Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Hard Drugs Should be Legal, Is my Argument Correct?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ,,,
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    id disagree with legalising hard drugs ... i dont believe they serve any use in modern society, whilst i do sympathise with your view on personnal choice etc. i disagree with the point that they dont harm others, the effects hard drug addictions have on the users family and friends can be truly devastating in many ways, plus the effects certain drugs have on people can be eually horrific with many murders being attributed to people loosing control whilst under the influence of drugs.


    apparently theres some crack heads on TSR
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that drugs do negatively impact other people. They cause crimes due to addiction, antisocial behaviour due to intoxication and an increase in healthcare costs.

    I can't help but feel that even if this wasn't true, it would still be the place of a government to prevent what would be legal businesses from hooking 'customers' with potentially dangerous, addictive and ruinous products. Grown adults make bad choices, and it is the families of heroin addicts that pay the price.

    I can understand the idea that most drugs have fewer detrimental effects than alcohol, but the response to this should surely not be to legalize those drugs, but to question potential regulation of alcohol sales?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The only way it could ever become legal I suppose is if the public was educated and taught for example, that alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy etc. And that politicians became a lot more liberal, I can't see Tories ever even legalizing Cannabis! Personally, I am completely indifferent and don't really think about it. I've smoked cannabis and such, but mainly stick to alcohol and cigarettes. Cannabis has been shown to lower criminal rates when legalised though and can be taxed, so I'd probably say only cannabis because (i'm guessing?) its the most mainstream and popular drug out of illegal ones? It would be the most 'beneficial' to society I suppose.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    ...
    I think they should be decriminalized but stay illegal. The only reason why tobacco consumption has dropped is due to governmental intervention. Those who are caught selling harder drugs should face prison time though. And any evidence that most doctors or economist agree with you? If we have privatized healthcare and doctors made more money per patient then possibly they'd agree with you but considering how doctors seem to view those who harm themselves e.g. drunks/fatties/drug addicts not that favorably, I doubt they'd be for legalization. The users should receive medical help as opposed to face jail time. It doesn't have any favorable effects if legalized considering that it would lead to more people experimenting with it thus becoming frequent users considering it's addictive nature.

    I'm not seeing any real consequential argument in favor of hard drugs being legalized, only deontological argument. The whole south American thingy, it would simply lead to more either a) more south Americans being abused as evident by sweat shops (assuming it's legal here and illegal there) or b) if legal everywhere, more users. What good does that do? Hard drugs aren't something we want people using frequently, **** can seriously **** you up.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    id disagree with legalising hard drugs ... i dont believe they serve any use in modern society, whilst i do sympathise with your view on personnal choice etc. i disagree with the point that they dont harm others, the effects hard drug addictions have on the users family and friends can be truly devastating in many ways, plus the effects certain drugs have on people can be eually horrific with many murders being attributed to people loosing control whilst under the influence of drugs.
    Right right, but If someone is looking for a hard drug they will get it, the legal status does not spring to mind, that persons family or friends are going to be affected regardless, if its legal, they'll buy it, if its illegal, they will buy it. My point it that if it was made legal the use would go down, according to past studies in the real world.

    And I would think that most murders attributed to drugs are due to that fact its a black market and criminals have a monopoly (or the government and CIA, in some cases) over the supply and market/sales.

    I would say the result of someone being violent on a notoriously violence enducing drug such as meth, is much less than alcohol, or even injury from misc occurances like cars crashes, slips, falls etc.

    And like I say, the violence directly relating to being high will fall as drug use will fall. And total violence will fall as the cartels will no longers exist, and the drug war (between police and criminals) aswell as inter-gang will fall.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeuralGroove)
    The problem is that drugs do negatively impact other people. They cause crimes due to addiction, antisocial behaviour due to intoxication and an increase in healthcare costs.

    I can't help but feel that even if this wasn't true, it would still be the place of a government to prevent what would be legal businesses from hooking 'customers' with potentially dangerous, addictive and ruinous products. Grown adults make bad choices, and it is the families of heroin addicts that pay the price.

    I can understand the idea that most drugs have fewer detrimental effects than alcohol, but the response to this should surely not be to legalize those drugs, but to question potential regulation of alcohol sales?
    I would rather more people smoke weed or take MDMA, LSD or DMT than drink alcohol, you can't do anything dangerous on those things haha.

    To tackle your first point, what crimes due to addiction? If the supplier is no longer the criminal, and the supplier is a chemist, hospital or the market, then these people can flat out deny the sale of drugs to you, or be told to do so by watchdogs and such.

    And businesses would not be trying to hook up people to their drugs. Do they do so in portugal? Or Pre-2000's Holland?

    Drug use always falls.

    The point I try to make is that the war on drugs is harmful to more people, and harmful to the whole population, as opposed to drug legalisation which only affects the user and very VERY few people around them.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matt :))
    The only way it could ever become legal I suppose is if the public was educated and taught for example, that alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy etc. And that politicians became a lot more liberal, I can't see Tories ever even legalizing Cannabis! Personally, I am completely indifferent and don't really think about it. I've smoked cannabis and such, but mainly stick to alcohol and cigarettes. Cannabis has been shown to lower criminal rates when legalised though and can be taxed, so I'd probably say only cannabis because (i'm guessing?) its the most mainstream and popular drug out of illegal ones? It would be the most 'beneficial' to society I suppose.
    Hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, DMT, Mescaline and MDMA are less harmful to the body and are the least addivtive or all drugs, incliding alcohol and nocotine, infact, a fair few more or the Class A narcotics (hallucinogenics are not narcotics) are less harmful (but more addictive) than alcohol.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Arguing from a merely practical viewpoint. All drugs should be legal. Because if they're legal the are much much much easier to control. It is much easier to stop businesses hooking people. It stops people being killed by drug lords.

    Overall. It would be a much better situation.

    Plus. The tax revenues that the government would make off drugs would balance out the costs incurred on the NHS. Drugs in the UK along is a multibillion pound industry. And if the government were to charge duty and VAT on them. Well that's a lot of revenue.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    I think they should be decriminalized but stay illegal. The only reason why tobacco consumption has dropped is due to governmental intervention. Those who are caught selling harder drugs should face prison time though. And any evidence that most doctors or economist agree with you? If we have privatized healthcare and doctors made more money per patient then possibly they'd agree with you but considering how doctors seem to view those who harm themselves e.g. drunks/fatties/drug addicts not that favorably, I doubt they'd be for legalization. The users should receive medical help as opposed to face jail time. It doesn't have any favorable effects if legalized considering that it would lead to more people experimenting with it thus becoming frequent users considering it's addictive nature.

    I'm not seeing any real consequential argument in favor of hard drugs being legalized, only deontological argument. The whole south American thingy, it would simply lead to more either a) more south Americans being abused as evident by sweat shops (assuming it's legal here and illegal there) or b) if legal everywhere, more users. What good does that do? Hard drugs aren't something we want people using frequently, **** can seriously **** you up.
    Under legalisation, there won't be (many) dealers to sell hard drugs to go to prison, since its not a crime anymore, the only way they could go to prison is if they don't meet governmental laws, liscences etc etc to sell them, think of it like you can't sel tobacco or use a food vender without a council permit. Under prohibition, the tricky thing is, because the dealer is a criminal and is probably involved in other illegal markets, you don't know if the dealer you are throwing in jail is just a normal guy slinging some meth he made in his shed or a guy connected with the arms trade funding mafioso groups who partake in extortion, racketeering, murder, fund worldwide 'terrorist' organisations etc etc..

    The deontogical argument is evident in portugal, and though not in the hard drug area, that prohibition leads to higher use, and legalisation leads to lower use (20's america) and that black markets ALWAYS arise when there is demand for these products and there we encouter REAL crime.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Under legalisation, there won't be (many) dealers to sell hard drugs to go to prison, since its not a crime anymore, the only way they could go to prison is if they don't meet governmental laws, liscences etc etc to sell them, think of it like you can't sel tobacco or use a food vender without a council permit. Under prohibition, the tricky thing is, because the dealer is a criminal and is probably involved in other illegal markets, you don't know if the dealer you are throwing in jail is just a normal guy slinging some meth he made in his shed or a guy connected with the arms trade funding mafioso groups who partake in extortion, racketeering, murder, fund worldwide 'terrorist' organisations etc etc..

    The deontogical argument is evident in portugal, and though not in the hard drug area, that prohibition leads to higher use, and legalisation leads to lower use (20's america) and that black markets ALWAYS arise when there is demand for these products and there we encouter REAL crime.
    Under a free market, this could work. But, under our current system where we have a socialized healthcare system and welfare system, it would just be hell. It would be a rampant problem in the underclass/working class.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Arguing from a merely practical viewpoint. All drugs should be legal. Because if they're legal the are much much much easier to control. It is much easier to stop businesses hooking people. It stops people being killed by drug lords.

    Overall. It would be a much better situation.
    Businesses aren't hooking people upto hard drugs now, (varying degrees of) criminals are. Under legalisation, I suppose you favour the state handling it, which is fine, better than what we have now.

    As a libertarian, I would not trust the state with drugs, like most things, the market would be much more efficient and safety and quality would rise dramatically, a monopoly is too lazy and cannot achieve these things because of its centralised nature. Though that's an economics argument.

    People who assume, under no state interference, businesses would sell you something different than what the label says, the classic one from the statists is that "they would put bleach in lemonade bottles OMG". Well no, no-one would buy their products and they would lose revenue and compeition would kill them. Its the same with drugs, the highest and safest quality would be the most desirable, business would not sell you rat poisen disguised as LSD beacuse they would go straight out of business.

    see?
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Under a free market, this could work. But, under our current system where we have a socialized healthcare system and welfare system, it would just be hell. It would be a rampant problem in the underclass/working class.
    Wow another fan of the free market, there aren't many of us left (no pun) on TSR, are there? haha. Erm I'll take an extract of what I said to someone else about the state vs business for legalised drugs

    "As a libertarian, I would not trust the state with drugs, like most things, the market would be much more efficient and safety and quality would rise dramatically, a monopoly is too lazy and cannot achieve these things because of its centralised nature. Though that's an economics argument.

    People who assume, under no state interference, businesses would sell you something different than what the label says, the classic one from the statists is that "they would put bleach in lemonade bottles OMG". Well no, no-one would buy their products and they would lose revenue and compeition would kill them. Its the same with drugs, the highest and safest quality would be the most desirable, business would not sell you rat poisen disguised as LSD beacuse they would go straight out of business."
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A lot of harder drugs are easy enough to find anyway. I don't see the point in legalising them to make them more available. A friend of mine who takes too many drugs, and taken all sorts of stuff, also has this opinion. The more readily available thing is, the more addiction, and the more likely you take more and more. I've taken recreationally some just for music here and there. Do I feel addicted? No. I feel just taking it as a hobby for certain music nights and stuff are good and all. But like with anything you pay the next day, and whilst you might have an awesome night you don't feel half like crap the next day usually. I like life to be quite level headed in a sense, and don't like so dramatic certain changes in feelings, hence i guess why i don't feel the addiction and the need to take them much at all.

    I just don't see the advantage (apart from that it would all be safe, tested and good quality stuff, removing the black market, perhaps.) it would bring to see legalisation of such drugs apart from many people not able to control themselves, and thus become addicted.

    One thing i do support is decriminalising and giving less harsh sentences on possession and drug related crime. I feel it's disproportionate some sentences you can get drug related and truly ridiculous.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Businesses aren't hooking people upto hard drugs now, (varying degrees of) criminals are. Under legalisation, I suppose you favour the state handling it, which is fine, better than what we have now.

    As a libertarian, I would not trust the state with drugs, like most things, the market would be much more efficient and safety and quality would rise dramatically, a monopoly is too lazy and cannot achieve these things because of its centralised nature. Though that's an economics argument.

    People who assume, under no state interference, businesses would sell you something different than what the label says, the classic one from the statists is that "they would put bleach in lemonade bottles OMG". Well no, no-one would buy their products and they would lose revenue and compeition would kill them. Its the same with drugs, the highest and safest quality would be the most desirable, business would not sell you rat poisen disguised as LSD beacuse they would go straight out of business.

    see?
    I see where you're coming from, but the issue is that the society we live in is such that the state has a significant amount of control. As such the legalisation of drugs would be followed with heavy state interference. I'm merely talking about the reality of what would happen.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Wow another fan of the free market, there aren't many of us left (no pun) on TSR, are there? haha. Erm I'll take an extract of what I said to someone else about the state vs business for legalised drugs

    "As a libertarian, I would not trust the state with drugs, like most things, the market would be much more efficient and safety and quality would rise dramatically, a monopoly is too lazy and cannot achieve these things because of its centralised nature. Though that's an economics argument.

    People who assume, under no state interference, businesses would sell you something different than what the label says, the classic one from the statists is that "they would put bleach in lemonade bottles OMG". Well no, no-one would buy their products and they would lose revenue and compeition would kill them. Its the same with drugs, the highest and safest quality would be the most desirable, business would not sell you rat poisen disguised as LSD beacuse they would go straight out of business."
    Nah, not a fan of the free markets (I am not but laissez faire free). I'm a centrist but I recognize that free markets and communist can be right at times in their approach to certain problems. The problem I can see arising is more robberies considering it would most likely be the poor that become addicted to harder drugs and stay on them and eventually money will run out hence will start robbing people the same way modern day druggies do. The underclass will be really ****ed over.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No. Just No.

    Why make any easier for people to get hold of extremely dangerous drugs.
    Drugs don't harm anyone but the user? Are you joking? What about the families, the communities, the NHS, the hard drugs gangs> Not gangs'tas that think they are gangs, but the actual, hard, mafia type gangs that run towns and kill endless amounts of people for the drugs?

    Just No.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't try heroin just because it was legal, i'm fully aware that it'd **** me up! So i guess i agree with your argument.

    So many people are killed over the dealing and trafficking of drugs, if all drugs were readily available it'd kill the dodgy, unsafe drug dealing trade all together, or at least the majority.
    There could no doubt be some kind of system where people couldn't get hold of stupid amounts all at once? i'm sure many many people would choose to buy it safely and legally, but in moderation, over deal with criminals. Not everybody sure, but a lot of people, the people now that don't buy stupid amounts.
    I'm not saying illegal drug-dealing would be eradicated, because there probably would be people who would want more than they're allowed, but hey i'm just throwing my idea out! it's not my job to decide whether to put it into action! haha

    Edit: this is just an idea, i'm not really sure what my opinion is on the whole thing, i question whether i'd have the balls to put a plan like this into action if i was the one in control haha
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by buchanan700)
    No. Just No.

    the hard drugs gangs> Not gangs'tas that think they are gangs, but the actual, hard, mafia type gangs that run towns and kill endless amounts of people for the drugs?

    Just No.
    Not sure this supports your argument to keep them illegal?
    They're killing people over the drugs as you said, that's because they're in control of this whole illegal business, they're making money from it and kill people for messing with that.
    If drugs were readily available less people would be going to these types of people.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by buchanan700)
    No. Just No.

    Why make any easier for people to get hold of extremely dangerous drugs.
    It's already incredibly easy.

    (Original post by buchanan700)
    Drugs don't harm anyone but the user? Are you joking? What about the families, the communities, the NHS, the hard drugs gangs> Not gangs'tas that think they are gangs, but the actual, hard, mafia type gangs that run towns and kill endless amounts of people for the drugs?

    Just No.
    Families - No debating that drugs can tear apart families, but if they were legal (at least in theory) it'd be far easier to get help for users and their family.
    Communities - They can be torn apart too, but under legalisation the evidence from Portugal (although drugs are only decriminalised there) only suggests that drugs use would increase slightly, if at all.
    NHS - Massive taxes could be put on drugs and they'd still be cheaper than they are now. Assuming the amount of users doesn't increase too much (once again, evidence suggests they wouldn't), the NHS would, if anything, be helped by legalisation. Not to mention, one of the biggest problems with any black market drugs is the incredibly inconsistent drug content in what's sold (most overdoses come from people not knowing the strength of the drug). There was an outbreak of Anthrax poisoning fairly recently from contaminated heroin, that's far less likely to occur with a regulated market.
    Gangs - Legalising it would at thevery least make life far much more difficult for them. There'd be less money in being a gang member, so gang membership would probably decrease.


    If anything, sir, you've just listed some reasons for legalisation, not against it.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 22, 2012
New on TSR

Naughtiest thing you did at school

Did you get away with it or were you punished?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.