Legalize Drugs

Drugs should be legal. 

If drugs were legalized, prices on drugs would then go down, as they would be mass produced in a legitimate setting, and marketted to the public much like many other product.

This is in stark contrast to what we have now, where they are illegal, driving the prices up.  The drugs will always be getting into the country.  Drugs are consistantly found within the United States by police.  Clearly, they are making it in here somehow. 

As the prices to the said drugs go up, poor people who are addicted to them usually resort to stealing, and other nefarious methods of attaining drugs, or money to buy drugs.  Consequently, the crime rate goes up.

If drugs were legalized, the beneficial changes would be dramatic.  Violent drug kingpins would be put out of business by legitimate corporate competition who would produce things cheaper, and more efficiently, delivering the lower prices and benefits to the poor and the other consumers.

Not only that, the drug war is very expensive.  Keep in mind, that's your money they are spending. 

Quote:
"In 1969, $65 million was spent by the Nixon administration on the drug war; in 1982 the Reagan administration spent $1.65 billion; in 2000 the Clinton administration spent more than $17.9 billion; and in 2002, the Bush administration spent more than $18.822 billion."

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm


The War on Drugs is the next big failure.  Why couldn't we learn from the attempted failure of alcohol prohibition? 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157es.html



Wouldn't you all rather the police spent their time hunting down real criminals, like robbers, murderers, and rapists, instead of harmless, pot smoking hippies and teenagers?

>>1
The real reason drugs should be legal is that people should have the right to do with their own bodies as they wish, so long as that action does not harm others.  Peaceful usage of drugs, in and of itself, causes no real harm to other people. 

>>1  The creation of that industry would also create a lot of jobs here as well. 

>>2
Exactly, and also, who gives a fuck if some guy is sitting in his basement smoking pot?  I don't want to spend tax money to hire people to hunt down those people.  If you don't care about this issue, you should be pro-legalization, since if it isn't legalized, they'll take YOUR tax money to spend on enforcing their rules which you are neutral on.  You do want more money in your pocket, don't you?

Get out you fucking hippies

>>5
No, you get out. Don't have to hippie to support legalization of drugs. Just guy with common sense believing in people's right for freedom to choose even bad things.

>>6
Yeah.  You should be allowed to choose to do the wrong things if you want... drink.. smoke... (yes including pot) .. swear, and whatever else... as long as you do so on your property.


>>5
"Get out you fucking hippies"

Hippies? Freedom is the most fundamentally American concept of all.  You calling those who advocate greater freedom, is very unamerican.

Don't like freedom? Move to China.  There are plenty of slave pens throughout the world for you to move to. 

>>You calling those who advocate greater freedom, is very unamerican.

Maybe he or she isn't American. Amerikkka isn't the only country in the world, you know.

Weed is for niggers

Free crack for everyone.  That's right, anyone over the age of 18 can smoke all the crack they want.  Here's a nice crackpipe for you to hold on to while I sell you some legalized crack.

Legalise poison? Why not legalise guns too!

Yes they should be. I mean, they have been legal in the past. And now, when we have all this know-how about human brain chemistry and chemistry in general, all recreational drugs but alcohol(which is a simple molecule with a 2 carbon atoms and hydrogen and oxygen atoms stuck on it for good measure) are illegal... WTF!!??. What if drugs were legalized and there was acutally profit to be made by developing safer less harmful  recreational drugs ? That would rock !!! It would not only save tax money... it could probably create a whole new industry that would stimulate the economy !!!

Narcotics are addictive and young people who are addicted to them may never be able to make the choice whether to live their lives as a druggy or not because they will be so hopelessly dependant on them.

Narcotics can also be used to make people dependant on them, again young people will suffer since predatory adults can use their addiction to manipulate them. Keeping drugs illegal means that it will be too expensive and risky for most people and reduce their ability to use the poison to torture people.

>>13
It's their right to do what they want.  This should include the right to do things other people may consider stupid.  It's their body, they can ruin it if they want. 

It should be a person's right to wear a seatbelt or not.  I agree with most people, wearing the seatbelt makes you safer.  What if the person in question doesn't care? What if he doesn't want to wear the seatbelt?

It would be a bad decision on his part, but freedom--true freedom, includes the right to do the wrong things.  Can't we agree freedom is a good thing?

>>13
People who really want drugs right now get them anyways, even though they are illegal.  They just pay a lot more to have them smuggled into the country.  A lot of people are driven broke... addiction trumps money.  Want to help the poor? Support legalization, not big-government.

It's so fucking stupid. The left is hated because it doesn't entrust everyone with guns, the right is glorified for chasing after americans trying to chill out between their two jobs with some pot with a blowtorch. Does marijuana kick in your door, steal your civil liberties and puts you in the slammer while auctioning your property? The left has to answer to the idiotic gun control proposals and the declaration of immaturity of gun owners. The "individualist" right and its libertarian allies must also be held responsible for the Crusade on Drugs (TM).

>>16

"The "individualist" right and its libertarian allies must also be held responsible for the Crusade on Drugs (TM). "

The libertarian/individualist right is actually opposed to the War on Drugs, unlike the republicans.

To my knowledge, other than the borderline-socialist greens, they are the only party willing to take stand on the drug issue.  The democrats and republicans both want to _step up_ taxpayer funding on the drug war, and neither is bringing the issue of legalization to the table.

The libertarians will.  They will also promote your right to bear arms.  Note I don't use the word "protect".  I say promote.  Even the supposedly "pro-gun" republicans, for the most part, are not for the repeal of many of the strictest, most draconian gun-control measures forced into the country under the Clinton adminstration.

The libertarians are the only political party that will put an end to the expensive, and absurd drug war, as well as _laxen or remove restrictions_ on firearms for law-abiding gun owners. 

That is, to make it blatently clear, the republicans are only for protecting the bureaucracy already surrounding the Second Amendment.  The libertarians will roll it back. 

>>14
Children often do not have the choice or wisdom to do what they want. Children believe in santa claus because they are so dependant on adults for wisdom and this naivety lasts up to around the age of 21 in various ways. Children should not be able to do what 'they' want with their bodies since they can be manipulated too easily.

This is politics 101, social systems are not 100% perfect, you can't teach a chimpanzee to be a communist (you should find this condescending as what you said was pretty stpid, don't worry everyone makes mistakes, just admit you made a mistake to me and I will forgive you >:3). In order for complex social systems to be put into place and their benefits seen you need to have a large portion of the population mature, intelligent, critical thinking and with a moral conscience.

>>18
That's why there are PARENTS to protect them. It's not goverment's job.

>>19
Precisely! It's called parenting folks.  Just that simple.  Parents have been raising and protecting their kids, preparing them to enter the real world for ages.  Nothing is more natural than that.

Teach your own kids about the dangers of guns, drugs, and whatnot.  We don't need the government to raise our kids for us, do we?

>>20
I agree, but rather than teaching them about dangers of guns teach them about gun safety and handling. Let them shoot under your supervision and when they get older buy a .22 rifle for them.

>>21  Well, yeah, that was the intent I guess you could say.  Imo, there isn't really a better way to teach them about the dangers of guns than to let them see a real one, first hand.

Nothing tells someone:  "wake the fuck up, this isn't the movies, or playtime anymore", like holding a real, deadly weapon.

Of course, under very close, careful, and watchful supervision. 

>>22
Yeah, I saw something similar here: 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Jesse_Ventura_Gun_Control.htm

>>19
>>20
Justice has no place protecting children? Wow, you really are the epitome of rightseousness, you'd fit like a glove in Somalia, Zimbabwe, North Korea and other wonderful places with that sort of mentality!

>>17 And that's the kicker; by voting right and supporting the right to a degree, libertarians are technically approving of every step GOP regimes take. A vote is a vote, even if it is given under grudge.

>>24
Yes it has, but it should be done in such ways that it doesn't restrict actions of adults.

>>25
You're stupid to say that Libertarians approve all that Republicans will. They would never approve any censorship, more rights to police or bans and that's why I love them.

>>27 If a libertarian has voted for Bush then, unfortunately, said libertarian has given official approval of everything conducted under his regime. By voting for Bush one indirectly approves of the Pentagon's listing of homosexuality as a disorder and the crusade of christian-style decency sweeping the net. A vote is a vote, even if you are a firm believer of 'to each her own'. That's the problem, you never know what effect your electee will have. But there are hints available.

>>28
Then you should vote libertarian.  If libertarians thought libertarian candidates would have a shot at winning the election, they'd vote libertarian as well instead of Bush. 

>>28
If libertarians vote for Bush, it is because they think that the libertarian candidate will never win, so they pick and choose which freedoms they want based on which party will support said freedoms... be it republican or democrat.

Some of this category of libertarian vote democrat, favoring keeping the government from spying on them and whatnot.  Others favor the republican party because they will at least defend gun rights, even if they do allow the NSA to wiretap your phones, spy on you, conduct warrantless searches, and further piss all over the U.S. Bill of Rights/Constitution.

>>30
Which is precisely the beauty of the libertarian party... that when you vote for them, you are not being forced to pick and choose... the libertarians protect them all. 

>>28
Bush has been too busy with Iraq to mess much with domestic politics. Kerry might have been worse.

>>32
I don't understand what this has to do with 28's comment.

>>33
No understanding is needed on this board.