Why exactly are drugs illegal?

[Dellis0991]

Anytime you take a drug and your first thought is to eat someone instead of a cheeseburger is the reason why drugs are illegal...but really though drugs like crack, meth, lsd, acid, shrooms, etc can fucking kill you on the first try that's why.

[Berengil]

Because there's lots of people that are afraid someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves in an "immoral" way.

"But but people hurt themselves with drugs" So. What. It's their body. Kids shouldn't be allowed to take them, because they don't evaluate consequences properly. Other than that, idgaf.

[Orange Joe]

Anytime you take a drug and your first thought is to eat someone instead of a cheeseburger is the reason why drugs are illegal...but really though drugs like crack, meth, lsd, acid, shrooms, etc can fucking kill you on the first try that's why.

There aren't many things in this word that CAN'T kill you on the first try if you take to much.

You can even drown yourself by drinking too much water.

[Shadowferal]

Most Americans Say Federal and State Governments Are Not Doing Enough to Combat Prescription Painkiller and Heroin Abuse

most Americans believe the federal government is not doing enough to combat the recent increases in the number of people who are addicted to prescription painkillers (66%) or heroin (62%). State governments fare no better in the public’s view, with similarly large shares saying they aren’t doing enough to combat the twin problems of painkiller abuse (67%) and heroin abuse (61%). Majorities say the same about doctors who prescribe prescription painkillers (63% and 56%, respectively), and individuals who use prescription painkillers or heroin (73% and 77%, respectively). Far fewer say police officers are not doing enough to combat painkiller abuse (37%) and heroin abuse (36%).

[Pantalaimon]

Nothing (lol) is an all-or-nothing argument. While the illegality might be a small deterrence, at this point it's not even palpable. If you want drugs, you can get them - period.

The illegality does have an enormous cost, however, and that is beyond measuring. If tomorrow there were no more illegal drugs, our society would have far fewer people in prison, and far more law enforcement officers going after criminals that actually mattered.

The other deterrence you mention, that of the effects of drugs (loss of relationships, etc) on their place in society, would actually be eliminated by making them legal. So all those "cons" you mentioned are negated after the illegality is removed.

And yet social service and other human service costs would rise as you would naturally have plenty of amounts of drug users who would not 'use drugs responsibly' and if they have children then the government would then merely be transferring where they would be having to spend money as a result of drugs. You would also still have most of the same medical costs required to save drug users who were in danger of overdosing, only now we would be hiring people to babysit drug users in safer public drug use facilities, oh and you would also be paying to create property where some drug users could have a public place to shoot up with OD staff employed there. See how our government is suddenly not making that much more money from legalizing drugs? I could go on to explain more financial hoops and hurdles that would add to these if drugs were legalized, but I think I've solidly made me point.

"...the effects of drugs... would actually be eliminated by making them illegal"? Lol wow now you're assuming a lot by that. First of all, no. Second of all, no. One of the things I mentioned that people lose nowadays when caught using illegal drugs were jobs. Even with legalized drugs there would be plenty of normal jobs and an exceptionally high amount of professional careers that would still throw your sorry ass out of the profession if you were a drug user, especially if you were using hardcore drugs. High intensive skill careers that depend on you being very focused on the job at hand (surgeons, lawyers, mechanical engineers (say those in charge of building/repairing/maintaining various important public/commercial/military vehicles) would never let someone who was an active meth or cocaine user screw up their business, reputation, and profession by taking massive risks that included hiring such drug addicts (even if it was legal). You also have the education profession, especially the early childhood educational profession, that would never knowingly hire drug addicts to work anywhere near children, legal drugs or not. If they found out you would still lose your job. It would also mean that in most of these careers' educational programs would also have punitive measures of some sort, including possibly being dropped from the program, if they discovered you were a 'legal drug user'.

You are also painting everyone the same in order to try and pass off what you perceive as a valid argument. For example, you are again assuming and stereotyping anyone in a relationship to be like the same types of couples that wouldn't break up or divorce the other if they found out that their significant other started using drugs. News flash, there would still be scores of people that would never want to be involved in drugs, whether they were legalized or not. So, no the risk of losing relationships would still be there in a world with legalized drugs, it just wouldn't be that way for every couple.

[Lotus Victoria]

Because the goverment can't take control over it =P


Jokes aside, mainly because it's deadly.

[Eninya]

If you're getting too stoned to take care of kids, perhaps not have kids?

Not to mention, exactly what's the difference between them getting too stoned and getting too drunk to take care of their kids? lmao.

Conservatives don't believe in not having kids--just abstinence.

[Killadrix]

Bleach is harmful to the body if consumed. Why is that not illegal?

Maybe because bleach isn't an addictive recreational drug that makes people feel good to the point of abusing it.

If you're going to be snarky, don't make such a stupid argument.

[Ghazan Julio]

Because domestic violence and shootings are already enough with alcohol. Giving people crack when they already have it and are doing crazy shit doesn't sound very productive.

[aeluna]

Technically drugs are legal. If its not on the magical list of prescription medication then its illegal. Best guess is the ones that don't make the cut are either 1) aid health and well-being in no manner OR 2) government and big pharma can't figure out a way to properly commercialize and tax it yet (i.e. weed) so it stays off the list

[Pantalaimon]

Because domestic violence and shootings are already enough with alcohol. Giving people crack when they already have it and are doing crazy shit doesn't sound very productive.

The people on the other side of this argument won't listen to sound logic like that. All you'll get is "Hurr, durr alcohol already causes problems and is legal so why should drugs still be legal." They can't comprehend that adding to existing problems is a bad thing.

[Rustedsaint]

Cause drugs are bad mmmkay, thou I feel we should focus more on manufacturers of illegal drugs then on jailing the addicts
weed and maybe some softer drugs are alrighty to legalize but shit like crystal meth or deadly drugs can seriously damage a person just from the first try.
Also for that orange joe guy, there plenty of toxic cleaning chemicals used in the mixture of some of the newer drugs, including a bit of bleach for use in drugs like crystal meth

[I Push Buttons]

Because there's lots of people that are afraid someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves in an "immoral" way.

"But but people hurt themselves with drugs" So. What. It's their body. Kids shouldn't be allowed to take them, because they don't evaluate consequences properly. Other than that, idgaf.

Only people don't just hurt themselves. They hurt others.

And now you go "but but alcohol!" And I respond with how alcohol was also outlawed at one point. Unlike illicit drugs, however, alcohol had already saturated society. Too many people already used and abused it by the time it was outlawed, creating quite the mess in the wake of the Volstead Act.

[Concequence]

The only thing I see in this post is... its dangerous, you might die. *yawn* ...

So I have a question. Does it being outlawed stop this? People die from overdose every day in every city in the US. Drugs being outlawed has not stopped that.

What has happened from Drugs being outlawed? ... Has anything positive happened? ... This is an honest question, has ANYTHING positive happened from drugs being outlawed? Do you think there are somehow people who did not do drugs because they were illegal? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you wanted drugs, you find a way to do them.

The laws do one thing, fill prisons, often for profit prisons.

[Pantalaimon]

The only thing I see in this post is... its dangerous, you might die. *yawn* ...

So I have a question. Does it being outlawed stop this? People die from overdose every day in every city in the US. Drugs being outlawed has not stopped that.

What has happened from Drugs being outlawed? ... Has anything positive happened? ... This is an honest question, has ANYTHING positive happened from drugs being outlawed? Do you think there are somehow people who did not do drugs because they were illegal? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you wanted drugs, you find a way to do them.

The laws do one thing, fill prisons, often for profit prisons.

You're failing to recognize that every individual's threshold for risk taking, in this case the risk being seeking out drug dealers, is not the same for everyone. You can say all you want that if somebody wanted to do them they would simply take the risk and do it, and yet such a belief is entirely throwing psychology out of the window by attributing every person with the same willingness to take such risks. For the very fact that they have been illegal, and depending on the area of the nation we're talking about you may or may not have drug dealers that are also hostile even to sellers to varying degrees. Both of these factors have and will continue to discourage some of the populace from ever actually abusing drugs (at least those drugs that cannot be abused through a pharmaceutical means).

And if the only thing you've seen in this thread is how drugs might kill the individual then you must not have been reading through many of the pages because the problem is much more complex than that.

[wunksta]

Because domestic violence and shootings are already enough with alcohol. Giving people crack when they already have it and are doing crazy shit doesn't sound very productive.

You should probably consider why people are doing crack in the first place.

Imo, locking these people up or destroying the supplies isn't reducing the demand, but is instead causing vastly more harm to our society. That's the main argument I see being used. We, as a society, should be addressing the main issue leading to substance abuse. Providing treatment, rehabilitation and education to those that are using and addicted is a better and more humane alternative than simply locking people up and driving the sale underground where people are exposed to violence and even more dangerous substances.

Yeah, and the Democrats want what? An increase in spending of social services to deal with parents too stoned to take care of their own children?

Why would there be an increase? As previously mentioned, all relevant studies to my knowledge show a decrease in overall use. Furthermore, a fraction of the spending that's already used to fight drugs can be diverted to provide rehabilitation and education. Ultimately, there's likely to be a boost in the economy as free people can choose to use non-harmful recreational drugs which will create businesses and tourism. This is already evident in the US, as well as other countries.

So because enforcing a law is hard to do we should give up on the law, great idea. Say murder get out of control in an area, don't worry just make murder legal and give up.

Apples to oranges. Drug use (by itself) is a victimless crime.

[Pantalaimon]

You should probably consider why people are doing crack in the first place.

Imo, locking these people up or destroying the supplies isn't reducing the demand, but is instead causing vastly more harm to our society. That's the main argument I see being used. We, as a society, should be addressing the main issue leading to substance abuse. Providing treatment, rehabilitation and education to those that are using and addicted is a better and more humane alternative than simply locking people up and driving the sale underground where people are exposed to violence and even more dangerous substances.



Why would there be an increase? As previously mentioned, all relevant studies to my knowledge show a decrease in overall use. Furthermore, a fraction of the spending that's already used to fight drugs can be diverted to provide rehabilitation and education. Ultimately, there's likely to be a boost in the economy as free people can choose to use non-harmful recreational drugs which will create businesses and tourism. This is already evident in the US, as well as other countries.



Apples to oranges. Drug use (by itself) is a victimless crime.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should look into addressing why people are using drugs, but you are going to have to cut people off eventually if they are truly going to be rehabilitated. Contrary to what the vast amount of people in this thread have been arguing you aren't going to cut everyone to free themselves from addiction by legalizing distribution & manufacturing and waiting until people don't want to get high anymore. Even education won't be perfect as you will still have those individuals that love getting high regardless of the aftereffects. Should we keep providing these individuals with a means to satisfy this desire, despite claiming we want them rehabilitated?

There will still be users who have children. Do we wait until those children are abused half to death, or actually killed before intervening? Do we just take the children away & continue to encourage the user(s) to stay in their addiction, despite a family unit being broken up? I believe that it shouldn't just be the individual that gets rehabilitated, but also that the family unit should be restored to healthy functionality when possible.

The thing is that life is always messy with drugs. You are often never going to be able to keep drug use isolated to a victimless crime even when it is legalized. It frequently will affect others in their immediate or nearby surroundings to various degrees, especially when the addict has a family.

[Zeta333]

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.

the ones that should be arnt.

[wunksta]

I wholeheartedly agree that we should look into addressing why people are using drugs, but you are going to have to cut people off eventually if they are truly going to be rehabilitated. Contrary to what the vast amount of people in this thread have been arguing you aren't going to cut everyone to free themselves from addiction by legalizing distribution & manufacturing and waiting until people don't want to get high anymore. Even education won't be perfect as you will still have those individuals that love getting high regardless of the aftereffects. Should we keep providing these individuals with a means to satisfy this desire, despite claiming we want them rehabilitated?

There will still be users who have children. Do we wait until those children are abused half to death, or actually killed before intervening? Do we just take the children away & continue to encourage the user(s) to stay in their addiction, despite a family unit being broken up? I believe that it shouldn't just be the individual that gets rehabilitated, but also that the family unit should be restored to healthy functionality when possible.

The thing is that life is always messy with drugs. You are often never going to be able to keep drug use isolated to a victimless crime even when it is legalized. It frequently will affect others in their immediate or nearby surroundings to various degrees, especially when the addict has a family.

So I'd like to say that I respect your opinion. Children in abusive or neglected homes should definitely be taken care of and removed from those homes while the parents get treatment. However, this unfortunately already happens while drug use is illegal. Even in situations where the parents aren't abusive, neglectful or addicts, such as in the controversial issues where children are removed from homes where the parents have smoked pot. A 'zero tolerance' stance is equally as harmful.

To clarify, we shouldn't wait or encourage anyone to stay addicted when it's harmful for themselves or their children. Decriminalizing drugs wouldn't change that in my opinion.

Life can be definitely messy with drugs, and it already is with situations like alcohol. There are many homes that have been broken simply due to that. While I'm not saying that everything will be perfect and I certainly don't have all the answers, I still stand by my opinion that offering people a chance to recover instead of threatening them is a better solution. We should also be less intrusive in people's lives where no one is threatened or harmed. As for the benefits of education, this can be seen with things like smoking cigarettes, which to my knowledge, has been on the decline due to the abundance of education and awareness.

In any case, this is definitely something we need to discuss more of as a society. It doesn't feel like we have made any progress towards eliminating drug use and it seems to have caused more harm by forcing it into the black market.

[Dimad]

Im not sure if this has been said in this thread. Not reading 15 pages to find out. The illegal drugs, ie crack, heroine, cocain etc. Are listed by the FDA as schedual 1 drugs. What this means is they have very high abuse potential and zero medical value. This is why you see them as illgeal. Opiods, ritilin etc are listed as schedual 2 medications. Which according to the FDA means they still have high abuse potential but are legal for having medical benefits. Cannibus is a oddball. The FDA is pretty firm on thier stance on it but many states have passed laws at the state level that legalize it. It has medical benefits but the abuse potential is still really high. On that note however, ANY drug can be addictive in excessive quanities.