Remote or complete legalization?

[Mr. Clandestine]

I guess that is an oversimplification. But would things be a lot worse if all drugs were legal? True, I only know a few people that use hard drugs, but from what I have seen from documentaries and other sources, hardcore addicts don't seem to have trouble getting drugs, and it also seems rehabilitation programs rarely work, so if more money could be focused on rehabilitation through total legalization, maybe there would be more progress against addiction to hard drugs.

You make a great point, and I also agree that more money needs to be spent on rehabilitation programs...as opposed to locking up perfectly normal people, who just so happen to be slave to a drug addiction. In retrospect, we all know what happened during the prohibition of alcohol, and of course, we know what the final outcome was. I think that as long as there are enough people who advocate its use, all sorts of mind-altering drugs could eventually become legal. But I think the best use of our resources - at least for right now - would be to focus on legalizing/decriminalizing the substance that has multiple well-known beneficial properties.

Plus, we have a much better shot at all-out legalization of marijuana than we do with all drugs in general. And sadly, that's still a long shot...

[mfqr]

What would be the purpose of legalizing something that has been proven to make otherwise normal citizens rob their own mothers just to get another fix? Heroin can, and will, do this. So will any other drug that someone feels he/she MUST have in order to make it through another day. Hard drugs commonly lead to domestic issues, as well. Everything from spousal abuse to excessive noise pollution (and much, much worse) are common in people who have been on a weeklong meth binge. Why cause more social and domestic issues by allowing these mindsets to flourish legally?

As far as I know, people who are addicted to hard drugs only steal money for their next hit because they don't have enough money for one. And I believe that part of the problem of that is indeed the prohibition of these hard drugs. Simply put, the black market prices can possibly be hundreds of times higher than if the substance was legal. If we're talkin' international drug smuggling, then it's even a higher profit. For instance, opium in Afghanistan yield profits of tens of thousands percent, if smuggled into America. If legal, however, the price goes down substantially, and a drug addict could actually have a better chance of living in society without stealing for their addiction, due to low prices. Some may disagree with that being better, with the argument that it only allows them to go further with their addiction. While that is true, one must realize that someone who is addicted is going to do it no matter what anybody says. So why is it the government's right to make it illegal, so the prices jump up 700%? And the prices jump up even more everytime the laws get tougher. This means that a hopeless addict, who has *ruined his own life* (he ruined his life with drugs - drugs did not ruin his life... see the difference) must resort to other crimes to get a hit once he or she runs out of money. It's prohibition which is causing more harm than good.

For more information, visit Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) â?º Cops Say, and read the Publications.

[mfqr]

By the way, Mr. Clandestine, there are people who use heroin, meth, and crack recreationally, but on occasion. So they don't become physically addicted. Yes, there are people who do these hard drugs without becoming addicts. Out of 6 billion people in this world, I don't think you can deny that. So, you saying that "Heroin can, and will, do this" is a bit over the top. Although, I can't deny that it has a high potential of doing what you say. Just saying that it "will" unconditionally do that is an exaggeration.

[Mr. Clandestine]

By the way, Mr. Clandestine, there are people who use heroin, meth, and crack recreationally, but on occasion. So they don't become physically addicted. Yes, there are people who do these hard drugs without becoming addicts. Out of 6 billion people in this world, I don't think you can deny that. So, you saying that "Heroin can, and will, do this" is a bit over the top. Although, I can't deny that it has a high potential of doing what you say. Just saying that it "will" unconditionally do that is an exaggeration.

Perhaps I should have said that there is a very good possibility that a heroin addict might consider doing this. The point is this: these chemicals - which are rarely used exclusively for recreational purposes - have a high rate of addiction amongst users. You're right, not everyone would consider stealing to provide for their next fix...but many of them would. I've met several addicts through the years, and I don't remember any of them being able to hold a respectable job for longer than a few months. Of the ones that I knew, there were only a few options available for them to make any money. Prostitution was one of them. Dealing drugs was another, and finally, stealing from others is what many of them deemed to be a "last resort".

I followed the link in your previous thread, and what I read made plenty of sense. But, it's still my firm opinion that complete and utter legalization wouldn't do much to curb illicit drug use. You're right that they probably wouldn't have to steal for it, due to it's inherent lower cost, but...what would prevent the addicts from falling deeper into their addictions? You can't force a person to get treatment for their addiction, especially if the substance they're addicted to is no longer illegal.

I respect your stance that people should be allowed to harm their bodies without government interference to worry about on top of everything else. But, I'm afraid, this is one of those instances where we'll just have to agree to disagree.