Should drugs be made Legal Like? - Page 4

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Why not share my position paper from my Social Ethics class. It's very long but it hits all points and counterpoints.

The 'drug problem' is a major issue of debate in the United States. Every year millions of dollars are invested in fighting a 'war on drugs'. For many years law enforcement officials and other affiliates have diligently worked to end illegal trade of drugs and stop the use and sale of prohibited substances. Despite the significant investment of monetary and human resources, drugs are still a 'problem' and critical concern for the country. Illegal drug trade is still prevalent with drug cartels continuing their business despite significant setbacks. Drug abuse and addiction rates keep increasing every day. The number of recreational drugs and illegal compounds being concocted has increased over the years with new party drugs surfacing all the time. At the same time children and adults alike are turning to abusing legal prescription medications, and getting into the cycle of addiction through their bathroom cabinet.

All these known and evident fact make it clear that the battle against drugs is not successful. We have not managed to stop, limit, curb or control drug trade or abuse in any significant manner. In fact it seems that the drug problem has increased and the breadth of abused substances is not just limited to illegal drugs but legal pharmaceutical drugs and other legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol as well. Since, current policy is proving to be a failure; it is clear that we need a different approach to the 'drug problem'.

One option is definitely adopting closer to a 'zero tolerance' policy and establishing stricter, stringent control and laws and perhaps even making some currently legal substances illegal. This view is extreme and impractical. It will exhaust and consume more resources and meet with strong resistance. The other option is to adopt the liberal policy of legalizing all drugs. While this view is quite controversial, I believe such a drug policy will be more viable and a better alternative to society. We can also achieve a liberal drug policy without sweeping and alarming changes. This can be done by a gradual and controlled shift slowly introducing illegal drugs in the market with control and regulation.

A key social benefit of such a 'drug policy' would be its effect on the illegal drug trade. With many prohibited substances being legal, legitimate pharmaceutical companies would be allowed to manufacture/import these substances and sell them. The result would be that there would be no need for illegal traffickers and drug cartels to procure, transport and sell drugs. It would be able to prevent the violent crimes and various illegal activities that are a result of the underground drug trade. Underprivileged kids will no longer be tempted to traffic drugs with the temptation to make profits from selling drugs. A whole new legitimate and regulated drug industry could transfer many risky and underprivileged jobs to a safe and legal environment.

Another result of a liberal 'drug policy' is the savings resulting from it. The government will no longer need to invest large sums of money in narcotics divisions. Large amount of personnel will be freed from regulatory and law enforcement fields of the war on drugs. We can utilize these savings in human resources as well as monetary income to invest in other aspects of our government and society that need these resources. We can also use these available resources to create a comprehensive drug education system that educates people about all drugs including current pharmaceutical drugs equipping people with realistic and practical knowledge about drugs. A better understanding of drugs and guidance in usage will prevent people from abusing pharmaceutical and other drugs.

One of the biggest benefits of regulated pharmaceutical drugs is regulation. Drugs are prescribed in required dosages. Sterile equipment is available for any drugs that require intravenous administration. The composition of the drug is known and it is tested to be safe and free of contaminants or toxic compounds. Pharmacists guide people on how to use drugs, teach people what side effects to watch for and when to consult a doctor. Drugs are divided into over the counter and prescription strengths.

On the other hand illegal drugs have no information infrastructure or regulation. People using illegal drugs will often use unsterile equipment and expose themselves to HIV and other contagious viruses and illnesses. The composition and quality is unknown and many people end up taking contaminated drugs that result in fatalities. Potency and recommended dosages are unknown and accidental overdose is a common cause of death. Since the drugs are illegal people are not truly informed of effects and side effects, and do not watch for their health as they should. Due to fear of criminal charges and arrests many will avoid visiting doctors or seeking help when they experience side effects.

With the legalization of drugs, drug users will receive the benefits of regulation, quality control and most importantly information. Drug abuse, overdoses, unhealthy practices, ignorant deaths and fatalities could be prevented by providing people with sterile equipment, safe drugs and knowledge about the drugs. People will no longer fear seeking medical help if anything goes wrong and society will benefit from a safer secure drug use environment.

Of course such a drug policy has been unheard of in the United States and will receive strong criticism. Many deterrents of legalizing drugs will present several counter arguments against legalizing drugs like marijuana, cocaine etc.

One key argument made against such a policy is that these drugs are harmful. They can be severely damaging to people's health and cause drastic side effects. First and foremost in a society founded on individual liberty, people have the right to make decisions on their own health. We allow respect people's rights to refuse medication, resort to spiritual healing even when it may harm them; because we believe in individual rights and liberty. Similarly people should have the right to choose when it comes to drugs. Secondly, we already allow drugs that are more dangerous than the ones made illegal. Tobacco has drastic long term effects like lung collapses, lung and mouth cancer, respiratory disorders compared to marijuana and similar drugs that have lesser long term harm effects. Also we cannot protect people from everything that may harm them. Obesity is becoming a growing problem with heart diseases and other side effects severely harming people and sometimes being fatal. However, we would consider it extreme to ban fat. We believe in informing people about balanced diet to keep themselves healthy. A liberal drug policy actually provides people with information, medical, legal and social support to prevent misuse and harm whereas current policies leave people susceptible by cutting of such support.

Another argument is that allowing all drugs will make drugs accessible to everyone, resulting in more addiction across the board. Addiction consequently deteriorates society as people are unable to perform their social responsibilities and function as a connected member of society. However, the assumption that just because drugs are available people will use them and get addicted is a fallacious assumption. Using a drug, let alone getting addicted has more to do with individual and overall environment instead of just the availability.

Those who want to use drugs and abuse them will do so no matter what. The creation of new party drugs, abuse of prescription medications, inhalant abuse just shows that there will always be people willing to abuse substances legal or illegal. On the other hand many people, who have used illegal drugs, have been able to do so responsibly. They use drugs for years merely for the relief, pleasure or recreation it provides them and continue to succeed at school, report to work, build a career and have successful families. Similarly despite alcohol and tobacco being freely available many people refuse to use them for a variety of reasons. The key difference is the need to rely on drugs versus merely using them as a supplement in life.

Studies have shown that people who tend to abuse drugs usually suffer from depression, anxiety and other forms of mental disorders. People turn to drugs due to social confusion, rejection and often resort to substance abuse. They abuse drugs in order to feel better or be able to do better. People with a strong network of friends and family, people who encourage and support them in life are less likely to use or abuse drugs. Making drug inaccessible does not solve the core of the problem. It leaves the problem unsolved and lets people seek illegal avenues or find other negative means to resolve their problems. Instead of banning drugs the focus should be on forming healthy social structures and providing means of emotional support to people who may seek drugs due to social shortcomings.

One of the strongest arguments against drugs has been the harm principle. Drugs can be mood and personality altering, causing people to become abusive, violent and irresponsible towards people around them. People can cause severe injuries or death, by driving cars or operating machinery on a high, or drug trip. Hence, drugs should be illegal due to the harm it causes to innocents.

While the argument in favor of protecting people from harm due to drug users appears sound, rational and logical. However, it misses the key aspect of near and present danger. Just because drug usage may result in these problems, does not mean every instance of drug usage will cause these problems. It is unfair towards responsible drug users who may potentially never do something like that. Alcohol is a mood altering drug that also diminishes reflexes and body functions. While there are a lot of people who do drive drunk, or become abusive while drunk causing harm to others; most users of alcohol drink responsibly. People wanting to use drugs with similar effects deserve the opportunity to use them responsibly.

Legalizing drugs will also prevent many incidents of harm caused by drug use. Many people who use drugs are unaware of its potency and how it affects them. Alcohol is legal and has requirements. The labels state that one alcoholic beverage has 5% alcohol while another has 50%. People know what their tolerance levels are. With no labels or information to guide them people using illegal drugs have no idea of the potency level of what they are consuming. Sometimes they are misguided about the potency as well as the additives and other drugs that could be mixed in. The result is people not knowing what they are consuming and what their tolerance is. With legalization of drugs people will know exactly what drug they are consuming, what potency level it is and what their tolerance is.

In many ways we are actually adding accountability and responsibility to drug use. Because people will be warned about drugs, just like they are warned about effects of alcohol, tobacco or pharmaceutical drugs. People no longer will be able to blame misinformation or lack of knowledge for their indiscretions.

On the whole legalizing currently illegal drugs will benefit society in the long run. There maybe initial hiccups in transition and implementation. However, it is the most reasonable alternative to a failed drug prohibition policy. It also forces us to tackle the core issues actually plaguing society instead of using drugs as a scapegoat. Addiction, irresponsible behavior, etc. are not the result of drugs, but people and society. Anyone can be addicted to anything or behave in an irresponsible manner. The key is to prevent people from doing so in all walks of life.

What you're suggesting wasn't it tried already. Opium used to be legal. So was cocaine and heroin when they were first discovered (and continued to be so for many years after that). They were manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, sold through medical shops with proper instructions and yet these drugs were banned mostly because of their addictive and behaviour altering nature which many times puts life at risk (both of others as well as the user's). So, shouldn't we take note of that because after all if we don't learn from it what's the use of history?

What you said is partly true that in an environment where a person receives emotional support s/he is less likely to succumb to substance abuse. But then even in such environments drug abuse does take place.

About responsible users of recreational drugs, isn't it why it's banned in the first place, because once a person gets hooked s/he ceases to be responsible. Yes the same can be said about alcohol also, but such an utter dependence on alcohol is very rare, whereas it's quite common among drug users.

Moreover, even after clear instructions what's the guarantee that the person will take only the prescribed dose and won't go overboard? Even if the drug is sold in a dilute form where addiction is not a possible outcome, won't it pose a problem of other kind? Once the user gets tolerant to the diluted form and ceases to feel the same euphoria, won't he seek a stronger form, essentially meaning that he'll revert to the underground supply where potency and quantity is not regulated?

Another aspect is the crime induced by substance abuse. Drugs not only make them feel exuberant but also make them feel more brave often making them do something rash (read illegal or criminal activity). If the drug is made legal obviously more people will find that there's no problem with trying it and will do so. A higher no. of triers means higher users which in turn means a higher number of addicts. More addicts will obviously translate into more drug induced crimes. Combating those crimes will cost the state. Apart from that overseeing that the control measures put in place are strictly followed will also be going to cost money to the state. Add to that the fact that once it is made legal, the medical expenses because of drug abuse are also going to be a state responsibility (in countries where medical care is free). The costs incurred obviously will be recovered by adding taxes on sales of drugs. After adding these taxes plus any other normal taxes can the price of the drugs be kept too low? If it can't be kept low then that'll mean only the affluent people will be able to enjoy it. Now where does the poorer section go? They'll obviously either still buy the legal stuff however expensive it might be or they'll revert to cruder drugs from the back alleys with all kinds of impurities added in. Even if they decide to go the legal way for how long will they be able to sustain it with their limited income once they get addicted and craves for more? So, once his means to support his cravings in a legalised manner gets over, he'll either return to the cruder drugs or he'll commit some crime to get the money to carry on his 'legal' pastime.

If everything is taken care of, I've nothing against legalising drugs but the major question is can everything be taken care of? Can the pharmaceutical companies come up with a substance which even though induce similar exuberant feelings won't cause addiction? Can the govt. really take care of strict vigilance to ensure that the pharmacy owners and the users are not by passing the controls put into place? Even if the strictest vigil is put into place how can one ensure that the user won't use a concoction like snowball which might be fatal. Yes it's their personal choice but then don't we ban useful drugs (medicines) which can have fatal or debilitating side effects? Then why should we make an exception for this?

Having said all that, it was a really nice argument by you. It's very convincing.

Originally posted by: clodpolish

nice👏👏

will respond for sure later😊

Soumya => RTH => Soumya

What you're suggesting wasn't it tried already. Opium used to be legal. So was cocaine and heroin when they were first discovered (and continued to be so for many years after that). They were manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, sold through medical shops with proper instructions and yet these drugs were banned mostly because of their addictive and behaviour altering nature which many times puts life at risk (both of others as well as the user's). So, shouldn't we take note of that because after all if we don't learn from it what's the use of history?

Poppy extracts, Coca extracts and cannabis extracts are perhaps the three oldest drugs. They existed long before they were banned. In fact in many tribal communities the usage of these is still prevalent. Prohibition came less of concern over addiction and behavior. Opium was initially banned due to the opium wars and in this case this was due to systematically induced addiction, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Opium has been smoked in hookahs and used recreationally for centuries without many concerns. Cocaine was banned due to its association with prostitution and pimps. It was more of an outcome of the prohibition movement. If we indeed have to look at history I would look at recreational drug use from the dawn of time to now. It is only in the 1900's we start seeing a push for banning, which has consequently resulted in an underground drug market and designer drugs.

You're right that it was only in the 1900s that drugs started to get banned in most countries. And I agree that a major reason was their association with prostitutes, pimps and criminals (which is not entirely correct but not entirely false either). However, I feel one more aspect should also be considered. Until the 1850s, all the drugs that were used were natural products, like chewing or smoking tobacco leaves or coca leaves or cannabis flowers/ resin or opium. Since they were natural, the proportion of the narcotic substance used to be less, whereby reducing the chances of addiction. Also there were no cartels at that time trying to increase addiction so as to maximise sales. But since 1850, purer forms of drugs have started emerging which are much more potent because of the presence of absolute proportion of the narcotic substance. Add to this the rise of cartels which started dens to increase addiction and therefore more sales. Previously whatever recreational drugs were taken, used to be taken inside one's house or among a group of friends and there were no extremities involved like very high potency or administering intravenously.

Moreover, opium was not banned because of the Opium Wars. Opium Wars were fought because Chinese govt. wanted to ban opium. But once the British came out victorious, opium usage and addiction in China increased after those wars. British East India Company was a version of the present day drug cartel.

So, if seen overall, it's the emergence of cartels and highly potent drugs that led to bans and not the other way around.

What you said is partly true that in an environment where a person receives emotional support s/he is less likely to succumb to substance abuse. But then even in such environments drug abuse does take place.

About responsible users of recreational drugs, isn't it why it's banned in the first place, because once a person gets hooked s/he ceases to be responsible. Yes the same can be said about alcohol also, but such an utter dependence on alcohol is very rare, whereas it's quite common among drug users.

The irresponsibility of drug users is an image painted by conservatism. Call centers in the United States are notorious for having no drug or background testing. You see tons of junkies some even reeking of their substances come to work every day and perform just as well as other operators do. IMHO thats what gets them through the torture everyday. In fact one of my operators was going clean and was getting so cranky and annoyed with customers that he was a much better person doing his stuff. From personal obervation I can vouch that junkies can be completely responsible and accountable. I did not have absenteeism issues, quality issues - they were leading 100% normal lives.

But thats personal opinion and observation.

Personal opinion and observation is perfectly fine. Afterall, every study is the result of someone's personal observation. Even what I'm writing is only my opinion based on what I've read. But I'd like to know one thing. Were they working in a drugged state or were they taking drugs after work? Because if they were smoking joints or snorting cocaine then it's different but if they are doing depressants or hallucinogens then it can be difficult to work.

In 1928 Assistant Surgeon General of United States Thomas Kolb conducted a study through the Public health service on 119 persons addicted to opiates. 90 had good industrial and social records. At 76% that is not much less than the ordinary human average.

There are some substances like cannabis (moderate dosage) or cocaine which does not hamper productivity. Cocaine in fact can increase it (in turn producing an addict). However, what about the other types of drugs?

Moreover, even after clear instructions what's the guarantee that the person will take only the prescribed dose and won't go overboard? Even if the drug is sold in a dilute form where addiction is not a possible outcome, won't it pose a problem of other kind? Once the user gets tolerant to the diluted form and ceases to feel the same euphoria, won't he seek a stronger form, essentially meaning that he'll revert to the underground supply where potency and quantity is not regulated?

If drugs are OTC they would just increase dosage right. Its like drinking a bottle of cough syrup instead of the two spoonfuls.

I'm not sure I understood this part.

Besides for legal substances there is always a less restricted market. Even if they go to the underground supply eventually, it does cut out the influence and power of cartels.

I don't entirely agree with this. Yes the power of the cartel will drastically reduced initially. However, if people keep on returning to the underground supply in search of more potent drugs, the cartels would soon return to their full customer base and power.

Another aspect is the crime induced by substance abuse. Drugs not only make them feel exuberant but also make them feel more brave often making them do something rash (read illegal or criminal activity).

IMHO there is a big difference betwen feeling and acting. Just with alchohol most high people tend to resort to something silly like mooning or graffity, and few resort to violent acts like abuse etc and DUIs.

Agree with that. However, there do exist quite a substantial chance of harming oneself or others.

If the drug is made legal obviously more people will find that there's no problem with trying it and will do so. Higher no. of triers means higher users which in turn means a higher number of addicts.

Legality does not always mean trying, and trying does not mean addiction and addiction does not mean crimes.

If it becomes included in the popular culture, then surely the chances of trying increases. And trying does lead to addiction, although not in every case. And even though addiction does not necessarily means crime, but it can lead to it.

More addicts will obviously translate into more drug induced crimes.

But yes the proportion will increase.

Combating those crimes will cost the state. Apart from that overseeing that the control measures put in place are strictly followed will also be going to cost money to the state. Add to that the fact that once it is made legal, the medical expenses because of drug abuse are also going to be a state responsibility (in countries where medical care is free). The costs incurred obviously will be recovered by adding taxes on sales of drugs. After adding these taxes plus any other normal taxes can the price of the drugs be kept too low? If it can't be kept low then that'll mean only the affluent people will be able to enjoy it. Now where does the poorer section go? They'll obviously either still buy the legal stuff however expensive it might be or they'll revert to cruder drugs from the back alleys with all kinds of impurities added in. Even if they decide to go the legal way for how long will they be able to sustain it with their limited income once they get addicted and craves for more? So, once his means to support his cravings in a legalised manner gets over, he'll either return to the cruder drugs or he'll commit some crime to get the money to carry on his 'legal' pastime.

You raise excellent points here. However, I think the war on drugs is costing way more than it is worth. Let's not forget that the abusers and suppliers are not contributing a cent to this war on drugs. As far as I know rehab is funded by charities and not taxes in most countries, I could be wrong. Is it not better though to have the drug market contribute some tax money? Also if a drug is on the Wal-mart shelf, people will shoplift, if not pharmaceutical workers will start backdoor stoors like the Taiwanese who sell 2 GIG RAMS on ebay for dirt cheap. And even if they resort to crimes. Mugging and stealing and even occasional death is better than the mass destruction caused by cartels.

Yes at present there are charitable organisations running drug rehab centres, but I'm talking about if drugs are made legal then the expenses of running these rehab centres will become a govt. responsibility.

And as far as mass destruction is concerned, gang wars between drug lords rarely affect common people apart from a few areas where they're extremely powerful. The most prominent effect is through spreading addiction in the population, which IMO will remain same even if drugs are legalised.

If everything is taken care of, I've nothing against legalising drugs but the major question is can everything be taken care of? Can the pharmaceutical companies come up with a substance which even though induce similar exuberant feelings won't cause addiction? Can the govt. really take care of strict vigilance to ensure that the pharmacy owners and the users are not by passing the controls put into place? Even if the strictest vigil is put into place how can one ensure that the user won't use a concoction like snowball which might be fatal. Yes it's their personal choice but then don't we ban useful drugs (medicines) which can have fatal or debilitating side effects? Then why should we make an exception for this?

Isn't some form of control better than none. Drug dealers have no control measures at all. I think with medical drugs they are banned because they cause immediately fatal side effects. While opium and cocaine have long term side effects.

Yes some control is good and that is what Narcotics department are usually doing. Trying to control drugs from producing more addicts, though in a completely different way than what you're suggesting. It might be possible that your suggestion can also work, afterall there's more than one way to achieve something.

And I was talking about lethal concoction, which can be fatal and not about the long term effects (though long term effects can't be ignored either).

Having said all that, it was a really nice argument by you. It's very convincing.

Thanks! You to raise many relevant points. For me this was a school assignment, that I have just chosen to stick to. Otheriwse, I'm mostly ambivalent.

However, I do think that we can allow marijuana, coca teas and other milder forms of drugs as they were used in ancient times. But I could care less if they dont. Sometimes laws can be just silly how USA bans absinthe and most states ban Everclear.

I agree with this part. Apart from marijuana and coca teas, I'd like to add coca wine, charas (hashish) and opium to the list. If they can be legalised but controlled that'll be good. However, I'm completely against legalising derivatives like morphine, heroin, cocaine etc. As for synthetic drugs, like LSD or ecstacy, most are not that addictive, but it'll take a very strict vigilance system to ensure that people don't overdose so as not to pose a threat to oneself (considering that usually these drugs don't induce aggressive behaviour and only causes hallucinations).

Originally posted by: angie.4u

Nice looong arguments ! Sounds convincing too !

But I m still trying to understand why ppl want to indulge in drugs in the first place. If it is due to stress or depression then it wud B better to work towards improving our social conditions so that ppl dont have to depend on drugs for solace. In the rat race of our high tech material world we have only succeeded in bringing more misery upon ourselves . The problem is even if we win the rat race we wud still B rats !

All it takes is a kind word or two, a few moments of our time or just a smile to make a person feel better ! There wud b no need to resort to drugs for getting a high or to get through the daily chores. It feels sad to B discussing about legalising or not legalising drugs rather than adressing the need for drugs

Just my personal feelings , didnt mean to offend anyone.

Originally posted by: angie.4u

Nice looong arguments ! Sounds convincing too !

But I m still trying to understand why ppl want to indulge in drugs in the first place. If it is due to stress or depression then it wud B better to work towards improving our social conditions so that ppl dont have to depend on drugs for solace. In the rat race of our high tech material world we have only succeeded in bringing more misery upon ourselves . The problem is even if we win the rat race we wud still B rats !

All it takes is a kind word or two, a few moments of our time or just a smile to make a person feel better ! There wud b no need to resort to drugs for getting a high or to get through the daily chores. It feels sad to B discussing about legalising or not legalising drugs rather than adressing the need for drugs

Just my personal feelings , didnt mean to offend anyone.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

As Souro touched on it, not all drug usage is for abuse or for addiction. Addiction and abuse are results of misuse of drugs and give drugs a bad name. Basically drug is just a compound that that when ingested changes certain bodily functions. Drugs can be used to increase alertness, increase energy, relieve pain, relax and calm a person, alleviate moods. Some are natural, some are man made. Some are addictive, some are not. Some are safe, some have harmful side effects. Some are legal some or not, and the subject matter here is if some of the illegal drugs really deserve to be illegal.

Some like opium, marijuana, hashish, coca extracts have been used for centuries with no ill effects. Many people today still continue to use some illicit substances responsibly. Yes drug addiction and abuse probably need to be addressed. However, certain recreational usage does not need to be questioned - and thats where the entire debate over sensible drug policy arises.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

As Souro touched on it, not all drug usage is for abuse or for addiction. Addiction and abuse are results of misuse of drugs and give drugs a bad name. Basically drug is just a compound that that when ingested changes certain bodily functions. Drugs can be used to increase alertness, increase energy, relieve pain, relax and calm a person, alleviate moods. Some are natural, some are man made. Some are addictive, some are not. Some are safe, some have harmful side effects. Some are legal some or not, and the subject matter here is if some of the illegal drugs really deserve to be illegal.

Some like opium, marijuana, hashish, coca extracts have been used for centuries with no ill effects. Many people today still continue to use some illicit substances responsibly. Yes drug addiction and abuse probably need to be addressed. However, certain recreational usage does not need to be questioned - and thats where the entire debate over sensible drug policy arises.

As for responsible use of illicit drugs - Its self contradictory. They R supposed to B responsible & yet continue to use something that is not essential even though it is illegal !!!

As for drug addiction & abuse Of course it needs to B adressed ! Theres no probably about that

Drugs for recreation ....Hmmmm ...being used now inspite of being illegal suggests its addictive nature to me. Which responsible citizen wud invest so heavily in terms of money & risk just for some nice harmless recreation ??? Some drugs may not cause physical dependence or withdrawal symptoms but it causes psychological dependence & slowly the person needs to take larger & larger dose at frequent intervals to achieve the state of euphoria.

I m still not convinced regarding the need for these recreational drugs in the first place ! Actually as per medical ethics any drug even if prescribed should B done only if its benefit outweigh its side effects.