The government, I am sure, will handle drugs badly enough, but the criminal gangs that are now in the business are far worse.  Drugs are definitely detrimental to society, but since we cannot possibly stamp them out, we must find some way to live with them and to minimize their damage.  The present policy is not working.

Heather H.

Here is where I disagree with more than a few of you.

While I cannot present a logical argument against the legalization of one drug, I can see at least reasons why we should not totally leagalize the whole thing.

I'll start with the obvious: It poses a health risk. Not just to the person taking them (and Goddess only knows how things would work if the Feds took over the Drug Trade), but to the rest of society. I wouldn't want the guy in the SUV next to me to be in a PCP high...or my Airline Captain to be strung out on Meth....and suddenly having a bad trip at 35,000 feet.Too much in our society today requires one to be able to think somewhat clearly.

Another thought: Insurance rates. (Go ahead, laugh.) There must be some thought given to who pays for that person who did just one too many bad trips.

If we allow for legal usage, then there has to be some pretty tight controls on how and when. (I'm thinking of something akin to the old Opium parlors, but run like a bar. Designated Non-Drugger or something.)

Assume responsibility for ourselves? And what exactly are we on today, kids? Now there is an outdated, outmoded way of thinking. Of course we want the Government to come in and coddle us. Hey, it worked for Rome, right?  ???  (O-kay, sorry. I need a "dripping with sarcasm" key/font...)

We don't want to take care of ourselves. We want to blame someone, something for the mess we are in. We don't want to be responsible...that means we have to deal with the consequences of our actions. Why do that if we can sue the panties off some rich b@stard? (I really need a "dripping with sarcasm" key/font...) Never mind...I'll just get even more b*tchy with this.

Now, to the one drug they might as well legalize and get it over with: Marajuana. When I was a teenage girl, in my home state at that time, 3oz or less got you a $25 ticket. That's about two joints worth...maybe.

Now, I have not done the hard drug thing. I admit to trying some Marajuana when I was in High School...and yes, I inhaled. :But I didn't use it often enough to even buy any. (In fact, most of my use of it was limited to a few weeks in the late spring of my Junior year.)

Do I want the Feds in the Drug business? Not really. They can't even run a railroad! Would you trust these people to get it right?

I don't think so.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura 
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

PS--For an interesting read on government control on the taking of drugs, go back and read THX-1138, by Ben Bova. (If you watch the movie, you won't "get it".)

I understand that there is some research to show that by the time we are living to 120 the biggest killer will be caffeine abuse.

Uhhh, Sarah--

If we abuse caffiene...we probably won't live to see 120. ;D

Also..."abuse" is a tricky term. Are we talking in excess of, say, 60gr/day? 120gr/hour? Or, is this like lab mice, who are given obscene amounts of a substance to watch what happens to them, like what they did with Saccharin? Hear me out, dear.

Here's part of the ticket: There is truth to your comment, even as there is truth to any chemical causing problems in terms of lifespan. Each person has a different tolarnce level. I can consume far more caffeinated beverage than my S.O. can--she barely touches the stuff, and she's wired. I can't take No-Doz; I get the shakes...but my buddy The Big Kahuna can take three tabs and sleep like a baby. (He's 6'5", just under 300 lbs, and has been known to drink 2 litres of soda a day...and another 2 litres at night.) The difference? No-Doz is 200 mg/caffeine a tablet. A soda has between 35-68 mg/12 oz. can.

The upshot to this: Unless we all start taking better care of ourselves, we cannot possibly live to see 90, much less 120. Grease, apathy (IE, not exercising), chemical addictions (Like the additives in snack foods, not necessarily like that in drugs), overeating, etc. will take us out more readily than overstimulation by caffeination.

Add to that poor driving skills (ours and others), basic lack of nutritional stability (okay, 'fess up--how many of you eat waaaaay too much pizza during football season--and not much else? Or just too much pizza in general? My hand is up high!), stress, and so on...you get the picture.

And if all those don't get you--cancer might. Alzheimer's might. HIV/AIDS could. The war that is surely coming might. And even if you survive all that, what guarantee do you have that your heart just won't stop one day?  

(Whups...got a bit off track. :-[ Sorry.)

To sum it up: caffeiene isn't as big an issue (at least, to me) as care/maintenance of the body I have.

And that includes choosing to not do recreational drugs.


Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura 
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Should we ban fast food, beer, milkshakes, birthday cakes, doughnuts, etc.?  

Stevie--

Nice try--but all those tend to not destroy airliners, or smash cars into trees (well, okay--maybe the fast food causes a coronary--). I grant that these are mostly hypothetical--but would you want to fly or ride with someone that is grossly incapacitated? I wouldn't!

As I see it, in the case of substances, there are two types of destructive behavior. One is to self--fast food, milkshakes, doughnuts, caffinates and ephedrines, etc. If you wanna get fat or hypertensive, okay--that is (mostly) destructive to you.

The other form is to others: So-called "recreational" drugs, beer and other alcohol, cigarettes and other smoking items, etc. These not only harm you, but utilized in excess, improperly, or at all and they impair your judgement and ability to function rationally. This in turn creates problems not just for you, but others--especially if you choose to use publically or go out in public afterwards. Hence programs like the Designated Driver.

If you want to use drugs, that is your call to make. I choose not to. If the Government is going to be involved, then there should be drug parlors and "Designated Non-Druggers" as well. There will need to be purity levels like any other drug from a pharmacy, and an age limit.

There might be one good thing from legalizing drugs... maybe, just maybe we could get estrogens and progesterones on the usables list...!

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura 
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

I agree with both of you on this one, down here in South Florida we are right on the front line in the war on drugs, and even though a lot of the stuff gets intercepted before it gets ashore, there is still lots more that gets through, there is so much money to be made from the drug trade that it is hard to stop.

Stevie, dear--

I'm a vocalist. I teach music from time to time, and I have directed choruses and choirs.

Who said I thought it was okay to use tobacco? It mucks up your lungs and your vocal folds. Tobacco is bad, and it should be banned like most other drugs.

(They should, however, keep caffeine legal. This country would grind to a dead stop without it.)

Besides...I have never totally understood the thrill one gets by igniting a dried weed wrapped in flammable paper, then sticking it half an inch under your nose.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura     
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Here is one of my favorite complaints about government policy.  Attempts by the government to suppress the use of illegal drugs are doomed to failure and only serve to promote organized crime gangs.  Prohibition of alcohol in the United States in the 1920's should have taught us that lesson.

Many of the drugs are dangerous and they should still be subject to government control.  They could be sold either by government agencies or by strictly regulated private companies, and taxes collected on the sales would be used to fund treatment programs.  People committing crimes or driving under the influence of hard drugs should be treated severely.

If drugs were available through legal means, drug dealers and organized criminal gangs would be put out of business.

Heather H.

Hypocrisy is always bad, wherever we find it. We're all human, and I'm sure we've all been guilty at one time or another, even if by accident, but political hypocrisy on the part of our officials is usually intentional and should never be tolerated.

May I throw in a curve ball (have I got that right?)

In the western world we are all living longer. This means that we become prey to diseases which take longer to incubate, so to speak. i.e. the increase in cancer cases is because most cancers occur in older people.

I understand that there is some research to show that by the time we are living to 120 the biggest killer will be caffeine abuse.

Hugs

Sarah

While I agree that legalizing drugs would eliminate a lot of crime (which I consider a positive result), I don't think we should change the law for that reason. Besides, some will argue that we'll see more crimes committed by drug users, even if crimes committed by the dealers and producers drastically declines.

If we're going to legalize drugs for personal recreational use, we should do so because we think it's wrong for the government to determine what citizens can and can't do to themselves, not because the laws are being broken anyway. It's the same reason I'm against the government getting involved in making decisions about tobacco and the food we choose to eat. I think it's a shame that smokers were able to win cases against the tobacco companies because they damaged their own bodies by smoking. If people can successfully sue fast food restaurants because they ate too much junk food and got fat, we're in trouble. Fortunately, a recent case against McDonald's was thrown out.

Personal responsibility seems to be a lost art, and we have too many citizens who want/expect the government to baby-sit them. The government is all too willing to step in and tell us how to live our lives.

So, you think we should protect citizens from themselves by outlawing tobacco and other harmful substances? Where do we stop? Should we ban fast food, beer, milkshakes, birthday cakes, doughnuts, etc.?  Caffeine would be on someone's hit list, sooner or later. I think smoking is a pretty bad idea myself, but if someone else wants to do it away from me, why should I object?

I do love caffeine... http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

I agree.

Recreational drug use should be legal, but regulated. As I mentioned in the prostitution topic, regulating various industries (especially those with obvious public health concerns) is a legitimate function of government, unlike regulating morality.  Aside from caffeine and a little bit of alcohol on rare occasions, I don't use recreational drugs (and never have), but there's nothing about drug use itself that I consider criminal. Using any hard drugs or using moderate drugs too much are behaviors that I consider foolish and want no part of, but to consider that behavior criminal is going too far. I do believe society has the right to outlaw things such as recreational drug use, prostitution, and gambling, if the members of society consider outlawing those things in the best interest of the public welfare, but I just don't think it's necessary.


However, irresponsible behavior should not be tolerated, and individuals should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they are sober, drunk, or high. If you get drunk or high, you should stay inside. Don't drive, don't pick fights, and don't operate electric can openers at waist level.

At some point, we have to assume responsibility for ourselves. We can't expect (nor should we want) the government to enact laws that protect us from ourselves. Responsibility, common courtesy, respect for the law and the rights of others, civil duty, and self-respect should be taught by parents so that when children become adults, they can handle their own freedom. Those adults who can't handle freedom can sit in jail or leave the country.

Jayne, I understand your point (which, to a degree, is that of commentators such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly), but what about other things that cause health problems? What about tobacco use, for example? If citizens can't use heroin because it's bad for them, why should they be allowed to smoke cigarettes? I'm not being contrary, I just wonder how you get around that question.

While I do depart from some of my mentors listed above on this issue, I'm still in agreement (for the most part) with my all-time right-wing hero, William F. Buckley, Jr.