All drug laws are obstructions of freedom

Drug are addictive and kills people , i would prefer to have the law to stop me from trying them.

 

People who take hard drugs become addicts and they become a non-productive person of society, so while Im sure your going to say thats thier choice THEN I should have the choice not to pay a cent towards there welfare and healthcare when they overdose and need medical attention which the American taxpayers do pay.

 

The point is that healthcare and medical attention don't have to be paid by people through taxes.

 

If the marginal social cost is greater than the marginal private benefits, then the most efficient level of consumption is zero. That's what underpins most arguments for drug prohibition.

 

And I completely agree with you 100%. The problem is, most of these drug laws can be justified in a socialist context, because other people would have to pay for your mistakes. But in a limited government, people who do drugs and would need to seek medical attention would have to pay for it THEMSELVES, which would probably entice people to not risk that by not doing hard core drugs.

Marginal social cost is largely increased in a socialist society. With a smaller government, the individual would have to suffer the consequences himself. Instead of having other people pay for your healthcare when you OD, you pay for it yourself. This would greatly increase the fear of taking such drugs and cause people to use them more responsibly, or not use them at all.

 

people cant stop you doing that they can only try to help you to stop you doing that because of the effects and harm that drugs cause.
honestly its for you own good.

 

There you go. You can't stop me from doing anything to my body, which makes all drug laws obsolete. The only thing you can do is inform me of the dangers of the drug, the rest is up to me.

 

I think this is a good summary, although there would be more advantages:
-more people get addicted to lethal drugs, and they die
-hence the better people will live (survivial of the fittest)
-less idiots
-human race evolves, the trash just dies out
-you do drugs responsibly you won't have as much competition for a good job
-and on top of it all you get to enjoy drugs

 

-gangs won't have a source of revenue and will become powerless
-crime will go down
-less people will be in jails living off taxpayer money
-police will be focused on real crimes like murder and theft instead of some harmless guy lighting a blunt
-it would be harder for younger kids to get it if there is an 18 year age limit, since they would have to buy it through an older person and stores wouldn't be allowed to sell it to them, whereas a drug dealer would sell it to anyone regardless of age.

the list keeps going on and on lol

 

What people are forgetting is that drugs are still a taboo and there are more people against the legalisation of all drugs rather than for.

The problem is that most drugstudies are biased and can't give you a good image of what drugs are not harmful and addictive and which should be avoided.
If less-hard drugs would be legally sold, it would surely decrease the demand for harder drugs. For example, if people could get amphetamines or MDMA legally, I think they would stay away from harder drugs like methamphetamine. This would also keep people away from abusing prescription drugs, which are also very harmful when abused.

 

Yes. Prohibition has proved to increase consumption. Alcoholism, alcohol poisoning, gang related crime, and bars (speak easies) all went up dramatically in the 20's. People want what they can't have, and making a drug illegal increases the desire for it.

 

Not true.
If something is less widespread and harder to obtain, then the desire to try apprehend it is far more distilled.
You will find many teenagers try drugs for the first time - out of 'chance'.
Whereby someone at a party had the drug (and it became a simple chance of saying yes).
Now if that drug wasn't at the party, then that particular teenager wouldn't have gone seeking that drug in particular. (Reducing the amount and reducing availability reduces desire for it).

Let’s be reasonable. If drugs were legal, then there would be far more of them around.
Imagine if a particular drug was made legal, people would exploit that drug, day and night and it wouldn't be uncommon for many people to take that particular drug often.
Most people feel that if something is 'legal' (then it's not as bad for you).
This is incorrect because it seems cigarettes are worse off for you, than marijuana.
So I feel the less amount of the drugs, and the less widespread they are, then people's desires to try them will reduce.

 

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/craig102.htm

It doesn't really matter what you think about it or what your logic is, history has showed that prohibition increases consumption.

 

The link showed prohibition in alcohol.
It's quite obvious that alcohol is more widespread than any drug. And the same goes for weed.
Keeping drugs such as heroin, cocaine, acid and meth all illegal (would surely reduce numbers who take it, or at least keep it to the minimum possible.)
Just imagine right now if cocaine was legalized.
There would be a much bigger market, thus the producers would increase and the sale amount of the drug would increase.
It’s because those drugs haven’t been given the chance to become ‘socially acceptable’ in most places. (But weed and alcohol are socially accepted). So by given the chance to legalize, then those drugs would become more socially acceptable and thus a more abundance would be evident.
I think you can only base prohibition on certain drugs.
Some drugs work fine with prohibition, some don’t.

 

Weed and alcohol are relatively cheap and easy to get when compared to harder drugs such as cocaine. If cocaine was legalized then it would be cheap and easy for people to get and they would be more tempted to buy and use it.

Alcohol is the easiest to get and most socially acceptable drug in the United States, and guess what it is the most abused. Keeping drugs illegal stops people from using them due to them being afraid of getting in trouble with the law, not wanting to deal with drug dealers, the high cost, and the fact that it is illegal (most likely bad for you.)

 

I agree with this, because coke is so expensive because of all the middlemen (dealers). The coca growers in Colombia don't make any real money off of it.
The thing is, people don't need prohibition, but good education about drugs, to warn them for the real dangers.

Not true, drug abuse is higher (including marijuana) in the US than in Holland and you can get "legal" marijuana here as long as you're 18.

It's already happening with illegal drugs, so... you can't stop them from doing it.


One of the biggest dangers of drugs being illegal is drugs being unrealiable. You don't get sick from drinking alcohol from the liqor store, because it's pure, there is no shit thrown inside and it's not poluted/contaminated, like methamphetamine, which is made in unsanitary clandestine labs.

You can see that with drugs that come in powders. How hard is it to find pure cocaine or MDMA crystals? Very hard, because people cut them up with other ingredients (some of them dangerous substances).

 

There isn't, and has never been any question or doubt that you do have the freedom to do whatever you want to your body.

I can hit a blunt right now. Or pop a pill. Or lick a llama. Or cut the grass. Or drink a hit of testosterone cellulite with a bunch of guys with no webbos.

The fact that there are laws against it doesn't stop you from having the freedom to do it.

"You can walk out of the door right now."

You have the freedom to.

"When you do walk out of the door, i'm going to shoot you in your foot."

You still have the freedom to.

 

Can you really call it a free voluntary choice when you could be put in jail for doing it? That is not a real choice.

 

Exactly, thats what i was saying.

 

Yeah imagining if cocaine was legal... I still wouldn't do it, neither would any of my friends or anyone I know. You think if meth becomes legalized then hordes of people would rush into the store and start smoking meth? Fuck no, people who don't choose to do meth don't do it because it's illegal, they don't do it because they know it fucks you up, and they will still choose to not do it when it becomes legal.

Last time I checked with my 9th grade economics teacher, supply doesn't increase demand.

Um, you think if meth was legalized, that everyone would think it's ok to do meth and parents wouldn't care if their son was a coke head? What the fuck are you thinking dude. If meth became legal, the same number of people who don't do it because it fucks you up still won't do it for the same damn reason.

You are making the horrible mistake of assuming that everyone abides solely by laws and doesn't think for themselves. People don't do meth because it's illegal, they don't do it because it fucks you up. And millions of people smoke weed and do cocaine regardless of it being illegal. Prohibition is a horrible failure dude, open up your eyes.

What the fuck. Why would you think people who already know it's bad for you start using it just because it's cheap? That's not why people don't do coke, if someone really wanted to do coke, trust me, they will just ask around and eventually be able to get it. People don't do coke because they know it fucks you up, not because it's expensive.

Yet every year $35-70 billion is spent on cocaine.

That's not freedom. The point of punishment, or consequences that weren't naturally there, is to prevent you from doing something. Because you naturally want to avoid these consequences, someone is taking your freedom away.

If I like eating cake and eat cake every day, and one day someone says they are going to shoot me in the head if I eat another cake. Am I still "free" to eat that cake? Yeah I can eat the cake, but then I'd be dead and can't eat cake anymore. So my freedom to eat the cake is taken away.