However I would argue that the current approach also breaks up homes, kills people and is generally irrational so that doesn't seem the way to go either.
Gore Vidal I think has the ultimate answer to the drug problem. Invent better drugs. Mitigate the harm. People will leave off the dangerous trash if there are better (and cheaper) alternatives.
Why then should I support proliferation of even more addictive and harmful substances? Tobacco smoke is bad enough, but used hypodermic needles laying on the ground is another issue entirely. The trouble with addictive drugs is that a person's free agency is overruled by dependancy on the substance: addicts want to quit but can't. We keep other far less harmful products off the market through regulation, and I don't see how this is any different.
The harmful products we should regulate are ones whose use harms other people; things like pesticides, pollutants, etc. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Lots of people think playing video games or watching tv 'rots your brain.' Some people eat way too much unhealthy food. Should we ban tvs and Doritos?
What's the difference between this argument and "why should I have to pay for the insurance of others who get sick? should we all have to pay because a few can't live a healthy life?"?
Accepting universal drug prohibition is not anything like accepting mandatory insurance. Mandatory insurance results in nearly everyone being covered by insurance. Conversely, universal prohibition doesn't result in people NOT using drugs, it simply results in drugs being expensive and unregulated. Over a century of of strict prohibition has demonstrated this extensively.
if taking drugs was guaranteed to cause problems id certainly have been subject to them and while i am no longer actively searching these things out or experimenting i will dabble from time to time, yet im still a "functioning member of society"
"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." "
I think there are enough reported cases of drug addicts resorting to crime and assault to get their fix (and it's not clear how legalizing drugs will change that, since addicts will still have to pay for their dose), not many of people would do the same to get their fix of videogames or doritos, not all addictions have the same strength and side effects.
I'm for decriminalization (still an offense, but not punishable with jail) and investing in treatment more than policing, but I don't think legalization would be beneficial.
How about panhandling for an hour a week?
The street price of illegal drugs is all about compensating everyone in the production and distribution chain for the risk of being arrested or killed.
Legal drugs can be as cheap as we want them to be, weighting risk of violence against barrier for starting users and tax revenue.
The price floor (without subsidies) is dimes per dose. How much does refined sugar cost? Three bucks per kilo? Four?
Alcohol users drive into school buses and kill innocent children.
Now that we have our first president who doesn't use alcohol, it's time we crack down on the alcohol users. For the children.
Sarcasm is generally perceived to be a lazy and ineffective way to make an argument, because it is imprecise, tends to strawman the opposing viewpoint, and lacks precise positive claims. The belief is that if the poster actually had something to add to the conversation, they should state it clearly and precisely, rather than relying on subtext and sarcasm.
As a general rule, I think this is correct. If one can't phrase a sarcastic retort as a concrete rebuttal, one's views are likely less clear than one would like. There generally isn't any interesting reason to prefer a sarcastic variation on a response to a straight-forward one, especially in a forum where non-native language speakers, as well as individuals who do not register sarcasm, are frequent visitors.
This forum caters to a distinctly older and more highly educated demographic than reddit (or whatever), and participants are held to norms that might at first seem strange or alien.
The criminal justice response to this has clearly failed. How about treating this as the public health problem it is? Give addicts access to clean needles, safe injecting spaces, and needle disposal and you'll get rid of most of the problems of irresponsibly dangerously disposed of needles.
Personally, the amount of cigarette buts littered seems to have decreased in the past decades, simply because fewer people smoke, and those who do smoke often use designated smoking areas.
It takes time, and with drugs it will take time as well.
Because keeping them illegal does far, far more harm than you probably realise.
Go to Mexico or Afghanistan to see the most obvious effects of the illegal cultivation of raw materials. But also go to any poor neighbourhood in most Western cities to see what illegality does there. The corruption of law and politics, the denial of human rights and the distorting effect of too much money in the wrong places.
It's been estimated that the world narcotics industry is financially about the same size as the oil industry. If alcohol was invented today its use would immediately be criminalised. But it's not because, as the US found with Prohibition, doing so once the demand is there causes the near breakdown of social democracy. When you land at Kula Lumpur airport, the cabin attendant welcomes you to Malaysia and reminds you politely that trafficking in drugs carries a mandatory sentence of death. And as you walk to reclaim your baggage, there are posters of nooses with the words "dadah" beneath them.
That, if nothing else, should clue you that after 50 years of prohibition the situation is utterly out of control.
Some other good arguments are...
* harm reduction through unadulterated and consistent drugs, clean needles, less stigmatization of addicts
* elimination of the black market around illegal drugs
* money from taxation
* reduction of the prison population and financial savings in the legal system / government / police
* the opportunity for research into both the medicinal effects of drugs like marijuana, mdma, psilocybin, and potential treatments based on greater scientific insight into the addictive properties of recreational drugs.
* that prohibition actually pushes people toward more dangerous drugs (heroin --> fentanyl, LSD / mushrooms --> 25i-NBOMe, marijuana --> K2)
* that the drug war is simply not working, so even if drug use has some inherent detriment to society, there's no realistic way to make that disappear.
If you put people in jail for using drugs, everyone else is paying for that through taxation.
If they are working, then they are paying taxes. Even in areas with chronic unemployment (and we need to have a while 'nother conversation about economic inequality), a good percentage might still be working if not in jail.
So that is a double whammy to the tax payers who are paying for the War on Drugs.
Humans are not well-adapted to the temptations, challenges, and weird outcomes of modern life. Many people - probably most people - need to have their world and their choices shaped by social policy and group morality. Left with total freedom and no guidance, they would destroy themselves because they couldn't understand or handle the perverse, distant, brutal, unpredictable outcomes of their decisions.
We're just not evolved to thrive in a world with World of Warcraft, heroin, credit cards, sugary drinks, alcohol, motor vehicles, birth control, mass media, porn, reality TV, glamour magazines, Photoshopped models, etc.
The more our world diverges from the conditions of our ancient ancestors, the more it needs to be shaped. And as a very individualistic freedom-loving person, I hate saying this but it's true.
Grown adults can make their own decisions and suffer the consequences.
Acting like you have a right to tell other people what they can and can't do is incredibly egotistical.
Not in any western country. People are heavily insulated from the consequences of their actions by the welfare state. We even subsidize their ability to bring children into the world and (most likely) raise them poorly.
I'm not even pro criminalization, but, c'mon man.
The state should provide a certain base level safety net, especially so those who realised they messed up have a way to turn things around, but society should allow people to learn from their mistakes. It's important to give people that freedom to grow, even if it takes some self-destructive behaviour before someone wants to turn their life around. Actions that affect multiple people should be handled differently, but if all I'm doing is making myself unhealthy then perhaps I just have different priorities. In short, freedom should include the freedom to mess up.
Simple non-aggression isn't good enough. We all depend on others contributing to society. The standard cannot be that you simply must not actively cause harm. The standard must be that we each contribute positively.
None of us ever reached adulthood except by the contributions of others - parents, social services, earlier taxpayers, soldiers, etc. You owe those contributions back to the next generation, and to the people who share society with you.
If you're strung out or dead from foolish drug use, you cannot contribute. You cannot pay that back, and you are a wrongdoer for taking without reciprocating.
Any other attitude will create a non-viable society over the long term, and spread great suffering.
But I disagree that drug policy is judged on the merits you mention; we have evidence of decriminalization in portugal, and its relative success in preventing destruction. Meanwhile elsewhere in the world there is very little appetite to entertain the idea of decriminalization or legalization, despite evidence supporting the theory that prohibition exacerbates the effects its intended to directly prevent.
People wanting to legalise drugs are not saying "it's fine to sell heroin to 8 year olds".
Legalisation of drugs would make it easier to control sales to children.
(1) Should we allow corporations to market addictive drugs? No, we shouldn't -- not blanket anyways. Same as tobacco. You don't get to advertise. The product sells it self you don't get to help out.
(2) Children: You don't get to advertise to children. You don't get to sell near schools. You don't get to sell to anyone under 18 (or probably 21 for some reason in the US).
(3) If that's not enough, require a license from a physician who gives you a walkthrough on the risks, how to do drugs safely and what to do if you have trouble or think you're getting addicted.
(4) Mandatory addiction counseling, as in Portugal.
Realistically, though, I would be very surprised if selling drugs legally lead to a huge spike in usage. Anyone who wants heroin now can just get it, thing is, most people don't want heroin. Legalizing that won't change that in my opinion.
Legalizing doesn't mean requiring people to take them, or even market them, or even shine a positive light on them. It means not taking people with a medical problem and throwing them into prison where they have access to even more drugs.