Should ALL drugs be legal?

Should ALL drugs be legal?
If you claim so, please explain. I want to understand how your little head works.

>pic barely related

Other urls found in this thread:

recoverybrands.com/drugs-in-america-vs-europe/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Drugs should be decriminalized and addiction should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one. There's no sense in throwing people in jail for using drugs, but you don't want drugs running rampant either.

cigarettes don't cause cancer, low test does.

So you wouldn't have a problem living next to a junkie? An addicted person who would kill for a gram of meth?

what cause low test

I want to ban all drugs and kill all drug users. So no, drugs shouldn't be legal.

Well I have yet to see someone getting addicted to a drug because of touching an addict/exchanging saliva/ via air/water

It's first and foremost a criminal issue, medical issue only as 2nd

This being said, you will never be able to criminalize drugs that are legal and have been legal for almost a century now or something, but the ones around, especially the hard ones, should be kept illegal and the law enforced

I'd turn them into the rehab police.
Explain how doing a drug makes you a criminal without resorting to hypothetical narratives about them stealing things or hurting others. I'll wait.

Fluoride

Show me a country that has decriminalised drugs that doesn't have a rampant drug problem.

Taking a drug makes you a criminal because it's against the law.

Nobody asked for your opinion junkie

Most drugs should be legal. Certain things, like crack or krokodil, obviously serve no purpose but to destroy the user. Opium, cocaine, amphetamines, marijuana, LSD, etc should be legal, but their use should be stigmatized. It's one thing to really hate drugs and not want people to do them, but it's another thing entirely to lock people up for possession of something alone.

Drugs should be legal, but not legitimate.

The government should not have a hand promoting substances proven to be dangerous. And yes, marijuana is dangerous too. It's proven beyond a doubt at this point to turn regular users into psychotic wrecks.

So there is zero penalty for possessing or selling drugs, but if somebody applies for a permit to open a marijuana shop, then it must never be granted under any circumstances.

Thus drugs become cheap and safe because the legal risk associated with selling them through traditional dealers has faded away, but commercial activity remains small-scale, local, and unadvertised--hopefully turning away many potential users.

Here in Germoney, you can get substitutes for some drugs. It's a lot better, because they consume it in a safe environment, clean syringes, no drug-related crime etc.
Still think they are Untermenschen though :)

The Jew asked for his opinion, actually. And he's correct, addiction is a public health care issue, not a criminal. As demonstrated by Portugal's success.

You some kind of big pharma shill or just ignorant?

t. meth head

The only reason to keep them illegal is "muh dee jen her ace see" bullshit. The act of taking the drug is victimless.

They should ALL be legal, but harshly increase fines and punishments for crimes committed while under the influence of a drug. Also make rehab not shit.

you buy alcohol there's no narco gang behind it. you buy illegal drugs you are funding violence, human trafficking, etc. wait and get it legal or don't do it. or do it and get locked away.

Portugal

Alcohol is proven to be dangerous too, but we don't allow the government to not grant liquor stories licenses. Your argument is just based on emotions against weed and not reason. Pot stores should be made legal and we should allow them to have relationships with banks. Fuck your anti-capitalist moralist horseshit that doesn't work.

>public health care issue
Addicted degenerates are not my problem Mahmoud. I'm not paying taxes so that a dumb pile of shit like Jamal who was stupid enough to get addicted, can get some free weed. Being retarded is his problem, not mine.

You pay far, far more in taxes to continue the drug war. You don't actually care about freedom you're just a rightist SJW.

...

>Portugals success
Ah yes, making every drug legalized so they can cash in on it, regardless of the health consequences. The father of capitalism would be proud.

The drugs should be banned not because of the degeneracy, but rather the externalities they produce. Most opiates make it impossible to properly raise children, which causes a huge wave of uneducated, poorly socialized youth 20 years after the legalization. Abuse of stimulants can lead to psychosis, and, even though it would be rare, the damage even from 100 individuals can invalidate any social boost in productivity - mostly car accidents and industrial accidents. Smoking causes cancer. The goverment spends more money fixing these problems than what they earn in taxes on drugs.

people are going to be doing them anyway, at least if they're legal and regulated they are not making criminal organizations powerful, have quality control, can be taxed and addicts can get help

>You don't actually care about freedom you're just a rightist
No shit Tyrone, you're on Sup Forums half the people you talk to are borderline fascists.
>You pay far, far more in taxes to continue the drug war
I'd gladly pay more if that means that more mudslimes get arrested or shot in the war on drugs.

People still do drugs, you can still live next to a junkie who would kill you for a gram of meth.

Making it legal means that people stop doing things in secret, and if you know your neighbor is a junkie you can take necessary precautions. Much better than having to deal with a surprise meth head at 2am

Damn only if i could smoke anime

HIV and AIDS rates went down
Rehab went up
Usage among all population went down

You seem to think that if drugs are legal that everyone is going to rush to buy them and kill themselves. They won't.

Both of the counties have rampant drug problems. Next.

Irreversibility damaging your mental health with dangerous chemicals isn't a victimless crime. Ask the parents of a drug "addict".

Duturde is a mentally deficient moron and looks like a nigger.

>No shit Tyrone, you're on Sup Forums half the people you talk to are borderline fascists.
Then stop bitching about taxes. If you're a fascist you don't care about paying higher taxes. At least have ideological consistency.
>I'd gladly pay more if that means that more mudslimes get arrested or shot in the war on drugs.
Ok, you like high taxes then. Marijuana is used extensively in western society, not just by muzzies. The drug war has the opposite effect it was intended for. You can admit you dislike reason just like you love taxes.

You have no understanding of how drug use affects people nor do you care to acknowledge facts.

Kill yourself.

You're thinking far too short term. Consider Mexico: One of the major things holding them back from fully achieving first world status is the power cartels have over the government and law enforcement. It isn't safe there, so businesses and business people move away. The cartels are directly funded by illegal drug sales.

Now, if drugs were to be legalized, Mexico could take back it's government from cartels and make it safe. After a while, it would achieve first world status. And most first world nations have either declining or replacement birth rates.

So by supporting drug illegality, you are supporting Mexican overpopulation and making illegal immigration into other countries much more attractive.

What brand are those?

no

Actually, portugal has fewer drug users for a majority of drugs than the UK.

Here are literal facts instead of you talking out of your ass : ^)

recoverybrands.com/drugs-in-america-vs-europe/

yes, and you're a degenerate druggie
we'll see who comes out in the end

It's not the state's responsibility to stop people from doing dumb shit to hurt themself. If people really want to kill themself with crystal meth then they should be allowed to rather than wasting taxpayer money on trying to stop it, especially as it's probably for the best.

If you don't have an argument, don't post.

Pathetic. You're afraid of rational argument. Supporting retarded drug wars gives more money and power to Muslim gangs. Yeah we'll see, you'll come out sucking huge brown dick because you rely on emotion to formulate your opinions.

I never said I'm a fascist, I'm just somewhere on the right side of the political spectrum.

>reason
what reason is there to making all drugs legal?

>implying a legal drug traffic won't be in the hands of the cartel aswell
All their plantations would become legal and they can push even more drugs across the US border. And if any pothead like yourself tries to compete with them they send Big Jésus and his death squad to your home.

Drugs that are legal have a stable economy

Illegal drugs too not

People who smoke weed are fucking tools

Most drugs should be legal, the more dangerous ones available via prescription, or through registered places.
The idea being that people get their drugs from controlled locations, and have their usages monitored.
Imagine a national database containing the usage habits of every single heroin addict.
You could run so many goddamn anti-addiction trials it'd be crazy.

If the state effectively enforced it's laws against drugs, few people would take them. If few people took drugs there wouldn't be a demand for production, transport and every other kind of illegal gang activity that comes with drugs.

Drugs are effectively decriminalised in the UK as well. Compare with the UK before the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971.

>it's not the state's responsibility to stop people from doing dumb shit

You won't be saying that when it's your family member who kills themselves with drugs. You won't be saying that when you get stabbed by a smackhead.

>I want to understand how your little head works.

After transition period with massive casualties degenerates will die out and people will develop a culture of ENJOYING RESPONSIBLY everything including opiates.

People will USE drugs rather than ABUSE them and will have control of their lives. Just like with alcohol.

>I never said I'm a fascist, I'm just somewhere on the right side of the political spectrum.
I really don't care where you say you are politically, you base your arguments on emotions and not reason, so you're an SJW to me. Just a rightist version which isn't any better.

>what reason is there to making all drugs legal?
Decriminalize, and make things like weed legal, because its not more damaging than alcohol. Its an extreme hypocrisy to have one legal and one illegal and is based on muh feelings instead of reason. How about stop trying to be everyone's nanny? Legal marijuana is a very efficient and useful business. Fucking commie.

I don't think so, you don't see that in the united states. There are gangs here that sell drugs, especially marijuana because it can be grown. I very much doubt that Colorado/Washington/California gang members got all the necessary documentation to open a legal growery and headshop.

Although, I can't say that for sure. Let me do some digging to confirm.

How is the state currently ineffectively enforcing the drug laws?

That specific line of reasoning bothers me, because it implies the state isn't doing enough to stop drug users. But many states have very strict drug laws, that don't go unenforced.

Further, I don't believe drug use rates are significantly affected by the legality of the drug in the long term.

Have you ever considered the possibility that it is simply impractical to enforce laws against alcohol because it has become entrenched in our culture over the past millennia, and that the same doesn't apply to illegal drugs?

If we could ban alcohol, I would.

Addictive substances are an anti-competitive force on the market

Let's look at the beverage market for example. Most of the market is dominated by alcoholic drinks. Now, I'm not saying everyone that buys alcoholic drinks is instantly an alcoholic, but there is a degree of physical addiction associated with alcoholic drinks.

Anyway, the point is, once a beverage has addictive substances in it, it has an inherent advantage over all other beverages, because a proportion of its users will become addicted and no longer focus on proper quality/pricing. They will simply want more of their addiction. This has an effect on the entire market (I believe it's why caffeinated drinks are the second largest force in the beverage market, like coffee and sodas).


To solve this, all addictive substances, like ethanol, caffeine, nicotine, etc, must be illegal above a certain threshold. This threshold would be the amount of the substance necessary to induce risk of physical addiction.

hi, how are you

How do you mean? Like a person can only be X quantity of a drug per week?

I believe this is how it's done in Colorado: you can only own a certain quantity of weed at a time before you start violating laws.

To deter drug use, you have to effectively enforce laws against them. This means punishing for *possession*. I'm afraid this does not happen in most countries - especially here in the UK. The police make no effort to arrest drug *users* and if they do catch one by accident they'll more often than not let them go with an informal caution.

As a result, nobody is deterred because nobody fears punishment.

buy*

So you admit that the only difference is legality and cultural history of use. That isn't a sufficiently reasonable argument, as things should be banned based on harm and not culture. Its not even true for marijuana anyway, its been used for many decades now and its modern use in western culture dates back to the 1800s.

The prohibition of marijuana has led to mass increase in crime and the power of cartels, just like prohibition of alcohol created the power of mafia in the US. I have no use for your own personal feewings that drugs are bad and should be banned.

That's none of your business. Why?

>Like a person can only be X quantity of a drug per week?

No, more like Beer can only contain X amount of ethanol, where X is the amount of ethanol where it is so small there is no risk of physical addiction

we have decriminalized weed and it's not a rampant problem

What a terrible argument. You can buy big bottles of vodka where you can buy beer. If anything marijuana legalization has far more strict controls than alcohol.

That's interesting. Unless you are rich and it is a first offense, most people go to prison for drug possession here.

Perhaps the issue is not so much that drugs are a root cause themselves, rather drug use is a symptom of things in general not going well. I wouldn't be surprised to find that alcoholism rates rose during the Great Depression, for example.

Perhaps fixing the flaws inherent to modern society would push down the number of people using drugs as a coping mechanism, and you would simply be left with people who genuinely enjoy the effects of the drug. I would imagine this latter group likely make up a constant user base that cannot be eliminated regardless of the severity of punishment.

what the fuck are you talking about?

I don't think so. That would just push people to purchase larger volumes. A regulation I would agree with is the ability to only purchase x volume of pure ethanol.

Lets say you could by 0.25 L of pure ethanol a week. This means you could either by 1 L of 25% alcohol, or 100L of 0.25% alcohol. The numbers may not be right there, but I'm sure you get the idea.

it would be physically impossible to drink those high volumes though, so your point is moot

it would work

People can easily make moonshine. You're just arguing for reinstating illegal alcohol runners with a silly moralistic argument that doesn't actually work in practice.

At what percent are you talking? I have seen people drink 12+ beers over the course of a few hours, maybe 24 over the course of a day.

Further, I think you underestimate the ingenuity of the consumer. People would simply evaporate off the ethanol from beer, or freeze concentrate it.

My solution puts a limit that keeps people happy, and does not apply pressure to commit the aforementioned crimes while also keeping spirit companies in business.

as long as they don't sell it, there's no problem

>things should be banned based on harm and not culture

In a free country, law is limited in what it can achieve. I'm consistently against the use of all harmful drugs - including alcohol and tobacco. But once a drug is already legal there's little you can do to subsequently ban it. That's why it's so important we don't legalise, because once we do there's no going back.

And you know full well that cannabis use can't be compared with alcohol in terms of its popularity and history.

The prohibition of cannabis hasn't lead to massive increases in crime. It's precisely because states are so weak in enforcing their laws against cannabis that there is so much crime as a result of people taking it.

People sell illegal substances for much higher value than legal substances. By making it illegal you're increasing its market value.

>At what percent are you talking?

I don't know, that would be up to the experts to decide. It would simply be the percentage at which whatever addictive substance is small enough that consuming the product would not be physically addictive.

I don't care about black markets.

My point is keeping the common market competitive

>If drugs are legal the consumption goes up

No idiots theres no proof if this claim, even if it was, who cares, if you want to die in the street taking heroin, so be it. At most we get rid of the junkies in the natural way

by common market, I mean the legal market

>even if it was, who cares

certain drugs cause violent and erratic behavior. look at the bath salts "zombies" that popped up in Florida for a while

>The prohibition of cannabis hasn't lead to massive increases in crime.
Yes it has. Its a plant that can be fairly easily grown in the same area its sold in. By making it illegal you're giving huge profit margins to cartels who ship into an area illegally, making every gram of marijuana sold funneling money right back to criminal enterprises. The law in Colorado and elsewhere woks fantastically, people can legally grow it, personally and in professional greenhouses, taking money from criminals.

>It's precisely because states are so weak in enforcing their laws against cannabis that there is so much crime as a result of people taking it.
That's such a silly argument. The war on drugs was/is not weak, and the war on drugs is the reason states here started decriminalizing marijuana because it was irrational to keep up a failing program. The reason its associated with crime is because you necessitate it being part of a criminal network when you make it illegal. People selling marijuana are also associated with robbery, gang violence, etc.

I suppose the issue here is that there are very few studies that prove drug use exclusively rises when a certain drug is legalized. If I had some studies one way or another, that would affect my opinion greatly. But from the research I've read, most people are not interested in becoming regular users of drugs just because it becomes legal or is decriminalized. And working from this premise, these two options are much more effective than maintaining its illegal status.

>Unless you are rich and it is a first offense, most people go to prison for drug possession here.

I find that extremely hard to believe. I went to university in the states. I've been at parties when the police have come following a noise complaint, caught people in possession of drugs and faced no formal punishment.

And of course people use drugs as an escape or to cope. But drugs were around before the 1960s - as was poverty. Yet people didn't turn to drugs because if they did there was an actual chance of punishment.

The fact that they were able to turn to alcohol isn't an argument for also giving people the opportunity to turn to other drugs.

In other words, your argument is efficiently useless.

It was proven that the first story about bath salts was actually just a meth head.

no it isn't
you just misunderstand my argument

I'm trying to create more competition on the legal market.
the black market is illegal and therefor none of my concern.


still drugs, so my point remains the same

There are no studies done on drug use from that long ago, because the government didn't really care that much.

Further, the situation you described is a little different. Uni students are given some leeway, I was referring more specifically to people in the work force. But as an example, in Idaho, possession of marijuana paraphernalia is a minimum sentence of 9 years, and I had a cousin go to prison for the full term for it.

Thats why we have guns and self defense laws.

Those who oppose legalization of drugs just don't see reality, drug control never worked and still doesnt. Everyone who is not taking a hard drug is because he doesnt want, not because laws forbids it, like if getting some meth,coke,etc was hard...

The black market will effect the legal market directly, so making drugs above a certain threshold illegal will give more profits to the black market. Saying its none of your concern is pure silliness, if the laws you're creating give more power and money to the black market because they are irrationally devised.

Most drugs. Some drugs are only useful as agents or war or too dangerous. But 90% of drugs should be legal. I could see banning something as poisonus as fentanyl or some research chemicals, I'm not an anarchist retard.

>The black market will effect the legal market directly

and how is that?

>Saying its none of your concern is pure silliness, if the laws you're creating give more power and money to the black market because they are irrationally devised.

You're making the assumption that all consumers will access the black market instead. They won't. Simply by virtue of it being illegal, the black market will not be able to draw the same amount of consumers that the legal market will. Not to mention how inconvenient it is to access, it's not like black market products will show up in a supermarket.

Will there be drugs and addictive substances on the black market? Sure, I don't doubt it, they already are. But because they are on the black market, they will have no effect on the competition on the legal market, which is what I truly care about.

You will not grasp the simple point that if people did not buy cannabis, there would be no demand for the cartels.

If people were afraid of going to prison for using cannabis, fewer would use it.

Therefore, enforcing laws against cannabis reduces the criminal activity that comes with production.

The problem is western societies have slowly stopped enforcing their laws. Effective decriminalisation has crept in, despite harsh penalties remaining on statute books.

So when studies compare a country like the UK, where drugs are in theory illegal, to another country where drugs are legal, it appears as though there's little difference in usage.

But what you're effectively comparing is effective decriminalisation with legalisation.

You only have to look at Britain before 1971, when drugs were effectively decriminalised with the Misuse of Drugs Act, to see how the drug use and gang activity sky rocketed once we stopped enforcing our laws.

The law has become a farce. Police are tired of arresting local people they care about for drugs. A change is coming. We must legalize at least some drugs and stop the madness of de facto decriminalization where the law is meaningless.

I think I see what you mean. I suppose it comes down to a matter of choice. I'm okay with the limited crime that comes with full legalization relative to weak enforcement because I value the freedom of individual choice over the safety provided by strict enforcement.

But that very clearly comes down to an individuals moral opinions. I have no problem with opposing moral views as long as they are internally consistent.

>and how is that?
Supply and demand.

>Simply by virtue of it being illegal, the black market will not be able to draw the same amount of consumers that the legal market will.
That's preposterous. Think of it more. If you make alcohol above a certain ABV illegal, ALL alcohol above that ABV will be black market. Just like all marijuana before states started legalizing was black market. And the people who buy alcohol the most, alcoholics, will start buying it illegally and shifting more profit motive to criminals.

>But because they are on the black market, they will have no effect on the competition on the legal market, which is what I truly care about.
That's not how capitalism works. The pricing of legal drugs directly reflects the pricing of illegal drugs, especially if they are in the same category. The black market responds to the legal market, and vice versa. Over here, street weed dealers have to be competitive with dispensaries, and vice versa. Dispensaries have tax free days and deals all the time precisely because they have to compete.

how high are you

im high as fuck senpai

>If people were afraid of going to prison for using cannabis, fewer would use it.
Marijuana use has been going up since the beginning. Harsh laws do not seem to deter its usage, but did increase the prisoner population. Seeing that, states started decriminalizing because that system was ineffective. You're basing your opinions on beliefs and wishful thinking instead of reason, with simplistic and irrational moral axioms that aren't practical.

>Therefore, enforcing laws against cannabis reduces the criminal activity that comes with production.
And this is why cannabis use went up after prohibition? That's such a silly, simplistic idea. Creating laws against a drug makes it more profitable to sell illegally.

If all drugs are legalised public use/intoxication should be illegal.

Keep it in your own home cunts I don't want have to deal with your strung out ass.

Only if taxes/benefits are minimal

Evil should be allowed, not forced

In most states/US capitol district that is the case and I agree ya cunt

>Sup Forums will fall to the DUDE WEED LMAOS in your lifetime
JUST

>Supply and demand.
Simply saying that is not a proper argument.

>That's preposterous. Think of it more. If you make alcohol above a certain ABV illegal, ALL alcohol above that ABV will be black market. Just like all marijuana before states started legalizing was black market. And the people who buy alcohol the most, alcoholics, will start buying it illegally and shifting more profit motive to criminals.
So you're confirming what I said about the consumers. Your average Joe who likes a beer now and then isn't going to bother with black market beer, he'll just buy the legal beer.
The only ones that will move to the black market are, as you say, the severe alcoholics, who were already a detrimental force on the legal market to begin with, since they sponsored noncompetitive practices.

>That's not how capitalism works. The pricing of legal drugs directly reflects the pricing of illegal drugs, especially if they are in the same category. The black market responds to the legal market, and vice versa. Over here, street weed dealers have to be competitive with dispensaries, and vice versa. Dispensaries have tax free days and deals all the time precisely because they have to compete.
I still don't see why I should care a single bit about the black market.
Even if there will be people that will brew beers with too much ethanol, they will never be able to reach the majority of consumers and so their effect on the legal market will always be minimal.

Only childless lolbertarians think all drugs should be legal. No actual adult believes this.

Despite what lolbertarians and shitlibs say the war on drugs has been mostly a success. All you have to do is compare the rates of alcohol use to those of illicit drug. Less people use drugs and less people become life long users. It is an objective fact that prohibition works. Obviously it does not work 100% but that was never the point. The point was to keep the majority of the population off drugs and it is an indisputable fact that most people are not active drug addicts.

Biggest problem we have is the kike run media pushing drug use as "cool". Make it a capital offense to create pro-drug media. No pro-drug music, no pro-drug tv or movies. Death penalty for dealers and smugglers. Three strikes and you're out for possession. Ban alcohol and tobacco too, that shot is degenerate.

It wouldn't be against the law if it was decriminalized in the manner I previously indicated, it would however require mandatory rehab when treated as a medical issue. You people all want to throw druggies in jail because of your emotions. Jail doesn't fix drug addicts, it makes them worse.
Wouldn't happen if drugs were decriminalized.

If we decriminalized drugs and made it a health issue we would have less drug users, that's just a fact. But you people let your emotions get in the way of logic.