The War on Drugs

I don't think it's the government job to protect people from themselves. If someone decides to put a hard drug into their body, then that's their business. And they will have to be the ones to deal with the consequences of said action.

And even if it is supposedly the morally right thing to do, actually preventing the smuggling of drugs has proven to be damn near impossible and has cost the state billions of dollars. So it simply isn't working.

Shadow Dragon pretty much covered it. Prohibition never works. It didn't work for alcohol, it doesn't work for prostitution, it doesn't work for drugs, and it doesn't even work for information in brutally totalitarian dictatorships. Hell, they can't even make it work for raw milk.

Drug laws are immoral and tyrannical. By what right does a government control what a free people do to themselves? By what right can they restrict various plants that grow naturally?

Oh and one more thing, the current set up is hypocritical as all hell. Nicotine and alcohol cause more deaths than all the illegal drugs, and yet are perfectly legal. Nicotine based drugs alone probably kills more people each year than all the illegal drugs combined. To let them stay legal, while throwing users of other drugs into prison, is simply illogical.

I'm with Shadow Dragon here. If you own your body, you have to be able to decide for yourself what to consume or not, in my view.

Leave the dietary restrictions to religions, and keep it out of government.

I'm trying to think of something witty to say, but I forgot.

So, we'll just go with blindly spouting the party line of freedom and such and so on.

I don't think it's the government job to protect people from themselves. If someone decides to put a hard drug into their body, then that's their business. And they will have to be the ones to deal with the consequences of said action.

Click to expand...

If we could keep it so that the only one impacted is the user, I would be in complete agreement. Likewise, we might get to the point of suicide being legal. (Same reasons, near as I can tell.)

Prohibition never works. It didn't work for alcohol, it doesn't work for prostitution, it doesn't work for drugs, and it doesn't even work for information in brutally totalitarian dictatorships.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to say "never", but I can't think of a "thing" it did work on.

If we could keep it so that the only one impacted is the user, I would be in complete agreement. Likewise, we might get to the point of suicide being legal. (Same reasons, near as I can tell.)

Click to expand...

Well, why not treat it the same way we treat DUIs? If you're high on mushrooms and drive your car into someone else, you're charged with the driving into someone else while high on magic mushrooms.

Williebee said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say "never", but I can't think of a "thing" it did work on.

Click to expand...

I think it makes sense to avoid looking at it on a sort of "all or nothing" scale. (By which I mean judging it based on standards of complete success or complete failure.)

So, I'd say it's worked to varying degrees in different contexts. For example, I think prohibition on drugs has worked somewhat better in Sweden than it works in the U.S. But do you think that would be an example of it "working", in a general sense? Or only as compared to something that's worse?

sonyablue said:

So, all drugs? Pot? Crack? Angel dust? Crystal meth?

Click to expand...

Although I take a tough stance on anti-drug laws, personally, I'd allow anything that is, in and of itself, natural>pot, mushrooms, peyote, ayahuasca, etc. and does not require extraction procedures and then go from there...

But, that's just me...

sonyablue said:

But nobody leaves their baby to rot in his own diaper for weeks because they were too busy smoking a cigarette. Nobody smokes a cigarette and then drives a car into the wrong lane of the highway. Comparing nicotine and hard narcotics is kind of silly, IMO.

Now alcohol, that's a more valid analogy. Alcohol does alter people's minds enough to be very harmful. However, it is possible to drink responsibly. It is not really possible to smoke crack responsibly.

The problem with making laws against people using drugs and driving is that there is no field test for, say, marijuana like there is for alcohol. You can pull someone over and determine immediately if they are drunk above the legal limit by using a breathalyzer. There is no such test for pot (or other drugs). How would laws against driving while high be enforced?

Click to expand...

If you get in an accident or are pulled over for problems with your driving, you can be tested... you just have to wait for the results a bit longer...

sonyablue said:

What do you mean? I'm not aware of any test for narcotics that can tell you if someone was high at a specific point in time.

Click to expand...

That's my understanding as well (could be wrong, though.) From what I understand, they can test to see if you have drugs in your system, but can't test to see if you took the drug two hours ago and then hopped in your car, or took it two weeks ago.

sonyablue said:

What do you mean? I'm not aware of any test for narcotics that can tell you if someone was high at a specific point in time.

Or am I missing something... (it's early so I'm afraid jokes go over my head at this hour).

Click to expand...

So, the problem with drug legalization is the inconvenice to law enforcement?

Shadow Dragon said:

Oh and one more thing, the current set up is hypocritical as all hell. Nicotine and alcohol cause more deaths than all the illegal drugs, and yet are perfectly legal. Nicotine based drugs alone probably kills more people each year than all the illegal drugs combined. To let them stay legal, while throwing users of other drugs into prison, is simply illogical.

Click to expand...

There are orders of magnitude more people using nicotine based drugs than [the drugs we're talking about].

About 20% of the US population smokes. If 20% of the population was using black tar heroin, we'd have some serious issues.

I'm generally in favor of getting rid of the weed laws, but for the harder stuff, something would need to be in place, either some sort of support system, or something.

sonyablue said:

What do you mean? I'm not aware of any test for narcotics that can tell you if someone was high at a specific point in time.

Or am I missing something... (it's early so I'm afraid jokes go over my head at this hour).

Click to expand...

There are ways for testing for other drugs. And if the cop believes you're on something, he could take you back to the station and force you to take a drug test.

As for your child abuse example, the police can still investigate them for child abuse and arrest them if they find evidence.

They should just give up on the land of the free meme and call it like it is: totalitarianism. Creeping global totalitarianism. Individual rights are so...enlightenment era.

Shadow Dragon said:

I don't think it's the government job to protect people from themselves. If someone decides to put a hard drug into their body, then that's their business. And they will have to be the ones to deal with the consequences of said action.

Click to expand...

I think I agree in principle, but I'm not sure my principles are strong enough to stand up to the notion of over-the-counter methamphetamine.

Lately I've been examining the notion that one of the primary functions of government is to be, on balance, slightly smarter than 51% of the people it governs. This sort of thing might be exhibit A.

Shadow Dragon said:

And even if it is supposedly the morally right thing to do, actually preventing the smuggling of drugs has proven to be damn near impossible and has cost the state billions of dollars. So it simply isn't working.

Click to expand...

There is that. <sigh> It is indeed a toughie.

sonyablue said:

The problem with making laws against people using drugs and driving is that there is no field test for, say, marijuana like there is for alcohol. You can pull someone over and determine immediately if they are drunk above the legal limit by using a breathalyzer. There is no such test for pot (or other drugs). How would laws against driving while high be enforced?

Click to expand...

The effects of being high on drugs are fairly simple to spot, the first port of call would be the pupils. Dilated pupils are usually present when a person is high. Reaction times are typically slower. Abnormal behavioural tics may be present. If a person displays these traits, a simple blood test/hair and fibre test, in the case of inhalants, can show the presence of drugs.

However, it is possible to drink responsibly. It is not really possible to smoke crack responsibly.

Click to expand...

Arguably, if a person is smoking crack of their own accord and doesn't drive, operate machinery, supervise a dependant or otherwise engage in activity that may harm another, then that's reasonably responsible. The harm they may be doing to their own body is entirely their own problem.


Legalise 'em, tax 'em, provide safe and non-judgemental spaces for those who become dangerously addicted to quit, a la alcoholics anonymous/quit smoking groups. If drug use can be monitored, we can do more about it if it becomes a problem for the user. I can't stand drugs, nicotine or alcohol, but they're all of the same ilk, and it seems odd to make two of those legal but not the other.

sonyablue said:

So, all drugs? Pot? Crack? Angel dust? Crystal meth?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I would favor legalizing everything. Even the harder stuff.

The problem with making laws against people using drugs and driving is that there is no field test for, say, marijuana like there is for alcohol. You can pull someone over and determine immediately if they are drunk above the legal limit by using a breathalyzer. There is no such test for pot (or other drugs). How would laws against driving while high be enforced?

Click to expand...

Well, those laws already exist, in conjunction with the general drug prohibitions, whether or not the enforcement is effective.

That should be pointed out, because it obviously has no bearing on the issue of general legality.

But I'll also mention that in some cases, the cops should be able to tell if someone is high. For example, if the cops smell marijuana and notice that the driver is clearly stoned. The cops would also be able to fine people simply for driving erratically, whether or not they have actual evidence of drugs.

So, the simple answer to your question is: laws against driving while high would be enforced the same way they are now.