All drugs should be legal

The argument being made against drug legalization basically makes the assumption that people are incapable of taking care of themselves and being responsible on their own, and therefore require the government to do it for them-- protecting people from themselves.

"Burdening society" arguments assume a welfare state.

"Slippery slope" argument applies-- after all, if the government is required to protect people from themselves, where does it end? Free will leads to suffering, perhaps they should take that away too.

Anyway, its all very simple. Just consider natural selection when you think about sickly drug users.

I am not assuming a welfare state. If you look around you should be able to observe that it already exists to some point in each nation including the USA. “Drug abuse and addiction are major burdens to society; economic costs alone are estimated to exceed half a trillion dollars annually in the United States, including health, crime-related costs, and losses in productivity. However, staggering as these numbers are, they provide a limited perspective of the devastating consequences of this disease,” Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Congressional Testimony, 3/1/07 As you can see this is not just an argument it is a fact of life that we have to deal with. To deny this fact is to be intellectually dishonest. Whether we make laws against drug abuse or not free will still is in force. Any drug user can still choose to break the law and then suffer the consequence. We have laws because without laws the world would fall into chaos. People would be able to do whatever they wanted to. People could hurt or even kill one another. That is why the founding fathers of our country came up with the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and the twenty-six amendments. So the argument I make is not against free will and liberty. I believe in both very strongly. I believe that drug abusers either directly or indirectly cause harm to other innocent people therefore their activity should be declared harmful and illegal.

Losses in productivity are irrelevant. A man who lives with his parents his whole life could also be considered a "loss in productivity". You'd have to define productivity as-- what? Subjective definition, really. I believe you mean that productivity has to do with contributing something to society, but in that instance, wouldn't retirees, disabled persons, and etc. be a "loss of productivity"? After all, they are being provided for at the expense of society, therefore we should rid ourselves of that problem too, right? I suspect not, so you'll have to elaborate more on your definition of what "productivity" means.

Health costs should also be considered irrelevant; that is, it should be rather Darwinian-- you do drugs, you pay more in health care or perhaps die. That is of no concern to society, only to the individual.

Crime-related costs-- that's a bit of a contradiction in itself. Firstly, it's quite costly for society because we have worked so hard to keep it criminalized. Legalizing it would shift these costs from society to the individual. And, people who commit crimes will do so whether or not drugs are legal, even if they are intoxicated. Then again, drugs such a cannabis are actually proven to make one calm, and on the road, paranoid (which would make them safer drivers. Not an advocate of driving while smoking cannabis, but I'm just saying). Almost went on a tangent about the euphoria caused by cannabis, but let's not...

Oh, and something else to add-- making drugs illegal leads to more crime that legalization ever would. A good example is the drug cartels/border smugglers. See also: Al Capone and other gangsters during the alcohol prohibition.

We have laws because without laws the world would fall into chaos. People would be able to do whatever they wanted to. People could hurt or even kill one another. That is why the founding fathers of our country came up with the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and the twenty-six amendments.

I found this point particularly interesting. An attempt to bring order to a world of chaos-- but that's another discussion entirely.

"People would be able to do whatever they wanted to." Of course they will, that's free will for you. But barring people from putting substances in their bodies? That goes against free will.

"People could hurt or even kill one another." Indeed. That's why we have the proper laws in place to prevent that from happening. And yet, it still happens. Doesn't mean we should simply allow murder and whatnot because it's inevitable, but that would be anarchy in itself. Drug use =/= anarchy.

"That is why the founding fathers of our country came up with the Constitution including the Bill of Rights and the twenty-six amendments." And a fine job they did. However, I do believe they also mentioned inalienable rights, which would include the right to do with one's body as one wishes. The whole point of us rebelling was to get the British off our backs about things just like this. I'm sure it was no secret that tobacco and alcohol (the latter especially) could harm your health, yet the Founders did not include a prohibition against either in the Constitution.

Oh my God there are so many inconsistencies in your logic it is difficult to know where to start.

Oh, and something else to add-- making drugs illegal leads to more crime that legalization ever would. A good example is the drug cartels/border smugglers. See also: Al Capone and other gangsters during the alcohol prohibition.

So what is your solution just simply declare harmful behavior that is detrimental to other people as to the individual themselves a non-crime to get the rates of crime to decline. Using drugs increases the rate of crime. Look at users of the drug crystal meth. The cravings for crystal meth are exceptionally strong, and the human body’s tolerance to its narcotic effects is developed relatively quickly. This is why casual users become addicts, because they are searching to replicate that original high but need increasing amounts of the drug in order to achieve it. The effects of sustained crystal meth use are severe, including anorexia, restlessness, diarrhea or constipation, insomnia, headaches, dry mouth, convulsions, heart failure and strokes, and death. So when they run out of money to support their habit they turn to a life of crime to support the addiction. Psychologically, the grandiosity resulting from meth use inevitably leads its users into increasingly dangerous situations, and being consumed with pursuing the drug leads users to become distant from their families, parents to be neglectful with their children, and previously cautious individuals to engage in criminal behavior. But all of that is okay by you. Who cares about the family and the children of the drug users? Hey their death will just help reduce the surplus population. You continue to fail to get the big picture. That picture is, other people are affected by the drug use. You declaring all the fallout caused by drug abuse irrelevant is callous to say the least.

So in your solution to reduce crime we make this drug freely available. How about we provide free drugs in the school system as part of public education or introduce it for use at churches. Hey its not a crime according to your logic. So what if a major part of the population gets hooked on it. No problem they just die off. This is not a solution you are providing it is a recipe for disaster.

The argument of productivity that you present is an odd approach. You attempt to equate loss of productivity due to drug abuse is equal to that of loss of productivity from retirees. That’s laughable. That argument is ludicrous it is a completely different set of circumstances. Having people in their prime of life hospitalized due to sickness caused by drug abuse is in no way the same thing as people having lived productive lives and retiring. This argument you propose is Non sequitur to say the least. I apply the same argument to disabled persons etc etc.

Your next statement:

After all, they are being provided for at the expense of society, therefore we should rid ourselves of that problem too, right?

Your attempt to link support of people that are not committing behaviours that are criminal and detrimental to people who are committing detrimental and criminal behaviour is bad logic and disingenuous. Retirees and handicapped people are not equivalent to drug users just because they are dependent on government help. Your next statement is complete fantasy.

Health costs should also be considered irrelevant; that is, it should be rather Darwinian-- you do drugs, you pay more in health care or perhaps die.

Uhh, did you not notice most of these people are financially destroyed by their addiction. You really think they are going to pay their own bills. This is pure fantasy. It’s not going to happen. Your Darwinian approach to this problem is simplistic to say the least. Everybody who uses drugs just simply dies off. Wow what a great solution you have come up with. All these people and their families just don’t matter at all. Not to mention the drug addicts themselves. You make Scrooge look like a saint. Everything is irrelevant according to your simplistic theory. People should be free to use drugs and die and nobody else is ever going to be harmed.

Crime related costs would not go down because of legalized drug use. That’s so false I need to event a new word just to describe the insaneness of such a claim. You give a crude example pot usage as a safe drug to use for driving.

Then again, drugs such a cannabis are actually proven to make one calm, and on the road, paranoid (which would make them safer drivers.

Okay this is a complete donut theory you have. I know of someone who was driving under the influence of pot and was so calm and relaxed they completely missed a turn and hit a tree head on and killed 2 passengers in the car who also were high and forgot to use their seatbelts. They were very calm all the way until the moment just before they hit the tree. Oh, your legalization theory it would help humanity so much. I think its time to wake up and smell the coffee not the cocaine.

1. Drug prohibition is FAR more destructive than drugs themselves. (drug cartels, gangs, meth labs, etc) 2. Drug prohibition causes drugs to be done improperly, dangerously, and in an environment that is conducive to drug addiction. 3. Drug addicts should be helped, not punished if we actually want to lower addiction rate. 4. Many of the scheduled drugs are beneficial like marijuana and psychedelics and should be used by those who so choose. 5. The cost of drug prohibition is not worth any benefit of drug prohibition(what benefit?) 6. Drug prohibition is morally wrong, as we should have the freedom of choice. 7. Drug prohibition DOES NOT WORK!

First note, it does not make your argument anymore correct if you use all caps with and apostrophe. You might try also increasing the font size and changing the color of the font to bright red. That may make you a little more correct in what you say. LOL On a more serious note… Generally speaking pretty much all of your arguments are false and skewed toward a fanciful flight of imagination toward a positive view of drug usage. Fortunately for our country there are not enough people that agree with your opinions on the legalization of drugs.

1. Drug prohibition is FAR more destructive than drugs themselves. (drug cartels, gangs, meth labs, etc)

Your limited vision and assumption that drug cartels gangs and meth labs will go away if we legalize drugs is complete and utter nonsense. Do you really think these bad things would magically evaporate because we make drugs legal. I think even the simplest of laymen can easy foresee that they would all grow as a response to legalization. I think you would agree that would be a bad thing. Point 1 has been refuted….

2. Drug prohibition causes drugs to be done improperly, dangerously, and in an environment that is conducive to drug addiction.

This one would be laughable if it wasn’t so completely misguided. What would you propose government sponsored drug stations and facilities so that people can take drugs out in the open. LOL.. How about we set up drug stations in the mall we can let big business to run them they could offer specials like buy one hit get two hits free. We could also set up free emergency drug over dose facilities for those people who accidentally overdose. Well almost free, the tax payers will pay for it. We can also triple the ambulance service for when all of our doped up friends hit the highway and run over innocent people while they are high on drugs. What a marvellous vision you have. LOL . Point 2 has been refuted….

3. Drug addicts should be helped, not punished if we actually want to lower addiction rate.

Here is an interesting statement. At least you acknowledge that there is something wrong. Otherwise why would drug addicts need help? According to yourself-centered world view they are technically not doing anything wrong. Drugs are legal and they have the right to poison their bodies if they want to. What happened to the Darwinian law of attrition? I thought the plan was to simply allow these individuals to die off. In truth we do offer drug addicts help to the tune of billions of dollars of cost to family members and taxpayers. Your solution would only make matters worse. Point 3 has been refuted…. Oh by the way I work in a hospital and see loads of drug addicts come and go everyday it is a tragedy of immense proportion. Believe me you have no idea what you are asking for.

4. Many of the scheduled drugs are beneficial like marijuana and psychedelics and should be used by those who so choose.

You almost make a good point here. Some drugs are beneficial like marijuana and morphine etc etc.. These drugs are legal when used under the care and guidance of a physician to ease pain. The part where you go wrong is suggesting that these drugs should be used for recreational activates. This is an unwise choice that does harm because time and time again drugs are abused. The more you use them the more you will abuse them. Legalizing them for recreational use will only make things worse. . Point 4 has been refuted….

5. The cost of drug prohibition is not worth any benefit of drug prohibition(what benefit?)

First off what facts do you have to support this claim? I see none just your claim. Secondly you completely disregard the human cost of the destruction of the individual and families involved that have lost loved ones because of drug abuse. How do you place a price on the tragic loss of one’s son or daughter or mother or father when they overdose and die? That cost is immeasurable. Where is your humanity? Point 5 has been refuted….

6. Drug prohibition is morally wrong, as we should have the freedom of choice.

Here it comes, we are down to the nitty-gritty of your argument. You personally just want to be able to use drugs without getting arrested. That’s really what this is all about… Well you can still take drugs my friend but until America loses its morality and ethics and good common sense it will still be against the law. I guess that is just tough crunchies for you. You will still have to sneak around and break the law. Point 6 has been refuted…. Oh by the way heavy drug users do not care about morality they only care about getting their next high.

7. Drug prohibition DOES NOT WORK!

It works for me and other law abiding people. I have a suggestion for you though. You can go join your buddies, the Wall Street occupiers and hold up a sign demanding the government give you free drugs along with free housing, and a free TV, and free cell phone, and free medical care, and free child care, and free lunches. You will fit right in. LOL… Point 7 has been refuted….

Marijuana is an amazing drug and that it is illegal is absolutely ridiculous. Its not illegal because it is harmful. It is illegal because of the timber , alcohol, pharmaceutical , security (ATF, DEA, FBI ect) and private Prison industries do not want it legal. As of right now these industries combined commercial might has perpetuated the smear campaign that was started against marijuana in the 1930's. The people will have their weed within the next 20 years as those 65 and older start dying off and the nation and the world will be much better off for it.

Here are the results from the most recent gallop poll which is historical and shows the direction this issue is headed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/recor ... juana.aspx


People with access to lots of good legal weed are going to be far less likely to be looking for anything else the way they are now when there is no weed around. Also if you are want to respond to this post negatively and you have not tried weed the shame on you ahead of time.

Marijuana is an amazing drug and that it is illegal is absolutely ridiculous. Its not illegal because it is harmful. It is illegal because of the timber , alcohol, pharmaceutical , security (ATF, DEA, FBI ect) and private Prison industries do not want it legal. As of right now these industries combined commercial might has perpetuated the smear campaign that was started against marijuana in the 1930's. The people will have their weed within the next 20 years as those 65 and older start dying off and the nation and the world will be much better off for it.

Here are the results from the most recent gallop poll which is historical and shows the direction this issue is headed.



People with access to lots of good legal weed are going to be far less likely to be looking for anything else the way they are now when there is no weed around. Also if you are want to respond to this post negatively and you have not tried weed the shame on you ahead of time.

I agree on everything you said, the only reason for it being illegal is ,because it makes you think and because of the pressure from the industry.

I have been smoking marijuana for about 6 years now , it pretty much pulled me out of depression and mindlessness like nothing else could have done, it finally made me use my own mind to make up for things, to think for myself and make my own decissions and oppinions, I met beautiful people through it and had some of the best conversations of my life , high or not , they were amazing in both ways, I also found philosophy through it.

Indeed marijuana is a gateway drug , a gateway drug to a new potential your mind is offering you , as I said I have been using it for the past 6 years now , with brakes reaching from a day to a couple of months , there is no addiction whatsoever I could have recognized on either myself or other users unlike cigarettes and alcohol which are both legal and heavily supported by society and industry.

It's just a matter of time until it's going to be legalized , too many people use it and you can't put millions of people into jail for using a nearly harmless drug compared to stuff that is legal , even the silliest person will someday realize that.

Things have become similar to the times of Prohibition (of alcohol). Because a significant portion of the community were OK with alcohol, alcohol was supplied by criminals who became rich and spread their criminality. So it is today with drugs; criminals thrive and make the problem much worse. Politicians who would support legalising drugs face terrorism for themselves and their families. Currently people in other countries rely for their day-to-day living on supplying drugs but all this is managed cut-throatly by crime bosses - consider Mexico's woes. The only way out of this mire is to legalise drugs and to insert all the warnings, controls and taxes of the cigarette industry.

Here in holland soft drugs have a special status, they are not legal but tolerated. Hard drugs are illegal. People with an uncureable addiction will get the drug or methadon in a controlled environement. This way we got rid of the larger part of our drugs problems...

However pressured by other more hard-line European countries we now make steps back and immedieately we a increase in drug related problems.

I agree with Belinda on this. Only effective and useful drugs must be made legal since they can help our body in a good way. Harmful or deadly drugs should be banned.

I agree with Belinda on this. Only effective and useful drugs must be made legal since they can help our body in a good way. Harmful or deadly drugs should be banned.

Who determines what is useful? As of now Marijuana is vilified in the USA by the federal government because they enforce the economic interests of particular industries. Not only are they biased as to its "usefulness" they are so much so to the detriment and misery of millions of people who would harmlessly consume it privatly.

The criminality of drugs is the harm. The fight against drugs causes more harm than the drugs themselves. If they cease to be a illegal they cease to cause crime and the criminal would cease recruiting new users. When smoking kills ten times more than all the other drugs combined who are the crooks. Who is complicit in the unnecessary deaths of millions.

I agree with Belinda on this. Only effective and useful drugs must be made legal since they can help our body in a good way. Harmful or deadly drugs should be banned.

Hi Rhodes12, Belinda

Tylenol's deadly. Should it be illegal?

Ibuprofen's deadly? Should it be illegal?

Aspirin's deadly. Should it be illegal?

Cannabis is not deadly. So why's it illegal?

Best, DeeElf

I don't remember saying this about 'deadly' drugs. I do accept DeeElf's point that (some) useful drugs are also potentially deadly. I do not know why cannabis is illegal, although I can guess at reasons.



My present stance on legalising drugs is that the fact that a drug is recreational is insufficient reason to make it's use illegal; legalising it would allow proper producers to make unadulterated preparations of cannabis. Cannabis is mainly a recreational drug; I think there are already therapeutic preparations of cannabis for pain relief.


I think any remark that I made about dangerous drugs probably referred to those drugs that are especially likely to cause addiction plus are dramatically effective in small amounts, such as morphia.Morphia for instance should be dispensed only by qualified persons because of those two attributes.Opium may be added in small amounts to other ingredients, so there are laws regarding particular preparations . I doubt if aspirin or ibuprofen can possibly be produced so that pure forms can be swallowed as tiny tablets or injections, as can morphia.

Laws about pharmaceuticals are probably arbitrary and I presume that law makers consider every fact about the drugs in question.

As a recreational drug I'd put cannabis with alcohol and tobacco, rather than with the more dramatic opioids . Legislation should as a general principle be as lean as possible, if only to stop criminals profiting from others' weaknesses. I cannot have an opinion on cannabis legislation until I know more about its addictive and other effects. Addictions to alcohol and tobacco have mal-effects that are well known, and I suppport public awareness campaigns and taxation to limit their sale. Society has to support persons who damage themselves and therefore society must limit self harm opportunitities.