is a social ill, not that it is a common killer of its users (though it has killed its users on occasion).
  
  People become addicted very easily. It has pretty nasty withdrawal symptoms if you're addicted to it (I've recently had to quit coffee because of an allergy, and I was drinking a pot a day). Naturally, it does present a beneficial side effect similar to many illegal drugs (it's an "upper"). One of its most common consumptions is considered the leading cause of vehicular accidents of anything being ingested (coffee).
  
  Caffeine intoxication has been known to cause the shakes, nervousness, a false sense of euphoria, insomnia, GI problems, irritability, and irregular or rapid heart rate.
  
  You can actually overdose on it, which can indeed cause death, and has on occasion (more through the ingestion of caffeine pills, but also in occasional cases of excessive consumption of drinks high in caffeine).
  
  To me, those things do make it sound very much like a drug, and CERTAINLY a social ill.
  

  gut;788495 wrote:You legaliize just marijuana, and nothing substantial is going to change. You legalize everything, and you're making a trade-off inviting a whole host of other issues and praying there's a net benefit.

  The "net benefits" are not even the crux of the argument to me. The primary reason I think it should be legalized is that it can be used without infringing on the rights of others. As such, it is not what should be illegal.
• Mulva

  

  An international commission has (shockingly) declared the war on drugs a failure, and recommended experimentation of the legalization of marijuana, alternative options to criminal prosecution for recreational users/small-time dealers who aren't involved in organized crime, and several other completely logical measures. Probably nothing will come out of it, but at least some high level people seem to get it.
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110602/wl_nm/us_drugs_commission
• gut

  O-Trap;788622 wrote: You can actually overdose on it, which can indeed cause death, and has on occasion (more through the ingestion of caffeine pills, but also in occasional cases of excessive consumption of drinks high in caffeine).
  
  To me, those things do make it sound very much like a drug, and CERTAINLY a social ill.
  
  Caffeine is a social ill? You really are pushing that. Addiction in and of itself is not a social ill, it's the negative effects that TYPICALLY come with addiction - crime, illness, etc... Again, where is that with caffeine? Where is the harm to society from caffeine? It's intellectually dishonest to even try to pass that off as a relevant counterpoint.
  
  The "net benefits" are not even the crux of the argument to me. The primary reason I think it should be legalized is that it can be used without infringing on the rights of others. As such, it is not what should be illegal.

  It can be used without infringing on the rights of others, but we KNOW many will not. This is the problem of social ills - there has to be a balance between those who use responsibly and the impacts of those who will not. No one starts using with the intention of getting addicted. I disagree, reallly, that you have the right to take a gamble - an unnecessary one at that - where if you lose so do many other people.
  
  It's an extreme example, but you realize if everyone finds a drug to get addicted to it's beyond disastrous. And you're arguing to increase the opportunities for addiction, and I think that is grossly irresponsible. Nor do I by that people are going to ignore it because they've been educated. You know damn well people don't think like that, they don't think they are going to suffer from trying it once or get addicted from doing it a few times. And the more people they see try it and not get addicted, the more likely they will be to try it. People know the dangers of alcohol and tobacco and yet still consume them. I don't know how you can make a rational argument that increased supply/availability isn't going to increase usage. People just don't wake-up one day and decide "hmmm, I really want to try coke" and then go seek it out in a risky side of town and risk being arrested. Completely different ballgame when they walk past a coffee shop or see it on the store shelf and think "yeah, why not give it a try".
  
  And, no, I don't favor legalizing marijuana because I don't really see the point. I cannot support legalizing all drugs, well I guess I'm indifferent with marijuana not seeing any great benefit or risk. Certainly I can support decriminalizing at least marijuana.
• gut

  O-Trap;788622 wrote:The "net benefits" are not even the crux of the argument to me. The primary reason I think it should be legalized is that it can be used without infringing on the rights of others. As such, it is not what should be illegal.

  
  Do you oppose speed limits? People can drive safely at 150mph, so the responsible thing to do is eliminate speed limits, correct?