Legalizing drugs in the US (AAS and recreational)

[rrgg]

This is a continuation of another thread: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17614&page=5

Nullifidian wrote: Dude, I have the EXACT same opinion on the issue. Legalize all of it I say. The majority of crimes related to drugs are because they are illegal to possess or sell. Once you legalize the drugs, the only crimes left would be the occasional punk high on something and committing a crime. So the answer there is to crank up the penalties for any crime committed while under the influence. For example, vehicular manslaughter. Currently if you kill someone with your car it is manslaughter. I think if you are under the influence, it should be second degree murder as a minimum. Commit second degree murder? Automatically bumped to first. Commit first degree murder? You get the death penalty. Take all the other offenses, like armed robbery, assault, etc. and tack on extra minimum jailtime.

As for who sells the drugs? Turn that over to the pharmaceuticals. The stuff would be guaranteed high quality stuff, the economy would benefit, and the government could tax it like they tax alcohol and tobacco. Put it under the jurisdiction of the ATF and completely eliminate the DEA as a department.

So let's see all the benefits:

Economically -
1) Pharma makes money so economy improves
2) Taxed so government gets more money
3) DEA eliminated so all of their costs are gone, while only adding a fraction of tiat extra cost to the ATF
4) Fewer people in jail means less money spent on jail system

Socially -
1) Less crime, especially in inner cities
2) Responsible drug users can now get higher quality product for less money and without fear of the cops

There are probably a host of other benefits, but I can't think of them right now.

I'm not necessarily taking a position on legalization, but you're relying on some assumption when listing the benefits. You're also not mentioning whether there might be any downside.

Also, you said there would less crime. Yes overall, but there could also be different crime -- specifically crimes that occur when certain abusers lose touch and literally don't realize what they're doing.

 

[CDB]

This is a continuation of another thread: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17614&page=5

I'm not necessarily taking a position on legalization, but you're relying on some assumption when listing the benefits. You're also not mentioning whether there might be any downside.

Also, you said there would less crime. Yes overall, but there could also be different crime -- specifically crimes that occur when certain abusers lose touch and literally don't realize what they're doing.

He's not relying on assumptions, they're readily evident in countries that have decriminalized/legalized drugs. Those crimes you're referring to happen now, there'd be more of a tendency for them to go down after legalization because the market will generate products to help users quit. Look how many different methods there are available for quitting smoking and dealing with alcoholism. The removal of the black market stigma allows greater variety in delivering services and dealing with the issue, while still maintaining the law and order approach for incorrigables and severe offenders.

 

[rrgg]

I'm not taking a position against legalization. It's just that the argument doesn't address what people perceive to be potential downsides.

Your assumption is that crime statistics in the US will behave like those in other countries that have decriminalized or legalized drugs. That may be true, or not. The US is quite different from many other countries when it comes to crime.

 

[wastedwhiteboy2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
Dude, I have the EXACT same opinion on the issue. Legalize all of it I say. The majority of crimes related to drugs are because they are illegal to possess or sell. Once you legalize the drugs, the only crimes left would be the occasional punk high on something and committing a crime. So the answer there is to crank up the penalties for any crime committed while under the influence. For example, vehicular manslaughter. Currently if you kill someone with your car it is manslaughter. I think if you are under the influence, it should be second degree murder as a minimum. Commit second degree murder? Automatically bumped to first. Commit first degree murder? You get the death penalty. Take all the other offenses, like armed robbery, assault, etc. and tack on extra minimum jailtime.

As for who sells the drugs? Turn that over to the pharmaceuticals. The stuff would be guaranteed high quality stuff, the economy would benefit, and the government could tax it like they tax alcohol and tobacco. Put it under the jurisdiction of the ATF and completely eliminate the DEA as a department.

So let's see all the benefits:

Economically -
1) Pharma makes money so economy improves
2) Taxed so government gets more money
3) DEA eliminated so all of their costs are gone, while only adding a fraction of that extra cost to the ATF
4) Fewer people in jail means less money spent on jail system

Socially -
1) Less crime, especially in inner cities
2) Responsible drug users can now get higher quality product for less money and without fear of the cops

There are probably a host of other benefits, but I can't think of them right now.

fewer people in jail. that would not happen. in kansas we are trying the poss. only with probation only and its not working. there are some people that are responsible enough to handle making drugs legal but there are many that cant handle the responsibility of a job. these people would stay at home and use drugs. they will get money from forgery, thefts, enabling parents or friends or srs. there would be more crime.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Dude, I have the EXACT same opinion on the issue.

GMTA!

Legalize all of it I say. The majority of crimes related to drugs are because they are illegal to possess or sell.

Exactly. Once you legalize the drugs, the only crimes left would be the occasional punk high on something and committing a crime. [/quote]Because those stupid ass "gangsta's" wouldn't be competing for street corners and kiling those who owe them money.

So the answer there is to crank up the penalties for any crime committed while under the influence.

Exactly,that's the govt's most important job, IMHO, protect people.

For example, vehicular manslaughter. Currently if you kill someone with your car it is manslaughter. I think if you are under the influence, it should be second degree murder as a minimum. Commit second degree murder? Automatically bumped to first. Commit first degree murder? You get the death penalty. Take all the other offenses, like armed robbery, assault, etc. and tack on extra minimum jailtime.

Sounds good to me. There's no reason to drive drunk and there's no reason to commit other crimes, i.e. armed robbery, assault, etc. (I believe good 'ol hand-to-hand boxing should be treated fairly, though. Weaponry crimes should be very serious, unless it's self defense or in house, etc.)

As for who sells the drugs? Turn that over to the pharmaceuticals. The stuff would be guaranteed high quality stuff,

Most imporant part. LSD at pharma grade has an effective dose in the mcg and is lethal in the ounces!

the economy would benefit, and the government could tax it like they tax alcohol and tobacco.

I'm all for taxing drugs You can then lift other taxes or lower them.

Put it under the jurisdiction of the ATF and completely eliminate the DEA as a department.

So let's see all the benefits:

Economically -
1) Pharma makes money so economy improves
2) Taxed so government gets more money
3) DEA eliminated so all of their costs are gone, while only adding a fraction of that extra cost to the ATF
4) Fewer people in jail means less money spent on jail system

Socially -
1) Less crime, especially in inner cities
2) Responsible drug users can now get higher quality product for less money and without fear of the cops

There are probably a host of other benefits, but I can't think of them right now.

Those are the mains ones I've always though about personally. People look to other countries who have been less succesful under similar laws, but most were different types of governments, and that's key. I'm sure, however, that they would be a short spike in public intoxication charges, though. Until people realized the new, stiffer, laws on intoxication in public, etc, are for real.

fewer people in jail. that would not happen. in kansas we are trying the poss. only with probation only and its not working. there are some people that are responsible enough to handle making drugs legal but there are many that cbant handle the responsibility of a job. these people would stay at home and use drugs. they will get money from forgery, thefts, enabling parents or friends or srs. there would be more crime.

Who's to say that just because drugs, which are incredibly easy to get illegally, will be on everyone's to-do list just because they're now legal? Most people don't do drugs because they're against the drugs, not because they're illegal. If you're stoned, what happens? Nothing. If you're tweakin' what happens? Nothing. If you're either of the two while driving, you get a DUI, just like you would with legal alcohol. People aren't afraid of the consequence of "doing" drugs, the problem's lie in the distribution of trafficing of drugs.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I'm not taking a position against legalization. It's just that the argument doesn't address what people perceive to be potential downsides.

Your assumption is that crime statistics in the US will behave like those in other countries that have decriminalized or legalized drugs. That may be true, or not. The US is quite different from many other countries when it comes to crime.

Well, true, our melting pot society does act much differently that many other homogenous societies.

The only possible crimes I see rising are theft and robbery, but those are MUCH easier to address that underground drug rings.

 

[jarhead]

I'm not taking a position against legalization. It's just that the argument doesn't address what people perceive to be potential downsides.

Your assumption is that crime statistics in the US will behave like those in other countries that have decriminalized or legalized drugs. That may be true, or not. The US is quite different from many other countries when it comes to crime.

If we could take the BILLIONS of dollars we spend on a fake ass war on drugs and spendit on the defecit or schooling or healthcare, i would say that's a huge upside. Drugs of all kinds are far more available than they were when the drug "war" started and there are statistics on drug related crimes available if you do the research(not intended as a flame). The VAST majority fall into the dealing,possesion category. This country has been duped BIGTIME when it comes to drugs. And I'm not a recreational drug user by the way. Even the ban on steroids is a huge joke. In an overly simple nutshell, the senator who pushed the bill thru had a son playing football at notre dame and was discouraged because he was being outperformed by his juice using teammates. He talks to daddy, daddy has power, and next thing you know they're classified as illegally dangerous substances with harsh criminal penalties. They ban all this stuff(ephedra,roids,pot) saying it's harmful to us and they have to protect us from it, and yet I can still run down to the gas station and buy a pack of smokes and a 12 pack?! UUGH. it's hypocritical b.s. Sorry about all this, I will now be stepping down from my soapbox.:rant:

 

[rrgg]

I don't necessarily disagree with you jarhead. I was really just asking for some frankness in addressing the cons as well as the pros of legalization.

 

[wastedwhiteboy2]

Well, true, our melting pot society does act much differently that many other homogenous societies.

The only possible crimes I see rising are theft and robbery, but those are MUCH easier to address that underground drug rings.

those are also crimes against a person and more violent.

 

[jarhead]

I don't necessarily disagree with you jarhead. I was really just asking for some frankness in addressing the cons as well as the pros of legalization.

yeah I know, I wasn't directing anything negative at you, or anyone, I just get fired up when I talk about this issue. I was just ranting. It's just another thing that burns me when I look at the state of our government. The government needs to let the people take more responsibility for themselves. I mean if you need the gov. to tell you not to smoke crack, I think we agree that you're an idiot(not you personally). But I believe it should be an individuals choice on what he/she puts into his body as long as they're not hurting other people. They're focusing too much energy on taking away personal freedoms(not just drugs). I mean for cryin out loud, do i need the government to tell me to wear my seatbelt?! But if i don't and get caught, i get fined for it. Get this- I always wear my seatbelt, It's just dumb not too, but one day i was leaving for work in a hurry and was putting on my seatbelt as i was turning off my street, and passed a cop. He pulls me over(which they're not supposed too for that) and gives me a freakin ticket. I payed a $50.00 fine for that, and at that time that was a lot of money to me. what, are they worried that if i got into an accident, my body would be thrown thru my windshield and possibly land on someone and hurt them?! I know this is a small issue compared to drugs, but that's the point. It's too small for the government to focus on this type of stuff when there are much larger issues to be dealt with. Crap here i go again.:frustrate

 

[kwyckemynd00]

those are also crimes against a person and more violent.

I understand, but my point was that it's not as easy to say rob a bank than it is to sell a kilo. Many people who were selling kilo's, etc would either have to get a job, or decide to go with a very risky alternative.

Plus, a lot of murders in the US are compromised of gang violence and anything gang related is "illegal drug" related. That's all the gangs are for. Little guys run around doin' dirty work for big "ballas". So, I wouldn't say that these crimes are "more violent".

I say, we get rid of the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharpton's of the world and replace them with true minority leaders, so we can cut our crime down and so they can compete it today's society. NAACP needs to fall and we need a good alternative, maybe Bill Cosby can head it those others just inspire hate and distrust in the american system. I can't stand those cocks! Grr...

(Don't come at me with some racist trip 'cuz I talked about minorities and crime, I just operate off of statistics. I care more than the average ACLU **** does about them prospering and competing. For many reasons. I just believe in tough love and we need to tear down their crappy leaders replace them with new, good leaders, withdraw welfare from the "un-needy" and teach them how to work. Disproportionate unempolyment is not a racist trend, it's a cultural one.)