Why exactly are drugs illegal?

[Eats Compost]

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.

See, this is where you're diving headfirst into conjecture. Allowing for the legal supply of these kinds of drugs has an absolutely massive impact on how widespread they are, and how easy they are to maintain. Making the supply of these things illegal is one of the best deterrents there is, regardless of whether or not possession is actually legal to begin with. Sure, you'd probably reduce incidents of tainted goods and crime surrounding the production/sale of those goods, but you'd also see a massive spike in the use of those drugs through exposure. Regulating/legalising supply isn't even remotely the same ball game as decriminalising possession when you're trying to fend off the negative health consequences associated with using that drug.

The litmus test for decriminalising supply is asking yourself "what would change if use of this drug skyrocketed?". The answer is "not much" for stuff like cannibis, but for harder drugs, it's a much more grim picture, and countries like Portugal still have regulations and laws that reflect that.

[Ripster42]

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

Because it has nothing to do with his recommendation. The reality of the situation is that people will do those drugs without a doctors recommendation (well, many of our opiate addicts likely wouldn't have, but that's just bad prescription guidelines). Realizing that having criminal penalties doesn't actually deter people from using them and just makes it harder for them to stop doing them is a big step.

[Freighter]

Realizing that having criminal penalties doesn't actually deter people from using them and just makes it harder for them to stop doing them is a big step.

There will always be those who break the law though but it does deter people.

[Ripster42]

See, this is where you're diving headfirst into conjecture. Allowing for the legal supply of these kinds of drugs has an absolutely massive impact on how widespread they are, and how easy they are to maintain. Making the supply of these things illegal is one of the best deterrents there is, regardless of whether or not possession is actually legal to begin with. Sure, you'd probably reduce incidents of tainted goods and crime surrounding the production/sale of those goods, but you'd also see a massive spike in the use of those drugs through exposure. Regulating/legalising supply isn't even remotely the same ball game as decriminalising possession.

The litmus test for decriminalising supply is asking yourself "what would change if use of this drug skyrocketed?". The answer is "not much" for stuff like cannivis, but for harder drugs, it's a much more grim picture, and countries like Portugal still have regulations and laws that reflect that.

Again, at the time most people start using drugs, it's way easier to get illegal drugs than legal drugs. Legal drugs are regulated in who you can sell to. Maintaining your status as a legal seller is more important than selling to kids.

People who are using drugs like heroin, cocaine, and meth don't care about their legality. It's literally not a deterrent. Having them legally available just means they don't have to go through a transaction that could potentially victimize them, as well as assuring they're not getting tainted drugs.

[Sky High]

There will always be those who break the law though but it does deter people.

so it only accomplishes what it's set to do a fraction of the time while also not solving the issue of drug addiction. I love debates like this, the arguments are so eagerly self defeating.

[Deathquoi]

Your question is two parts and based on a flawed premise.

1) you claim there are a large number of "synthetic chemicals" whose effects are identical to illegal drugs and are legal. This is not true.

2) why are some drugs illegal? Because they are dangerous/deadly regardless of dosage.

3) why are drugs so heavily criminalized in the US? Because lobbyists for the corporate prison operators want them to be.

[Eats Compost]

Again, at the time most people start using drugs, it's way easier to get illegal drugs than legal drugs. Legal drugs are regulated in who you can sell to. Maintaining your status as a legal seller is more important than selling to kids.

People who are using drugs like heroin, cocaine, and meth don't care about their legality. It's literally not a deterrent. Having them legally available just means they don't have to go through a transaction that could potentially victimize them, as well as assuring they're not getting tainted drugs.

And I've already said that decriminalising use/possession is a good idea, so saying that users don't care about their legality is a moot point. Not sure why you're mentioning selling to kids, either.

Are you saying that you can't see how having them legally available on the supply side would allow/encourage more people to use them? If it's safer and easier, it's a bit of a no-brainer that more people will participate.

The whole reason that decriminalisation on the user's end was a good idea was because it was coupled with rehabilitation policies that reduced overall use. Making substances radically easier to get is a step in the opposite direction.

[Freighter]

so it only accomplishes what it's set to do a fraction of the time while also not solving the issue of drug addiction. I love debates like this, the arguments are so eagerly self defeating.

What kind of logic is this? Laws and punishment are there to dis-incentivize certain behaviors through threats of punishment. You are aware of this, yes? Should we abandon laws relating to murder since people murder anyways or what?

[Sky High]

And I've already said that decriminalising use/possession is a good idea, so saying that users don't care about their legality is a moot point. Not sure why you're mentioning selling to kids, either.

Are you saying that you can't see how having them legally available on the supply side would allow/encourage more people to use them? If it's safer and easier, it's a bit of a no-brainer that more people will participate.

source for any of that being true, because I have studies that show the opposite of that happening.

[Eats Compost]

source for any of that being true, because I have studies that show the opposite of that happening.

I'd love to see them, or at least a digest of their findings.

[Sky High]

What kind of logic is this? Laws and punishment are there to dis-incentivize certain behaviors through punishment. You are aware of this, yes? Should we abandon laws relating to murder since people murder anyways or what?

drug use is not the same as murder, spare me the deflection smoke bombs. and those laws are still only effective a fraction of the time, am I wrong in that assessment? and yeah the fact murder is appropriately seen as a cardinal sin against society making an effort to add an extra "it's bad" is redundant if you ask me.

[Freighter]

drug use is not the same as murder, spare me the deflection smoke bombs. and those laws are still only effective a fraction of the time, am I wrong in that assessment? and yeah the fact murder is appropriately seen as a cardinal sin against society making an effort to add an extra "it's bad" is redundant if you ask me.

What do you mean with effective a fraction of the time? They act pretty effective as a deterrent. That doesn't mean there's 100% obedience to the law, you know. There will always be the people who break laws no matter what the laws are, that's not an argument to get rid of said laws.

Your logic is not sound at all.

[Ripster42]

And I've already said that decriminalising use/possession is a good idea, so saying that users don't care about their legality is a moot point. Not sure why you're mentioning selling to kids, either.

Are you saying that you can't see how having them legally available on the supply side would allow/encourage more people to use them? If it's safer and easier, it's a bit of a no-brainer that more people will participate.

The whole reason that decriminalisation on the user's end was a good idea was because it was coupled with rehabilitation policies that reduced overall use. Making substances radically easier to get is a step in the opposite direction.

Because a legal regulated source isn't going to sell to kids directly making it harder for kids to get a hold of drugs. Most drug users start doing drugs when they're kids. This is the whole reason I'm arguing that it would decrease the amount of users in general. It makes them harder to get at an age when people start doing them.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean with effective a fraction of the time? They act pretty effective as a deterrent. That doesn't mean there's 100% obedience to the law, you know. There will always be the people who break laws no matter what the laws are, that's not an argument to get rid of said laws.

Your logic is not sound at all.

Drugs being illegal is not an effective deterrent as evidenced by the portugal study I linked earlier. Addiction rates declined when they decriminalized drugs.

[Pantalaimon]

drug use is not the same as murder, spare me the deflection smoke bombs. and those laws are still only effective a fraction of the time, am I wrong in that assessment? and yeah the fact murder is appropriately seen as a cardinal sin against society making an effort to add an extra "it's bad" is redundant if you ask me.

That is debatable, considering drug addicts who have children in the home have often been incarcerated not only for their drug use/possession, but also at times because their neglect of their child/children getting exposed to the drugs have killed the children, or as I have mentioned here already the user has physically or sexually abused the child while high, resulting in the child's death.

Stop pretending that drug use happens in a perfect little vacuum, where some poor addict safely gets high in a park for the night or a secluded alleyway and the drug use ONLY affects that one user. Your arguments are pitifully and unrealistically clean and simple.

[Sky High]

I'd love to see them, or at least a digest of their findings.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...ing#.5itjJDxVx
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6e730e7a2168

keep in mind this has more to do with weed, and this is on top of the fact Portugal takes a dramatically different approach to drug addiction then the US which is probably a bigger factor than just legalizing it. with legalization comes avenues for people to seek treatment, which is the take away from this if you ask me.

[raveger]

the amount of people that blame the govt for the illegal drugs is laughable. People must not understand that Cocaine/LSD/Methamphetamines and other drugs of the sort are literally toxic for the human body/mind/psyche, hell even artists have acknowledged this in songs (shine on you crazy diamond is one example as it is based on what happened to Syd Barrett)
Look at the population that did cocain meth lsd etc and tell me they all came out alright with nothing wrong, no stunted mental growth, their teeth are all in tact, they dont have anything wrong with them. I mean hell, look at what happened to members of the US military during the Vietnam war that were given different types of amphetamines.
They are illegal to protect you.
If you want to do them, its easy to get a hold of them, by all means go ahead and destroy your life with addiction and depression. After you reach rock bottom you will understand (i hope) that they are bad.
D(rug).A(buse).R(esistance).E(ducation). it existed for a reason bro, even if funding was cut.

bash me for my post if you want, idc, this topic makes me question if millennial's (me being one) deserve to even run things if you cant even grasp that drugs are bad mm'kay?

[Eats Compost]

Because a legal regulated source isn't going to sell to kids directly making it harder for kids to get a hold of drugs. Most drug users start doing drugs when they're kids. This is the whole reason I'm arguing that it would decrease the amount of users in general. It makes them harder to get at an age when people start doing them.

Not only is that a bit of a stretch, but you're neglecting the fact that you'd still be creating a new grey/black market for the resale of these substances, which would definitely see a lot of use (in the same way that it already does for alcohol). There's no guarantee that it wouldn't be even easier for kids to get their hands on these things, and even if it weren't, you're still banking on the reduction in underage users being greater than the potential increase in adult users.

As a general rule, allowing for the legal supply and sale of a thing is a very poor way to stop people from having or using that thing. There are exceptions, obviously, but it's a terrible idea to do that for drugs where the goal is to minimise the amount of people using them.

[Freighter]

Drugs being illegal is not an effective deterrent as evidenced by the portugal study I linked earlier. Addiction rates declined when they decriminalized drugs.

Drugs being illegal is an effective deterrent as can be evidenced by singapores harsh stance on it.

[Sky High]

What do you mean with effective a fraction of the time? They act pretty effective as a deterrent. That doesn't mean there's 100% obedience to the law, you know. There will always be the people who break laws no matter what the laws are, that's not an argument to get rid of said laws.

Your logic is not sound at all.

people still break the law therefore it's "effective" a fraction of the time. I mean really this is simple brain maths. well when you set out to not actually deal with the reasons WHY people take drugs then yeah fall back on laws that don't actually solve the problem, that's your logic in all this.

[Ripster42]

the amount of people that blame the govt for the illegal drugs is laughable. People must not understand that Cocaine/LSD/Methamphetamines and other drugs of the sort are literally toxic for the human body/mind/psyche, hell even artists have acknowledged this in songs (shine on you crazy diamond is one example as it is based on what happened to Syd Barrett)
Look at the population that did cocain meth lsd etc and tell me they all came out alright with nothing wrong, no stunted mental growth, their teeth are all in tact, they dont have anything wrong with them. I mean hell, look at what happened to members of the US military during the Vietnam war that were given different types of amphetamines.
They are illegal to protect you.
If you want to do them, its easy to get a hold of them, by all means go ahead and destroy your life with addiction and depression. After you reach rock bottom you will understand (i hope) that they are bad.
D(rug).A(buse).R(esistance).E(ducation). it existed for a reason bro, even if funding was cut.

bash me for my post if you want, idc, this topic makes me question if millennial's (me being one) deserve to even run things if you cant even grasp that drugs are bad mm'kay?

If your goal is to reduce the amounts of addicts you have, don't have drugs be illegal. We already have the example of portugal that's been linked multiple times in this thread. Your ideology pales in the face of pragmatism.