Legalize Drugs: a thought. - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

emptypepsi · #16 (**permalink**) 04-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

The fact that we pay for it now is perhaps something that should be looked in to all by itself.

Linking it with legalization seems fairly natural, especially since legalizing all drugs will almost certainly increase usage and therefore (at least in the short term) drug-related health problems.

Agreed. I find it funny that marijuana is illegal yet I hear these studies about kids absuing over the counter medicines. We either ban it all or make it all legal. I prefer the latter, as well as making it all the responsibility of the user.

emptypepsi · #17 (**permalink**) 04-15-2007

Tim, you have a good point in doing away with prescription laws as well. I never thought of that.

Eisbrecher · #18 (**permalink**) 04-15-2007

Quote:

Except there is no such thing as a "free market" and our experiment over the last 100 years or so pretty much proves you cannot make a profit insuring the poor and the sick.

I think, that history proves, that the free market is much better than the solution by governmernt bureaucracy.
I can see this in germany, were the private-insurances are more effective than the state-run insurances.

If you fear, that the poor can`t afford an isurance, then there is also a solution, which didn`t hurt the market: Give them a fixed amout of money to spend in private insurances.

timj219 · #19 (**permalink**) 04-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisbrecher

I think, that history proves, that the free market is much better than the solution by governmernt bureaucracy.
I can see this in germany, were the private-insurances are more effective than the state-run insurances.

If you fear, that the poor can`t afford an isurance, then there is also a solution, which didn`t hurt the market: Give them a fixed amout of money to spend in private insurances.

Except that there is no such thing as a "free" market and there never has been so it's difficult to see how it could be better than some other solution.

If you use tax revenue to buy private insurance for poor people then that is not a market solution is it? In fact it combines the worst of both worlds since it involves government inefficiency, allows private insurance companies to skim some of that tax revenue which would otherwise buy better care, and it opens the door for the another layer of the corruption that accompanies every expenditure of tax funds in the private sector.

partofme · #20 (**permalink**) 04-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisbrecher

I think, that history proves, that the free market is much better than the solution by governmernt bureaucracy.
I can see this in germany, were the private-insurances are more effective than the state-run insurances.

If you fear, that the poor can`t afford an isurance, then there is also a solution, which didn`t hurt the market: Give them a fixed amout of money to spend in private insurances.

In many cases but not all. The free market could not have solved our problems during WWII. I think that it is foolish dogma to think that either government or markets are all good or all bad at anything. It all depends on each situation.

Dilettante · #21 (**permalink**) 04-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

Drug addiction (which is the predicate for most drug abuse related health issues) is a problem in a relatively constant percentage of the population. The only change will be in the particular drugs being abused - not the number of abusers.

I'm unsure of the validity of these statements. Are there any figures on this?
Drug addiction has afflictied a constant percentage over what time frame?
Legal drugs or illegal?

I find it difficult to believe that the expense, difficulty and risk involved in obtaining a steady supply of illegal drugs has no (or almost no) affect on the number of users/addicts.
I find it difficult to believe that a greater number of highschoolers/college kids would not sample cocaine if there were no law against selling it (or giving out free samples) on the street.

timj219 · #22 (**permalink**) 04-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I'm unsure of the validity of these statements. Are there any figures on this?
Drug addiction has afflictied a constant percentage over what time frame?
Legal drugs or illegal?

I find it difficult to believe that the expense, difficulty and risk involved in obtaining a steady supply of illegal drugs has no (or almost no) affect on the number of users/addicts.
I find it difficult to believe that a greater number of highschoolers/college kids would not sample cocaine if there were no law against selling it (or giving out free samples) on the street.

Yes there are figures on this. I've linked them before and I'll see if I can dig them up again but the bottom line is that addiction has biological (addiction has been observed in other animals) and cultural causes. The set of drugs which happens to be illegal at any given time is irrelevant to the numbers.

The "expense, difficulty and risk" do have an effect. Those factors channel most drug addicts to the legal drugs. When drug addiction was first viewed as a serious problem in this country it was alcohol that was viewed as the main culprit - even though other drugs like marijuana, opium, and cocaine were legal at the time.

For children, illegal drugs are easier to obtain than alcohol is. That was true for me and my friends when I was a teenager and my children tell me it's still true today.

mpd8488 · #23 (**permalink**) 04-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I'm unsure of the validity of these statements. Are there any figures on this?
Drug addiction has afflictied a constant percentage over what time frame?
Legal drugs or illegal?

I find it difficult to believe that the expense, difficulty and risk involved in obtaining a steady supply of illegal drugs has no (or almost no) affect on the number of users/addicts.
I find it difficult to believe that a greater number of highschoolers/college kids would not sample cocaine if there were no law against selling it (or giving out free samples) on the street.

It is not at all difficult for kids to obtain drugs if they want them, even cocaine. I would venture to guess that obtaining weed is probably a single phone call away for most teens, and harder drugs would be only a couple of phone calls away. There are also countless legal substances such as salvia and prescription drugs that can produce just about any kind of high one desires, yet the illegal drugs are still prevalent. Part of it is the fact that it is illegal. Teens love to rebel and show that they can make their own decisions that go against society's rules and still be happy and productive.

Beer · #24 (**permalink**) 04-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

I favor legalization. But, I do have a qualm about it and as far as I am concerned, this is the only thing I'm waiting on hearing the pro-legalization side make a provision on. As soon as that becomes agreed upon, I'm good to go with it. It is your body to do whatever you want with, which is why I'M not going to pay for it. If someone ingests drugs into their body and damages their lungs, liver, and brain -- how the hell am I supposed to honestly support footing the bill? People do a have freedom to these things. However, it is also their responsibility -- You want to smoke and drink yourself to shit? You can sit in it.

I agree with you. Why should you have to pay for someone else's unhealthy lifestyle? You shouldnt have to.

Just like the Telephone company passing regulation charges (911 fees, etc), so too would pharmacies/drug stores in making prices.

I would not be opposed to some kind of licensing an individual must maintain to buy drugs. This licensing would be a cost reflecting the industry costs for health services.

Theres many ways to handle this, I guess. Any suggestions?

timj219 · #25 (**permalink**) 04-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beer

I agree with you. Why should you have to pay for someone else's unhealthy lifestyle? You shouldnt have to.

Just like the Telephone company passing regulation charges (911 fees, etc), so too would pharmacies/drug stores in making prices.

I would not be opposed to some kind of licensing an individual must maintain to buy drugs. This licensing would be a cost reflecting the industry costs for health services.

Theres many ways to handle this, I guess. Any suggestions?

I think we can take it for granted that any legalization would involve a heavy dose of "sin" taxes just like booze and tobacco. The trick would be keeping the polticians from glomming onto that money and using it to make themselves popular at election time instead of dedicating it to defraying public expenses from drug addiction.

T.F.B.M · #26 (**permalink**) 04-16-2007

I forgot something about this topic: democratic people love to invent new concepts.

One is happy addiction. Addiction so far was characterized as a pain, a mental suffering but with democratic people want happy pain, happy mental suffering.

Steve · #27 (**permalink**) 04-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.F.B.M

Funny democratic people.

Not only democracy is the regime that has done best for drugs, but they now want to make drugs legal. Probably as a cheap way of explaining any misfunctionings in their democratic societies.

The most interesting bit would be to see what line democratic people will draw.
Will they opt for legalization of any kind of drugs, including drugs that are not still invented or will they sink in a regulation mode a la democratic gun trading?

The second alternative would definitively fail to eradicate maffias and like just like in democratic gun trading for which it appears there are prohibited weaponry -carefully chosen by democratic people, thus a ground for maffia.

Whatsoever, the simple idea that democratic people could do something the maffia phenomenum is illusory. Both maffia and the democratic society have the same social structure as a core: the gang.

Better to say that democracy is the future of the maffia.
Just like drugs dealers, maffia men must laudate democracy as the regime that have done best for them.

You're the very poster child for keeping drugs illegal...

emptypepsi · #28 (**permalink**) 04-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

You're the very poster child for keeping drugs illegal...

noahath · #29 (**permalink**) 04-16-2007

I've often wondered about this issue myself. For instance alcohol is responsible for far more assaults, deaths (alcohol poisoning, accidents whilst drunk, drink driving, etc), marital breakdowns than ANY other drug, yet it's perfectly legal. I wonder if the reason that other drugs are illicit is because governments have yet to work out a way of taxing them? I bet that the moment they work out a way of making $ from them, they'll be legal.

Beer · #30 (**permalink**) 04-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.F.B.M

I forgot something about this topic: democratic people love to invent new concepts.

One is happy addiction. Addiction so far was characterized as a pain, a mental suffering but with democratic people want happy pain, happy mental suffering.

I think 'democratic people' want something besides the heavy-handed tactics of law enforcement. Currently, DEA are saying, "if you do drugs, we'll do bad things to your life." Well, what do you suppose doing drugs does to someone?
So, todays paradigm is nothing more than a power struggle: telling people how they can/cannot ruin their own life.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode