Why exactly are drugs illegal?

[Pantalaimon]

This is already going on with substances that are easily available. Addiction isn't limited to drugs, it's a behavior pattern with a noted genetic predisposition that can have the same presentation whether gambling or drugs.

*Facepalm* this logic is so horrendous I can't facepalm more to it.

Just because we have many other substances, or types of behavior, that do have their own negative effects of various parts of society does not equate into a good reason to just let more substances be legalized to widen the scope of pre-existing social problems.

[Ripster42]

I don't disagree with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for users/addicts. In fact, I absolutely agree with that part. However, there's a very big line between the decriminalisation of possession/use of drugs and the legal production/supply of them. Unless I'm misreading the Portugal situation, they only did the former, and the latter is still totally illegal. Portugal's reforms had an extremely sharp focus on decriminalising drugs in a framework designed to stop people from using them, not within a framework intended to legitimise their usage.

Ya, it is. I'd still be for regulated production to get people away from self manufacture as well as regulating purity. Plus, the taxes would help fund the treatment side of it for addicts, as well as honest education programs instead of the just say no crap.

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to try meth, doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

[Eats Compost]

Ya, it is. I'd still be for regulated production to get people away from self manufacture as well as regulating purity. Plus, the taxes would help fund the treatment side of it for addicts, as well as honest education programs instead of the just say no crap.

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to try meth, doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

That's veering very, very far away from Portugal's constructive example, then.

[LimunFTW]

In our high school, we had a psychology class and we were taught that the main reason drugs are illegal is because they will cause a man to lose all will to work and that presents a danger to society as the society depends on its workers. Also, being drugged is not illegal in most countries, but having(possessing) drugs is, and I think of it as they don't actually care if we kill destroy ourselves as much as they care that we don't cause others to do the same.

[Dr Assbandit]

*Facepalm* this logic is so horrendous I can't facepalm more to it.

Just because we have many other substances, or types of behavior, that do have their own negative effects of various parts of society does not equate into a good reason to just let more substances be legalized to widen the scope of pre-existing social problems.

A lot of the societal problems with drugs, barring their effect on the system, is exactly because of their illegal nature and a whole network of shady business practices that thrive off of them being illegal.

[Jorgee]

In Canada, we're currently having an issue with a drug known as Fentanyl. It's an opioid similar to morphine except it's about 100x more potent. It's typically used to tranquilize massive animals such as elephants because of it's potency, but it's also used (in heavily diluted patches) to treat patients suffering from horrific chronic pain.

A piece of fentanyl the size of a salt grain will overdose and kill you.

Heavy drug users might be able to survive 2 grains tops because of desensitization. It's extremely dangerous and can pass through your skin.You don't even have to inhale, inject, or smoke it. Just touching it barehanded or accidentally having it fall on exposed skin is lethal. There was a news article the other day about a first responder who lost their life because the person they went to help had OD'd on it, and they came into contact.

Some idiot had the idea of mixing it with cheap cocaine or heroin to try and pass it off as better quality to their customers. Now the practice has spread, and people who may have been fine on cocaine and the like beforehand are overdosing left, right, and centre. There is an emergency treatment for it, but it has to be applied right away and you need to know what you're doing.

People make mistakes. People take drugs. Fentanyl is not a forgiving drug. Criminalizing it isn't the final solution, but it's a layer of preventative action that discourages most people from trying and paying the price.

[Pantalaimon]

Correlation does not mean causation. Both of those crimes would still exist or a case could be made for them decreasing if a wider variety of drugs were made legal and taxed. Also a deranged person doesn't need the help of drugs to be abusive, hey would do so regardless.

Except that you are blatantly ignoring that many drugs severely alter the person's state of mind, inhibitions, emotions etc in ways that very easily alter a person who would not perform various types of crime (child abuse just being one example) and then drive them to commit said illegal actions. Many of these drugs have a much more immediate effect to drive individuals to commit such behavior at a rate much faster then substances such as alcohol. In a country that kept hardcore illicit drugs illegal subsequently reduces the number of individuals who would seriously consider using them, which in turn has potential at decreasing the number of people who for one reason or another would have decided to become a child molester, physically violent person, etc.

The two crimes I mentioned would still exist, but drugs increase the number the people who commit the crimes. You don't have a good argument to have drugs legalized when it would add to making these problems even worse.

The legalized nature of drugs still will not change the psychological effects they have on individuals. An individual who is ridiculously high off their rocker, and in their deranged state of mind decide that their girlfriend/wife is suddenly much more deserving of a beat down, or that their child is much more appealing to them with something to offer is still going to have that same potential state of mind whether or not the drug is legal or illegal. The current illegal nature of the drugs didn't suddenly create this aftereffect.

[Freighter]

A lot of the societal problems with drugs, barring their effect on the system, is exactly because of their illegal nature and a whole network of shady business practices that thrive off of them being illegal.

You're a doctor, right?

Could you recommend someone to try angel dust with good conscience knowing what it can do to a person?

[Cosmic Janitor]

Because people are dumb. They don't know how to take care of themselves and usually drag their surroundings down with them.

[ComputerNerd]

I'm glad you noticed that some substances are harmful to the body but outlawing them doesn't exactly fix anything. In the America's case, it just causes more problems. Education and treatment are solutions, outlawing, incriminating and incarcerating creates more problems.

And we have tried those too.
People determined to take drugs will do, no matter how much you educate them.
And therefore there should be consequences.

There are times when humanity is too damn stupid and needs protecting from itself.

[Ripster42]

This is the quote. You clearly suggest that the reason why Portugal has a lower use rate than the US is because of legalization.

Thanks for making me refine my argument then. Point still stands, there are fewer addicts now than there were before decriminalization.

You'll notice I answered your question before you typed your reply to the other guy:

They went down. That's the whole point of bringing them up.

To clarify: the amount of people saying they've used a drug ever in their lives went up, the number of people who've used in the past year and month went down. In other words, fewer addicts, who are the actual problem.

[Dr Assbandit]

You're a doctor, right?

Could you recommend someone to try angel dust with good conscience knowing what it can do to a person?

Of course I wouldn't, similarly to how I wouldn't recommend alcohol to anyone except for a glass of red wine now and then. I'm basing my legalizing drugs off of arguments made over the years about the pros and cons on a macro scale.

Actually legalizing isn't the right word, I'm more for decriminalizing them at the very least.

[Freighter]

Of course I wouldn't, similarly to how I wouldn't recommend alcohol to anyone except for a glass of red wine now and then. I'm basing my legalizing drugs off of arguments made over the years about the pros and cons on a macro scale.

Actually legalizing isn't the right word, I'm more for decriminalizing them at the very least.

Then why do you argue for it if you can't recommend people to try it? Seems a bit contradictory.

[Sky High]

when it comes to drugs like weed, LSD, ecstasy, shrooms, etc, it's all because those big pharma corporations gotta make that money yo. can't charge you an exorbitant price for a drug that probably has a vastly greater chance of killing you if you can and choose to smoke weed or use ecstasy for your PTSD. and we can't let the free market run its course now can we? hmmmmm?

[Ripster42]

That's veering very, very far away from Portugal's constructive example, then.

Not really in the way you mean. The market is still there no matter what. It just makes the drugs and drug trade safer as it's regulated by the govt. It doesn't create situations where you can't resolve crimes because you can't take them to the police as is still the case in portugal. It doesn't create the same illegal power structures that decriminalization maintains. It also makes it harder for younger kids to get a hold of legal regulated drugs and decriminalized non-regulated drugs. I frankly think it would be a better situation.

[cubby]

Is this a joke question? Some are because they can be deadly if not consumed correctly or are abused. And not all drugs are illegal.

There is no good reason to have drugs of any kind listed as illegal. While there are certain arguments that lend itself to the reasoning behind current regulations, the logic of illegality doesn't pass muster.

Many legal things have dramatically horrible effects on the human body. Making them illegal won't do anything but fill the prisons and cost tax payers money.

When it comes to drugs and their effects, people will always find a way.

[Ripster42]

In Canada, we're currently having an issue with a drug known as Fentanyl. It's an opioid similar to morphine except it's about 100x more potent. It's typically used to tranquilize massive animals such as elephants because of it's potency, but it's also used (in heavily diluted patches) to treat patients suffering from horrific chronic pain.

A piece of fentanyl the size of a salt grain will overdose and kill you.

Heavy drug users might be able to survive 2 grains tops because of desensitization. It's extremely dangerous and can pass through your skin.You don't even have to inhale, inject, or smoke it. Just touching it barehanded or accidentally having it fall on exposed skin is lethal. There was a news article the other day about a first responder who lost their life because the person they went to help had OD'd on it, and they came into contact.

Some idiot had the idea of mixing it with cheap cocaine or heroin to try and pass it off as better quality to their customers. Now the practice has spread, and people who may have been fine on cocaine and the like beforehand are overdosing left, right, and centre. There is an emergency treatment for it, but it has to be applied right away and you need to know what you're doing.

People make mistakes. People take drugs. Fentanyl is not a forgiving drug. Criminalizing it isn't the final solution, but it's a layer of preventative action that discourages most people from trying and paying the price.

Yes, and one of the major problems with fentanyl is accidental overdoses and people thinking they're just getting oxy (it's not mixed with cocaine) or something but getting something 100x stronger. If you regulated the production of drugs (purity requirements), that type of shit won't happen anymore. There's going to be a much smaller market for a drug that kills you the first time you take it, rather than a drug that won't but is surreptitiously mixed with a fatal overdose.

[Elim Garak]

Illegal drugs provide more revenue to the treasury than legal ones. Said revenue is then leeched by War on Drugs. Corruption basically.

[Ripster42]

And we have tried those too.
People determined to take drugs will do, no matter how much you educate them.
And therefore there should be consequences.

There are times when humanity is too damn stupid and needs protecting from itself.

There are already consequences to doing drugs even aside from legal ones. The legal ones just make it more difficult for a person to dig themselves out of the pit those drugs put them in.

[Pantalaimon]

There is no good reason to have drugs of any kind listed as illegal. While there are certain arguments that lend itself to the reasoning behind current regulations, the logic of illegality doesn't pass muster.

Many legal things have dramatically horrible effects on the human body. Making them illegal won't do anything but fill the prisons and cost tax payers money.

When it comes to drugs and their effects, people will always find a way.

Except that the legal risks actually DO deter many from ever seriously seeking out drug dealers or other means to get high. So no, all people will not always find a way. Risk is an excellent deterrent sometimes, similar to how some suicidal individuals will never actually go through with real attempts to kill themselves (and may just perpetually stay in the realm of 'lesser' self-harm) you will also have those who may be interested in the idea of drugs or who are depressed, but are properly deterred by the risk of getting caught and going to prison, losing relationships/jobs/current education programs etc. This is not an all or nothing argument.