All drugs should be legal

Invictus_88 · Post by **Invictus_88** » September 21st, 2008, 4:03 am

The line between personal recreational drug and date-rape drug is not a clear one. Alcohol is, after all, the main drug involved in date-rape - in which position it has almost the same moral position as Rohypnol.

'Mass legalisation' igores the very real shades of grey, it seems.

pjkeeley · Post by **pjkeeley** » September 21st, 2008, 8:21 am

Prohibition as as policy also fails to acknowledge shades of grey. For me, those shades of grey are the legitimate use of drugs for recreational (and in some cases medicinal) purposes.

And while it's certainly true that alcohol is used in date rape, it certainly isn't the main use of alcohol, or even, comparitively speaking, a very common one. What percentage of all alcohol consumed is used in date rape? I'm guessing a very small percentage. Just like a very small percentage of baseball bats are used for bludgeoning people with, for example.

Invictus_88 · Post by **Invictus_88** » September 21st, 2008, 10:55 am

Date-rape isn't the main use of Rohypnol, but you still considered banning it.

My main surprise here is that it took so long for someone on this thread to highlight the difficulties on both sides.

A policy of prohibition is no better and no worse than one of blanket legalisation, both cause significant ethical problems.

pjkeeley · Post by **pjkeeley** » September 21st, 2008, 12:18 pm

Invictus_88 wrote:Date-rape isn't the main use of Rohypnol, but you still considered banning it.

Just to be clear, I never said that I would consider banning it. All I said was that to me, it seemed like a seperate issue, and one which I didn't want to get into.

I still stand by my original position, with several clarifications which I assumed were implied: all drugs (commonly used for recreational purposes) should be legal. That's what this thread is about, not every single chemical or poison in existence and the myriad ways they could be used. Now, if certain recreational drugs are being used by a small minority of people to drug others against their will, that is something I would obviously condemn. But the fact that it occurs isn't, to me, sufficient reason to prohibit drugs that could be used that way, just as, in my baseball bat example, the fact that people could hit each other with baseball bats isn't a reason to ban them.

What is your position on this issue? Which drugs should or shouldn't be prohibited, and why?

uwlawdawg · Post by **uwlawdawg** » September 22nd, 2008, 3:36 am

The use of drugs should be legalized at least in theory, since their use does no direct or immediate harm to anyone other than the individual using. The underlying question is one of the individual's right of choice vs. social well-being. From a utilitarian standpoint the question would be, "which involves the greatest good"? A key underlying fact is that addiction exists. Take for examples individual's addicted to meth. This addiction, often times, drive the individual to commit real crimes in order to acquire more of the drug. Would making these drugs more easily acquired solve this problem?

A second point would be the institutions involved in the "War on Drugs". There are numerous organizations involved. Even more important is the amount of money involved. Can we legalize all drugs over night? Of course we can, but what would the economic and social impact be? Will more good be achieved by legalizing them?

In a perfect world we should have the inalienable right to choose, but this works only in theory. Just because you can use drugs and be a productive member of society does not mean everyone can. It is because of this that the current regulations regarding drugs exist and should continue to.

Invictus_88 · Post by **Invictus_88** » September 22nd, 2008, 5:56 am

If currently prohibited recreational drugs are legalised on the assumption that their use is a decision made by the individual, and that the consequences are limited to that individual*, then certain other things must follow.

> The use of drugs by one person to harm another should be attached to very severe penaties.

> Those who overdose, those who let themselves get addicted, and those who suffer illnesses as a result of their drug use, must be compelled to fund their own medical treatment.

*NB. I do not disagree with this, I actually quite like this approach.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » September 22nd, 2008, 7:06 am

unlawdawg wrote about meth abuse

This addiction, often times, drive the individual to commit real crimes in order to acquire more of the drug. Would making these drugs more easily acquired solve this problem?

It would alleviate the problems associated with criminal meth drinkers,but unless there were effective lifestyle support for meth drinkers they would drink themselves to death sooner. It's a loose-loose situation. The thing is to cut the losses.I therefore agree with unlawdawg that the utilitarian approach serves here.

pjkeeley · Post by **pjkeeley** » September 22nd, 2008, 9:11 am

uwlawdawg wrote:Just because you can use drugs and be a productive member of society does not mean everyone can.

Personally, I don't believe being a "productive" member of society is some kind of moral duty. If industrial civilization as we know it collapses because no one wants to work, so be it. We should be free to live the kind of life we want, so long as we inhibit nobody's freedom to do the same.

Just an aside.

Invictus_88 · Post by **Invictus_88** » September 22nd, 2008, 12:58 pm

Not producing anything is only morally neutral is coupled with not consuming the product of others' labour.

This is why dole-scrounging layabouts are bad, and why hippy communes are really quite good.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » September 22nd, 2008, 6:14 pm

Thanks, invictus. It seems that unlawdawg meant methamphetamine sulphate by 'meth'. Is that right?

Invictus_88 · Post by **Invictus_88** » September 22nd, 2008, 7:02 pm

Yupyup.

Akhenaten · Post by **Akhenaten** » September 22nd, 2008, 10:09 pm

If someone wishes to do substances that are, and have been for years, known to have serious side effects, including death... I think you should be able to take it. Side effect of an OD on Viagra is a very painful death, therefore why shouldn't you be allowed to simply do the same thing, with something else. People can overdose on anything... their bad, in the current vernacular.

Therefore, such as any substance taken to extremes, yes Drugs in the wrong hands are deadly...

I agree with the concept that drugs should be legal, unless used to harm others. In the same way that poisoning is illegal, and simply add a new class to things, such as Pre-mediated rape (many rapes are acts of passion, anyone who takes a date-rape drug with them is planning to use it.)

But should we restrict some mind altering substances and legalize others? No, this is simply hypocrisy. These laws were created because people couldn't be bothered to think for themselves, and many died... this is not what the Law system is for... Laws should be designed to protect others from others, in a myriad of ways, not protect us from us.

P.S.

I don't appreciate the fact that just because you're a druggie, you think everyone else should be too.

Grow up.

philosophy... · Post by **philosophy...** » September 29th, 2008, 2:12 pm

pj keeley:
you say "nobody should decide what goes into our body except us".

In reality nobody does decide what goes into our body except us (unless youre strapped to a chair and spoonfed), people/society just advise us what should go in. This is not an argument to decriminalise drugs. A law that criminalises you for taking drugs cannot physically stop you from taking them.

This advice goes both ways, you are also advised to eat five pieces of fruit a day by society. lcohol is also advised to be taken in small quantities, it just so happens that the advice on alcohol doesn't take the form of a prison sentence, like with drugs.

Akhenaten · Post by **Akhenaten** » September 29th, 2008, 5:51 pm

philosophy... wrote: Alcohol is also advised to be taken in small quantities, it just so happens that the advice on alcohol doesn't take the form of a prison sentence, like with drugs.

Akhenaten wrote:No, this is simply hypocrisy.

pjkeeley · Post by **pjkeeley** » September 29th, 2008, 10:38 pm

philosophy... wrote:pj keeley:
you say "nobody should decide what goes into our body except us".

In reality nobody does decide what goes into our body except us (unless youre strapped to a chair and spoonfed), people/society just advise us what should go in. This is not an argument to decriminalise drugs. A law that criminalises you for taking drugs cannot physically stop you from taking them.

This advice goes both ways, you are also advised to eat five pieces of fruit a day by society. lcohol is also advised to be taken in small quantities, it just so happens that the advice on alcohol doesn't take the form of a prison sentence, like with drugs.

You are trying to argue that laws are just "advice"?