muy_thaiguy wrote:So, why legalize more harmful substances to the general populace? Almost sounding like "Brave New World." Everyone takes drugs, of one caliber or another, just to feel "good." So, no thanks.
And no, I don't do alcohol or tobacco. The only drug that I do is one for my allergies, which is kind of in a different category.
I’m afraid you contradicted yourself there mate. How would legalizing drugs cause everyone, or at least the vast majority, to do them? At least this is what I am inferring you are saying by using "Brave New World". If this were true would you not be an alcohol and tobacco user, as both are legal drugs.
Speaking of Huxley writings, I think some of you should go read "The Doors of Perception". Perhaps it would help you to understand a different opinion on drugs then your own.
The comparison keeps being made between certain illegal drugs on the one hand, and on the other hand, alcohol and tobacco. Since a&t are more harmful, at least in some respects, than are at least some illegal drugs, the natural assumption is that either all should be illegal or all should be legal. Since prohibition is held to have failed, that leaves only the conclusion that all should be legal. Given the assumptions used, this is a perfectly logical conclusion, but there is a point of view that is not being considered.
What is being ignored is the fact that alcohol and tobacco have become an inextricable part of our society and culture. That speaks to two faulty assumptions in the above argument.
The first false assumption is that prohibition failed. Of course it failed in the sense that it was repealed. But those who argue that everyone went to the “speakeasies” and prohibition didn’t deter anyone from drinking have watched too many American gangster movies. Statistics on various alcohol-related conditions indicate that there was a significant reduction in alcohol consumption during that period. Yes, there are people who will be deterred from doing something because it is illegal, incredible as that may seem.
The other false assumption is that the rationale for alcohol (and tobacco) to be legal has to be that they are not as bad as the ones that are still illegal. The actual reason is in the real reason that prohibition “failed.” People won’t stand for it. Drinking and smoking are part of daily life. They are considered a right.
Now I’m not arguing for keeping the status quo just because it is the status quo. I’m just saying that it’s not automatic if you can prove that an illegal drug is less harmful than alcohol, it ought to be legal. Perhaps alcohol ought to be illegal too, but we just can’t pull that off. Saying, “We couldn’t outlaw alcohol, so we should just legalize everything” is a little like saying, “We couldn’t stop Hitler from taking Poland and France, let’s just surrender and give him the rest of the world.”
The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.
daddy1gringo wrote:The first false assumption is that prohibition failed. Of course it failed in the sense that it was repealed. But those who argue that everyone went to the “speakeasies” and prohibition didn’t deter anyone from drinking have watched too many American gangster movies. Statistics on various alcohol-related conditions indicate that there was a significant reduction in alcohol consumption during that period. Yes, there are people who will be deterred from doing something because it is illegal, incredible as that may seem.
As you said: "It failed because people won't stand for it". That basically means prohibition failed. Ofcourse some people didn't drink when alcohol was illegal, but I doubt they actually approved of it.
The other false assumption is that the rationale for alcohol (and tobacco) to be legal has to be that they are not as bad as the ones that are still illegal. The actual reason is in the real reason that prohibition “failed.” People won’t stand for it. Drinking and smoking are part of daily life. They are considered a right.
Exactly. However, this doesn't mean that logical arguments aren't any good. It's the same thing with, for example, the right to vote. Not too long ago it was considered a basic right for every white man to vote. But then they realised that if they were allowed to vote, why shouldn't blacks or women be allowed to vote?
And alcohol shouldn't be illegal, because everyone has a right to do with their body what they want.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Also, another point. I do think that legalising all drugs will increase the usage somewhat, but I believe that that is countered by the benefits of legalising it.
The fact heroin will be less expensive (junkies won't have to steal for a living), less dangerous (no containment or wrong usage) and will actually bring money into the government weighs up to the fact more people might start using.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
daddy1gringo wrote:The comparison keeps being made between certain illegal drugs on the one hand, and on the other hand, alcohol and tobacco. Since a&t are more harmful, at least in some respects, than are at least some illegal drugs, the natural assumption is that either all should be illegal or all should be legal. Since prohibition is held to have failed, that leaves only the conclusion that all should be legal. Given the assumptions used, this is a perfectly logical conclusion, but there is a point of view that is not being considered.
What is being ignored is the fact that alcohol and tobacco have become an inextricable part of our society and culture. That speaks to two faulty assumptions in the above argument.
The first false assumption is that prohibition failed. Of course it failed in the sense that it was repealed. But those who argue that everyone went to the “speakeasies” and prohibition didn’t deter anyone from drinking have watched too many American gangster movies. Statistics on various alcohol-related conditions indicate that there was a significant reduction in alcohol consumption during that period. Yes, there are people who will be deterred from doing something because it is illegal, incredible as that may seem.
The other false assumption is that the rationale for alcohol (and tobacco) to be legal has to be that they are not as bad as the ones that are still illegal. The actual reason is in the real reason that prohibition “failed.” People won’t stand for it. Drinking and smoking are part of daily life. They are considered a right.
Now I’m not arguing for keeping the status quo just because it is the status quo. I’m just saying that it’s not automatic if you can prove that an illegal drug is less harmful than alcohol, it ought to be legal. Perhaps alcohol ought to be illegal too, but we just can’t pull that off. Saying, “We couldn’t outlaw alcohol, so we should just legalize everything” is a little like saying, “We couldn’t stop Hitler from taking Poland and France, let’s just surrender and give him the rest of the world.”
Actually I think the rationale for legalisation is that it would take the profit away from criminal enterprise, it would make the product less harmfull and it would enable people to make an educated choice.
Also, daddy1gringo, prohibition of marijuana and other controlled substances has failed, as evidenced in this thread. If I, a bored 21 year old nerd, can get my hands on just about any controlled substance (granted, I've never tried to score mescaline, or most hard drugs for that matter, but you get the idea) I want in less than 20 minutes, I think we can agree that drug prohibition has failed. It's main role in society today is to punish those unlucky to get caught. I feel like the movie Traffic more or less sums up my position. Market forces, baby.
