Why are drugs ilegal?
 

I was wondering why you think drugs are ilegal?

And why is alcohol legal when its another drug?

Do you agree that they should be ilegal?

My theory, and this is a pretty lame-ass theory-------

Drugs are illegal because, even in the smallest amount, they still do some type of damage to you. Marijuana hurts your lungs b/c of the smoke (and some would argue your brain, too.) Exstacy eats away at your brain, even in the smallest doses. I'm not too sure about cocaine and heroin but they're obviously not too good for you either.
Alcohol, however, in a small dose, say, a glass, has actually been proven to give health benefits. And even if its not helping, its not hurting. I think that's the main difference.
With pot, you can say that it eases pain and should be used medicinally (I agree with this) but its still hurting your lungs.

I dunno????? that was my pathetic attempt

That was a pretty good idea, AXJules. I'd say the same thing. I mean maybe alcohol is not illegal even though it's a drug (same for tobacco) because it takes a lot of it to seriously harm a person. I mean, acid or something like that can kill you the first time you do it, and it doesn't take much. Alcohol can kill you the first time you do it too, if you drink a LOT of it. The theory is if you drink responsibly, you'll be okay. I don't know if there could ever be a such thing as snorting coke responsibly.

Drugs like heroin and cocain should remain illegal. Marijuana should be decriminalized. Heroin is a very dangerous and addictive drug, as is cocaine.

As far as marijuana damaging the lungs, the same can be said for cigarettes, yet they are legal. No scientific evidence has been presented that would say that marijuana does any sort of damage to the brain.

For a different spin on the government's own research, go to

www.drugwarfacts.org

I learned in high school that smoking one joint (marijuana) is like smoking 10 packs of cigarettes when it comes to lung damage, or something like that. Of course most people don't smoke weed as often as they smoke cigarettes I guess. I personally don't think it needs to be legalized.

One of the problems with the war on drugs is the propaganda or misinformation.

Once an issue becomes political or has an agenda it is very difficult to get real data.

I learned in parochial school that masturbation causes hairy palms, hair loss, and blindness . . .

LOL, if that were true, there'd be a lot of hairy, bald, and blind people out there! :D

The only good argument I've heard for NOT decriminilizing Marijuana is an economic one.

Think of all the jobs in law enforcement, DEA, prisons, etc. that would be lost if marijuana was no longer criminal? All the inmates that would be free to harm their lungs as they pleased?

I advocate decriminilazation (sp) of marijuana.

I have never done pot. Ever. Never even tried it. Never. But I absolutely and passionately advocate its legalization. I prolly still wouldnt do it, because its not something that interests me.

My belief in its decriminalization comes from an understandign of how it was criminalized in the first place. Several big points:

1) William Randolph Hearst sensationalized the effects of smoking pot to sell papers. He got the nation in a fury over it.

2) Paul Anslinger (sp) and J. Edgar Hoover used illegal drugs to target minority populations and fringe groups (blacks, mexican immigrants, etc) as a way to opress and harass those populations. Then as now, minority offenders recieved sentences dramitically different based on race.

3) The govmt said and the laws were written because they said it had "no medicinal value", which we all know now, it does.

It will stay illegal tho prolly for a while for the folowing reasons:
1) Most americans want the laws on the books, but dont really want them inforced. Yeah, were whack liek that.

2) THe only people in this country that vote on a regular basis are little old 80 year old women, who are terrified of crime and candidates knwo they are tied to that group. They believe this tripe becaus ethey grew up in the tiem when it was being sensationalized, and bought into it. As soon as their gone and our generalting gets a bit older, it will be decriminalized, bu that wont be for another 20 years or so.

I dont haoverver advocate the legalization of coke, speed, meth or herroin. Just pot.

My 2 cents.

lifesave, were you stoned when you wrote that! J/K:D

Alcohol is legal because wine is mentioned in the bible!;)

I have a LOT to say about this because I've been around the block a few times and KNOW what I'm talking about.
Given, many of you may have been around HUNDREDS of times...

17-27 Being involved with musicians, I "SAW" it all (no heroin), magic mushrooms, LSD, pot/angel dust, hash, coke, uppers, downers AND alcoholism... NONE of it was good. You can't imagine how many bands just fell apart because the lead guitarist thought he was perfection when he was loaded or the bass went into some riff that blew the song. Friends dropping out because they woke up-lit up and didn't bother going to class.
Girls giving it up to basic strangers (this was mostly pre AIDS) because they got high together. BAD, BAD, scene. It was an era of raids, failures and Monday gossip at the UC and later the pool side or apt. gatherings. People who began their 20s with hopes of becoming doctors or lawyers saw their dreams ripped from them in either a single night of poor judgment or over the course of months that turned their attitudes into "I don't give a--"

28-current Some parents were still indulging and their kids were
"farmed out" so they could get high. Some got caught and the whole FAMILY was disgraced others carried their reputation with them and their success never materialized.
THE CHILDREN-Even the BEST parents have seen their kids succumb to drugs. The availability is great and the potency is greater. The age at which young people can acquire substances is before they have the where-with-all to deal with the affects.
Cigarettes are illegal under 18, but you still see 12 yr. olds smoking. Consider drinking! Grass is so enticing. It holds the excitement of risk, alters your thinking (there are a lot of people who are unhappy with their reality) and enhances the senses and sexual experiences. Yet, I've seen BRILLIANT kids get involved and without intervention, they fall off and never seem to climb back up. Sometimes you have to weigh the factors. It's easy to say, "I can handle it." ...maybe so, but that IS what EVERYONE thinks.

There are 50 and 60 year olds making the paper every other day-being tried for "Possession with intent to distribute". How sad is THAT! I understand the desire to legalize grass, but I also recognize the ramifications. The one point I'll give on this topic is lessening the punishment for a first offense. I almost wish I could say "NO RECORD" on the first offense because it IS so alluring and it IS heartbreaking to see a young person's dreams go "up in smoke" because of one incident of poor judgment.

I am not judging anyone on their choices. I do NOT think negatively of those who choose to or not to. BUT, ask yourself- are you only friends with people who do? Are your "best times" when you were? Do you plan an evening around it...like "How cool would it be to see this movie, go to that concert, hook up with...if I were zoned? When you think everything in life is BETTER stoned, you need to think about it...but not when you're stoned.
Though EVERYONE KNOWS what great conversations evolve from a joint. I just hope you CAN control "it" and "it" NEVER becomes so important that all you can think about is the next high.

Do I have any friends left???

JAM i agree with you on alot of what you have said, i know people and have known people since high school who's entire life evolved around pot, their favorite TV show was that Seventies Show, cause they smoked pot in it. In this country, unlike the US, pot is cheap, easily attainable and generally if caught goes unpunished. It is more or less legal here, or at least decriminalized already, regardless of whether the law says that or not. The opposite to that is that i know alot of people who smoke, who excel at school and could very well be lawyers and doctors. I guess the lesson is everything is good in moderation.

I know I pimped this program before on here, but "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way" is on the History Channel today starting at 3 PM eastern. One of the main points it makes is that drugs were criminalized to punish certain ethnic or demographic groups.

A pro-legalization group had an ad in the City Paper saying that the "gateway" argument doesn't apply to marijuana's effects, but rather to the means by which you have to obtain it. That is, when you have to buy pot from a dealer, it's often the same guy who has cocaine, heroin etc for sale. You're more likely to try other things if you have to deal with someone who has them readily available and wants to make more $$$ from you. If you just went to the store and bought it that wouldn't be an issue. (Jim Morrison made a similar argument, actually, saying he preferred alcohol because of all the sleazy connotations of having to score drugs.) What pot physically does to you is not what makes you want to try coke etc.

If pot WAS legalized, it would be much weaker than it is now - much like moonshine as opposed to legal alcohol.

Re: Why are drugs ilegal?
 

I was wondering why you think drugs are ilegal?
Because some of them can alter consciousness and make you do bad decisions, like having unproctected sex with strangers, or drive a car and wrap it around a phone pole.

And why is alcohol legal when its another drug?
Hmmm...I guess because you need to abuse it for years and years before it damages you? Don't forget that alcohol was illegal at one time.

Do you agree that they should be illegal?
For chronically ill people, where prescription medication has failed them, I do believe that cannabis should be made available to them through a controlled bureau (We have some "Compassion Clubs" in Canada...each one varies, but one of them has an excellent relationship with the Police Dept, I might add.... The people who want to avail themselves of the cannabis must have a doctor's note. They can only go like once every 2 weeks and they only get a small amount of cannabis. They, themselves have to go IN PERSON, if they feel too sick to go, they still have to go themselves, they can't send a friend in their place. That's basically how it works.)
Thanks.


The Compassion Club

Links to other Compassion Clubs

I think drugs are illegal because of the misguided idea that the goverment is a father figure for all of us because they think we're too stupid to make our own decisions and need to "protect" us from ourselves. I'm not sure if I'm saying that so it makes sense.

I believe that ALL drugs should be legal. It is YOUR CHOICE to determine what, if anything, to put into your body, as long as you aren't hurting anyone else. Whether or not to use drugs is a personal decision, and I don't think it is the government's place to tell us what we can and cannot use.

Re: Re: Why are drugs ilegal?
 

Heh, I see you bought into those commercials too.

Re: Re: Why are drugs ilegal?
 

Does alcohol not have this same effect?

Drug use in America is in its infancy. Some people still remember when marijuana, cocaine, and heroine were still legal. At some point, alcohol was also illegal (not consumption, just production and transportation). So what I'm trying to say is that quite possibly sentiments towards drugs will change.

Most, if not all, top economists believe drugs should be legalized and taxed. Drug users have been shown through tests to be FULLY RATIONAL. There is some propoghanda to suggest otherwisse, but tests show differently. Because people are rational and because the government can lower the usage of a "vice" through a tax while increasing its tax revenue, economists support legalization.

-Rudey

Alchohol isn't healthy. That "one a day" is advise for people who drink 6 a day.

Word up.

I don't know if full legalization of all drugs is the way to go. It will end up like cigarettes, where the government makes huge profts and costs millions of Americans their lives.

I would kinda disagree with the fact that all heroin/cocaine addicts are FULLY RATIONAL. Meet an addict and you decide.

Strange, b/c as I advocate for the decriminalization of Marijuana it's for economic reasons...

Marijuana, if legalized, could then become regulated which means they could tax the hell out of it. The Government would be able to spend money "War on Drugs" $$$ on the more dangerous drugs, and make money on the sale of Marijuana which could go to education programs similar to anti-tobacco programs. Plus the savings combined with the tax could go towards other things (just hopefully not the defense budget...)

As for the prisons and loss of jobs...well I think that those same people could go out and fight other drugs and other crimes. As for the Prisons, non-violent offenders who would be released would make room for those who we need to be protected from.

Real quick semantics...

Legalization and decriminalization are NOT the same thing.

To decriminalize something is to reduce or abolish criminal penalties for it. To legalize it is to sanction or advocate it.

The two could be interchangable, but it is important to note the difference.

Im confused...are you saying this never happens? A friend of mine was killed in a marijuana-related automobile accident, and I find it a tad disrespectful to question the validity of it ever happening. Yes, significantly more accidents happen because of alcohol. Why this strikes some people as an excuse to legalize it boggles the mind, because if, for example, alcohol related accidents caused 100,000 deaths a year, and pot related accidents claimed the lives of 4, why would anyone want to compound those figures. Does pot make anyone into a violent criminal? No way to be 100% certain, but Id actually lean towards no. It does make people careless, and that can be just as dangerous as violence.

When it comes to the decriminalization or legalization of a mind-altering substance, the argument becomes much more universal. It really depends on how much you trust other people to do the responsible thing. Id trust myself to smoke, (as I do to drink) because I know I wouldnt put myself in a compromising position (behind the wheel of a car, with a nonconsenting female). Im certain that there are people much more responsible than I am, but I just dont know for sure if theyre the ones that are going to be on the road, potentially endangering someone I love. If drugs (especially hard ones) affected just the people who use them, as stated before, then it would be a personal choice. However, many times it does not, and when you threaten someone elses livelihood, thats where our 'father figure' comes in. Regretfully, some people are 'too stupid to make their own decisions', and when left to their own devices, could cause harm to others.

My stance: Ive said a lot of ambiguous things, and I can say that I support decriminalization, because there are bigger problems for the government to be worried about. For me to vote for it, there would have to be the equivalent of a breathalyzer, or other instant test. Drivers under the influence should have the book thrown at them, as in alcohol related cases. I should add, that besides the medical uses (and there are other painkillers), I have not seen one persons life improved or maintained by pot smoking.

DeltaSigStan, Im not sure how you meant what you said above, but to me, you trivialized the legitimacy of the injuries, rapes, and deaths caused by marijuana use. Not every smoker (in fact, an extremely small few) has done those things, but it does happen, and I think everyone deserves to know the potential consequences without having them laughed at.

I guess what I was trying to say is that stupidity, not marijuana causes those things. If stupid people think smoking weed will enhance casual sex, then they're idiots. If you know how to control it and yourself and your decisions, then a lot of those things wouldn't happen. If you smoke in a bathroom at an arena, you're dumb. If you go to the drive through and do what those guys did, you're dumb. If you play with a loaded gun, then, well, you know.

I'm just tired of weed being the excuse when people do stupid things. If you're gonna smoke, then know to have some common sense. But, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, however I can see how that comes across as insulting.

Exactly, Stan. It's like the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing. Marijuana doesn't make you unknowingly shoot your best friend, run over children playing in the street, or get accidentally pregnant at 15. Stupidity does.

Regardless of the legality of marijuana, stupid & careless people are going to find a way to screw up their lives and other people's lives. And smart, responsible people will be able to avoid making those kinds of mistakes regardless of whether or not they choose to smoke marijuana.

If you're responsible, you know not to drive when you've been smoking marijuana, and you don't put yourself in situations where that's going to be an issue. If you're responsible, you know not to smoke up at a party without knowing that you have friends that you can trust with your life around you to keep an eye on you and take care of you (and vice versa), so someone will prevent it if somebody else tries to take advantage of you. And for god's sake, anybody who doesn't keep their guns locked up from their children is just asking for an accident to happen!

We cater too much to stupidy. Look at shows like Jackass, Fear Factor, etc. Or warnings on hair dryers that say don't use while showering. If you're that ignorant then yeah, death would be sad, but maybe those genes shouldn't be reproducing.

I agree those genes shouldnt be reproducing, but again, its not themselves alone that they take out :)

Stan, I didnt mean to come off as aggressive as I did. Believe me, Id be the worlds biggest personal freedom advocate/anarchist/libertarian if I could trust people not to be so stupid. But sadly, people are going to hold coffee between their legs, sue McDonalds for making them fat, rob each other for $150 Nikes, join the KKK, and other voraciously illogical activity. Quite frankly, the government has to make some decisions for people for the good of society as a whole.

In a study of long-term and shorter-term marijuana users, researchers in Greece found that both groups performed more poorly on tests of memory, attention and other cognitive abilities than a comparison group who'd only occasionally used the drug.

Long-term users - who'd smoked four or more joints per week for at least 10 years - showed the greatest deficits.

Absolutely!! My brother is much older than I, and went through the whole 70's drug scene and I am absolutely AMAZED by how much he will argue that (name the point) happened, or how (name the point) didn't happen.

I'm in geriatrics. For former (or current) drug users, the age span is MUCH lower than the average geriatric client.

Why is it illegal? They'll give you the old "gateway drug" factor, but I think JAM said it much better than I could.

So did they test these people before they started smoking weed? They're not saying that correlation implies causation, are they? I'm sure they would never do such a thing.

I personally feel like it's kinda hypocritical to allow tobacco but not allow marijuana. Tobacco has absolutely no health benefits. And while marijuana smoke is more potent and worse for your respiratory system, there are far more cigarette smokers than pot smokers. Plus, a lot of cigarette smokers aren't just smoking one or two. They're chain smoking, they're smoking in public places (bars, restaurants, outside, etc.), and non-smokers (myself included) end up breathing in second-hand smoke (as well as having our clothes smell like smoke after a night out). I'm not necessarily saying that we should legalize marijuana. I think marijuana should be legal for medicinal use, especially for terminal patients. I also think that our government needs to focus more on more dangerous drugs, especially with the growing problem of crystal meth. I couldn't find more up-to-date statistics, but the statistics for 1997 were that marijuana arrests accounted for 12.7% of the total federal prison population and 87.2% of marijuana arrests were for possession. So that means that we're mostly arresting users. Only 12.8% of the arrests were for the growers and dealers. Not only is arresting the users not going to stop the growth and sale of marijuana, it's putting additional strain on our overcrowded prison system.

---------------------------------------------------------

In addition, I found this article, and below are the two sections that I found the most interesting.

----------------------------------------------------------
"If we are to have a consistent drug policy, we need to either legalize marijuana or prohibit tobacco. The government has created an international police force in the Drug Enforcement Administration, which aims to close down the trade and development of illegal drugs. However, at the same time, they have been providing substantial economic support for those who own and operate expansive tobacco plantations. While tobacco is less harmful than most illicit drugs, its effects are similar and at times, more extensive than those of marijuana."

"In economic terms, marijuana and tobacco are essentially substitution products. That means than an increase in use of one product tends to reduce use of the other, because they are used in a similar manner, often for similar reasons. If marijuana were to become legal, and usage were to go up, then cigarette sales would likely go down, which would decrease the profits of many campaign contribution giants, including Philip Morris, who was the top contributor for the 1995-96 campaign, and the three other tobacco companies in the top 100 contributors. Naturally, the corporate giants will use their political clout to stop legislation they see as a detriment to their economic health. In most industries, there would be heavily funded corporate lobbies defending business interests on each issue of legalization. However, because of the prohibition on pot, most people who raise cannabis domestically have small-scale industries, which are often run out of a converted guest room or green house. They lack the extensive economic resources of Philip Morris or Brown and Williamson, and so can’t pay millions each year toward campaign funds for their own political benefit. Because the tobacco companies own expansive plantations, they can donate more of their time and money to influence legislation on their behalf. In this manner, those who are within the marijuana industry are at a disadvantage when issues of advocacy arise."

People go to prison an average of five times longer for weed than for manslaughter.

I find that absolutely ridiculas.

Cannibis should be treated like alcohol and tobaco.

You can buy it from bars or the 7-11 if you are 18. Don't drive while high.

It won't be the end of the world.

The only reason its illegal is because of racism.

No kidding. I was shocked at the disparity in the sentencing laws for crack cocaine and powder cocaine, when I did a paper two years ago.

"Congress responded by passing the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988. The acts created the Office of National Drug Control Policy....The law required a mandatory minimum 10-year sentence without parole for those dealing 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine (about 10 pounds). Those dealing 500 grams or more (about one pound) receive a mandatory 5-year minimum....Congress also set a similar two-tiered structure for crack sentences. But Congress believed crack cocaine to be more addictive, more linked to violent crime, and more likely to be dealt in small quantities than powder cocaine. It therefore set the minimum amounts of crack drastically lower than powder cocaine. A person dealing 50 grams (about two ounces) of crack receives the same 10-year-minimum sentence as a person with 5,000 grams of powder cocaine. A person with 5 grams (about two-tenths of an ounce) of crack gets the same 5-year-minimum sentence as a person with 500 grams of powder cocaine. In other words, Congress set a 100:1 ratio between powder and crack cocaine. (Most state drug laws also set a ratio between the two drugs, but none as large as 100:1.)"

"The study concluded that blacks are arrested for drug crimes way out of proportion to black drug use. Blacks accounted for about 13% of drug users, yet they also accounted for 35% of all arrests for drug possession, 55% of all convictions on those charges, and 74% of all drug possessors sentenced to prison. From 1986 to 1991, the number of black drug offenders in prison jumped nearly twice as fast as rates for any other group, with the number of black men imprisoned for drug offenses increasing 429%....The impact of severe mandatory minimum sentences for first time non-violent drug offenders and the contrast between crack and powder cocaine sentencing has aggravated the racial imbalance in drug enforcement even further. For example, federal sentencing guidelines impose a five year minimum sentence if one is convicted of selling five grams of crack, yet the sale of an equal amount of powder cocaine yields only a one year sentence. Crack defendants tend to be black, while powder cocaine defendants tend to be white. Simple possession of more than five grams of crack is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for a first offender, while possession of the same amount of powder cocaine is a misdemeanor requiring no jail time."

http://www.crfc.org/dmclessondrug.html http://www.212.net/crime/justice.htm