I have read this entire thread and it's evident to me that the youngsters are all for a lawless age coming down the pike. They want no one to be held accountable, no social responsibility. It's the decay of our society in a nutshell. I suspect now that there will be posts to follow this one that will say that my generation is stiff and closed minded and irrational, and that my shortsighted view is antiquated. But I expect that, and would be shocked if it isn't to follow. I fear for this mindset that is on the horizon for our country.

 

No one to be held accountable??? Who said that? If someone commits a crime while on drugs, they need to be held accountable, just as they are now. But if Joe Schmo down the street wants to trip on some acid in the privacy of his own home, why should that be illegal?

1. It would reduce the crime and eliminate the criminal activity that stems from the black market. Drugs are more expensive being illegal and even more so when legislators decided to "crack down." All this does is raise the price in hopes to deter people from doing them --which it doesn't -- and makes drug lords like El Chapo Guzmán very rich men (or women.)

 

2. It would make drug use much safer and clean. When drugs are produced legally, they would end up undergoing some type of quality control making the unknown and dangerous chemicals obsolete. The biggest reason we see so many people "shooting" up is because its the cheapest way of getting their fix. Drugs would be cheaper, however, price has shown not to matter because people will find another, cheaper way -- like using a needle. They could get the same high and doing doing drugs in a cleaner fashion.

 

3. Free up our prisons and judicial systems.

 

4. Allow us to save billions on taxpayers money.

 

5. Potentially save the black family unit from being subjected to disproportionate scrutiny and imprisoned for non-violent crimes.

 

6. Allow us to address the real issue at hand: poverty. Poverty is the leading cause of drug abuse. Ending the war on drugs would allow us to free up resources and focus on poverty. Drug abuse shouldn't be labeled as a criminal activity. It's a social issue much like alcoholism and tobacco use and we should educate people as such.

 

1. I don't agree that it would reduce crime. Yes it may reduce drug crimes if drugs were legalized, but those in society making a living from selling and distributing drugs aren't suddenly going to get a new job. They will simply shift to another criminal enterprise to continue to make money.

 

2. I agree with drugs would be safer if manufactured and controlled by the Government (wait aren't all you guys against government intervention in any facet of our lives). Would drugs really be cheaper if they were made in a factory full of people with degrees in chemical engineering or would it be cheaper if some slackjaw made it in a Mt Dew bottle in the back seat of 72 Nova.

 

3. Free up or prisons? Are there a lot of people in prison for possession? I think most of the people in prison form drug crimes are in for distributing and trafficking, not for have a couple of grams of crank. Even the countries that have decriminalized drugs (like the drug utopia, Portugal) have continued to prosecute for selling, manufacturing and trafficking drugs...I would have to think that even in the US that would still be illegal and there fore the same people would still be the ones going to prison.

 

4. Yes it would, it would save some money from the Drug War. But there would still be drug laws that would need to be enforced, there would still be people trying to make money off of drugs illegally and money would still need to be spent on Drug Enforcement. The money that would be needed for Healthcare and other social services related to legalized use of heroine, crack, meth, cocaine and LSD would dwarf the amount spent on the "Drug War" currently.

 

5. I don't think drugs is a black only problem? But again refer to my answer to #3, if they are dealing or trafficking they should be in prison

Black, White, Hispanic or Asian. Should the sentence be the same for crack and cocaine? Yes, that has unfairly put longer sentences on drug dealers that deal crack than those that deal cocaine.

 

6. BINGO WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER...Poverty is the number one contributing factor IMO to the drug problem in this country. This is where the war on DRUGS will be won or lost. But we have to have jobs and other opportunities available before any discussion of decriminalization of drugs can be started. If cheaper drugs were made available wide spread before there were other opportunities I don't see it working.

Bonus Idea--- Take 75% of the money spent on the drug war each year, 75% spent on tax collections (read IRS), 75% spent on foriegn aid and develop community service jobs to give people a leg up and a sense of accomplishment. Give incentives to business to hire people that come through the community service program. Once we get America working and people can see the light at the end of the tunnel they will go to the light and away from the darkness. Problem is right now there is no "Light" and legalizing drugs would be like striking a match in Mammoth Cave, it would appear to help at first but would quickly fade away.

So, you equate serving in the military with being able to legally shoot heroin? Stop me if I'm making a stretch, because it sure seems you are connecting that. Personally I think that's an asinine connection. You guys make these extraordinary connections to justify legalizing drugs. If you're gonna make the gun age connection, why stop there? What about murder? Let's allow murder of those that may have a record. Frees up prisons (you said this was good). It would save billions in taxpayer money. (You said it was good). It would save any family, black or mexican or trailer white, from being disproportionately imprisoned for no more than ridding society of a substandard human. (you made a similar connection and said it was good). It would eliminate system folks and directly reduce poverty. (again, good by your standard).

 

So, if you agree that this stretch is beyond retarded, then you can see how I can't make your stretch either.

 

Well, you missed my point. Apologies for not making myself more clear.

 

You acted as if an 18 or 21 year old is incapable of making the proper choice when he/she sees that drugs are legal. Just as we in normal society have no problem sending people overseas because we trust they have the cognitive ability to make the proper decisions to keep themselves alive -- because they're grown adults -- I'm saying we can trust them to make the proper decision to say no to heroin.

 

And the purpose of the war on drugs is to deter drug abuse. The purpose of making murder illegal does not serve that purpose. Murder is a violent act that takes away life. Me doing a drug only hurts my life, nobody else.

 

I'm not saying everyone should go out and indulge in drugs. But waging a war on drugs to deter abuse and then defending current policy even after decades later its shown not to work is the biggest stretch anyone can make.

No one to be held accountable??? Who said that? If someone commits a crime while on drugs, they need to be held accountable, just as they are now. But if Joe Schmo down the street wants to trip on some acid in the privacy of his own home, why should that be illegal?

When a person holds a gun to their own head in front of police who has him at gunpoint, should the police do anything to prevent him from killing himself? Serious question.

When a person holds a gun to their own head in front of police who has him at gunpoint, should the police do anything to prevent him from killing himself? Serious question.

 

Adult? Depends on the situation, but I lean strongly towards no.

 

Child? Absolutely.

Well, you missed my point. Apologies for not making myself more clear.

 

You acted as if an 18 or 21 year old is incapable of making the proper choice when he/she sees that drugs are legal. Just as we in normal society have no problem sending people overseas because we trust they have the cognitive ability to make the proper decisions to keep themselves alive -- because they're grown adults -- I'm saying we can trust them to make the proper decision to say no to heroin.

 

And the purpose of the war on drugs is to deter drug abuse. The purpose of making murder illegal does not serve that purpose. Murder is a violent act that takes away life. Me doing a drug only hurts my life, nobody else.

 

I'm not saying everyone should go out and indulge in drugs. But waging a war on drugs to deter abuse and then defending current policy even after decades later its shown not to work is the biggest stretch anyone can make.

 

A few comments, I apologize if I took your post too critically. With that said, I wholeheartedly disagree that there would be no fallout to more drug users. Let's discuss the cost that would undoubtedly rise in healthcare alone. I won't go into the trouble that would occur in families with addicts. I'll go a bit farther and look at the healthcare issue generically. I think we can all agree that if it's made legal, drugs (whichever they may be by name is irrelevent) would be more easily available, less costly as some have suggested, there would be an increase (to what extent will be argued ad nauseum) in users. Can we agree on that?

 

If yes, then, would there be coverage for rehab? For treatment for overdose? Would we have more ER coverage for accidental overdose? Would my premiums include an increase across the board for all of the treatment necessary for drug users when it comes to IV transmitted diseases? What about the newborns addicted like crack babies? Surely we would have to have coverage, critical and ridiculously expensive, for those infants born into this world to give them a fighting chance at survival. Then there's the mental health aspect, and those sessions, meds, etc. aren't cheap either.

 

So, with all due respect, I think the notion that there would be no "hurt" is misguided.

Adult? Depends on the situation, but I lean strongly towards no.

 

Child? Absolutely.

 

What if the adult is mentally ill and needs help instead a lead injection to the brain, just let him kill himself?

Adult? Depends on the situation, but I lean strongly towards no.

 

Child? Absolutely.

Why? Isn't that someone else making a decision about their lives for them?

Why? Isn't that someone else making a decision about their lives for them?

 

How is allowing someone to off themselves letting someone else make a decision for them?

How is allowing someone to off themselves letting someone else make a decision for them?

 

IF the police intervened, would that not be them making the decision for the shooter to prevent them from taking their life? You see, you're all for freedom to do to your body what you want, yet you make exception here. Or do I misunderstand?

I have read this entire thread and it's evident to me that the youngsters are all for a lawless age coming down the pike. They want no one to be held accountable, no social responsibility. It's the decay of our society in a nutshell. I suspect now that there will be posts to follow this one that will say that my generation is stiff and closed minded and irrational, and that my shortsighted view is antiquated. But I expect that, and would be shocked if it isn't to follow. I fear for this mindset that is on the horizon for our country.

 

What do you mean by accountability and social responsibility?

 

Is it fair to presume that you are a supporter of the recent healthcare law that requires all citizens to be responsible and acquire health insurance? Should I presume all opposition to that to be in favor of a lawless and irresponsible society? Doesn't this law foster responsibility for the greater good of the society?

 

Are you also in favor of the recent revelations of NSA data collection of citizens communications? It would seem these new laws also encourage accountability.

IF the police intervened, would that not be them making the decision for the shooter to prevent them from taking their life? You see, you're all for freedom to do to your body what you want, yet you make exception here. Or do I misunderstand?

 

What are you talking about? I said they shouldn't intervene.

What are you talking about? I said they shouldn't intervene.

No, you said it depends. It's either yes or no. No waffling.

And why not allow kids to kill themselves? Why the difference? As for the drug issue, why not make it available to kids too? Heroin for our middle schoolers? As long as they don't hurt anyone? Let them have the freedom everyone else has.

No, you said it depends. It's either yes or no. No waffling.

And why not allow kids to kill themselves? Why the difference? As for the drug issue, why not make it available to kids too? Heroin for our middle schoolers? As long as they don't hurt anyone? Let them have the freedom everyone else has.

 

The bolded is the dumbest thing I've read on here in some time. Doesn't even deserve a response.

 

I didn't waffle. I said I lean heavily towards no. The depends comes in when you're talking about those with mental limitations such as those with down syndrome and the like.