End Crime by Legalizing Crime?

[pjkeeley]

There's going to be a demand for heroin no matter what: prohibition hasn't stopped it and it won't any time soon. Also, plenty of people who go to prison end up becoming users while in prison. If heroin were legal there would be dozens of different schemes by which it could be regulated, in the same way we regulate tobacco (which kills more people BTW). We could also control the purity and the dosages of the drug (the main reason people die from heroin being overdose). It might be heartless to sell heroin to an addict, but that comes down to the conscience of the seller. At some point every user made a decision to use heroin: once is not enough to make an addict. So long as they are educated on the consequences, I don't see why they shouldn't be responsible for that choice. Maybe I am the heartless one though.

But you can only give an open hand to people, they have to take that hand as well. Some people don't want help, or are too deep in it to get it.

Exactly, so why brand those people as criminals? People who know they have a problem and want to get help should have the help they need available. But if they don't want to "get better" they shouldn't be punished by law.

You're right; there are social issues in question here. Why would someone turn to heroin? What can we do as a society do to lessen the prevent the causes of drug abuse, rather than punishing people?

[Dreamshift]

I want to help the USER, and punish the ENABLER. And it might be true that because its legal, more people use tobacco, and more people die from tobacco. People who want to live by the rules, don't likely break them. Granted, those rules have to be respected to be lived by: case in point the illegalization of another drug: alchohol. Which kills in a different way, there is a safe amount after a certian age that you can use it--there is NO safe amount to use herion or tobacco. Mary Jane? well, that should have been legal instead of tobacco.

[pjkeeley]

One point that I will have to argue, as it's very important to this discussion: the legal status of drugs for the most part simply doesn't affect people's interest in them. Compartive studies in countries with liberal and conservative drug policies, as well as decades of survey data, show that the legal status of drugs is of very low priority in whether or not people decide to use drugs. The most commonly cited reason drugs are avoided, as simple as it sounds, is that people who don't use drugs just aren't interested. Conversely, people who do want to use drugs can get access to them quite easily through social connections, despite their illegal status. It is likely we have all been offered an illegal drug at some point or know someone who knows someone who knows a dealer. All of this points to the fact that we would be unlikely to have any significant increase in the number of people using drugs if they were legal.

Also, re: safe amounts -- it depends on how you define "safe". Some people would define safe as not likely to cause death, in which case there exists safe amounts of any drug. Not everyone who uses drugs (even addictive drugs) winds up abusing them. Yet the law as it stands prevents everyone from using drugs.

I don't think it's reasonable either to want to punish only drug dealers and not drug users. Drug dealers would have no job if people hadn't decided that they want to use drugs. The bottom line is people need to be responsible for their own choices, in my opinion.

The most I could say in favour of prohibition is that there is a good case for controlling the sale of physiologically addictive drugs, because once someone is addicted their consent is compromised and the question of choice becomes blurred. I certainly don't think users should be punished however, and the sale of non-addictive drugs, no matter how harmful, should be allowed.

[Dreamshift]

I agree that the legal status does not change the interest of a person in drugs. I myself didn't care if weed was legal or not, I knew that I wasn't in danger. Although I believe I'll do more efficient creative thinking outside of the smoke, others might get the other side of the effects. I've heard the arguement that if legalized we might give a more positive enforcement for drugs. I don't know how I feel on that, but I'm putting it out there. Drugs could be made more safer if placed under regulation, but its still a sticky street with some more hard drugs like cocaine and herion. Some people are responsible, and can handle drugs with a productive life, but more often than not, its quite dehiblitating to a productive life.

Well, I guess I should get the priorities on the drugs: Protection and Education. To protect those from the harmful effects of drugs, and to educate them beyond the use of those drugs. The "War on Drugs" hasn't proven that successful and I guess if we were good scientists, should be abandoned for better methods of control. If it were to be made legal, it should follow the rules of Tobacco, but even more severe. Something that can protect children, and others not prepared for those hard decisions. Watch A Scanner Darkly, and thats kind of the reason I don't want to make drugs legal. Herion isn't nearly as powerful as the drug in that movie, but its either on or off of the drug, and once off from being on--its a tough road to keep straight. There are some lessons that leave you scarred, or dead. I want my own hypothetical children to learn from example, not from trial. Its hard enough to keep a person off drugs in the wrong areas now, I fear it could be harder with them legal. At least you can keep drug dealers paranoid now if its legal, and they won't have the balls to do it where a cop will get them.