How should a society deal with drugs?

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its insane to get sent to prison for doing drugs. People should do what they want as long as they are affecting them selfs only. The war on drugs is a failure and cause mayhem on many different levels.
But how can we accept drugs to be available? what good comes from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a false-dichotomy that gets employed a lot when talking about government regulation/social engineering in general: prohibition or endorsement. Just because you don't prohibit something doesn't mean you're actively promoting its use. You could ask what good comes from a lot of things. What good comes from pringles for example? Not a whole lot in my opinion (mostly because I'm a singularity-seeking health-nut), but this just brings us to the point that value is subjective. Drugs may not do a lot of good for you personally, but they obviously do for some people or they wouldn't be using them. If you're looking for something more substantive than that I'm sure we can think of something. A lot of art and music, for example, is inspired by drug use. Paul Erdos, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century relied heavily on strong amphetamines throughout his life and (according to his own meticulous self-analysis and experimentation) would not have been able to come to the insights he had without them. That's anecdotal of course but serves to illustrate that some people are able to augment their life-styles with the appropriate use of drugs. I know a nationally ranked marathon runner who uses marijuana while he trains and races because he believes it allows him to keep his body relaxed, which is extremely important in an endurance event where any slight inefficiency gets compounded over several hours.

Coming from a different angle, deregulated drugs would "do good" in the same way any consumer product does good in society. It would create jobs and business opportunities while encouraging innovation in certain chemistry and pharmaceutical fields. If you can think of any good that comes from Hostess Cupcakes existing in the marketplace the same could be said of drugs.

The bottom line, however, is that even if you can't readily discern some social good that comes from them, that is not nearly enough of a reason to start infringing on people's liberty. The onus of proof is on you if you want to start dictating what people can and can't do and I think you would agree that the bar should be much higher than just not being able to see what good comes from some activity.

[Chips Ahoy]

[ QUOTE ]

I am not talking about marijuana here. Stop comparing it to things that can't instantly kill you if you overdose or severely damage your brains etc.

[/ QUOTE ]



Most drugs are not much more lethal than alcohol, many are less. The distinctions between legal and illegal drugs are arbitrary.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am not talking about marijuana here. Stop comparing it to things that can't instantly kill you if you overdose or severely damage your brains etc.

[/ QUOTE ]



Most drugs are not much more lethal than alcohol, many are less. The distinctions between legal and illegal drugs are arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The insanity of drug prohibition is never made more stark than when viewed in the context of our culture's approach to alcohol. There are swaths of college kids in the US that routinely, as in 2-3 times per week, ingest upwards of 50% of a lethal dose of alcohol. This is viewed for the most part as "kids being kids". While this is going on we have mandatory minimum sentencing in many places for pot possession. I don't have a ton of experience with a ton of different drugs, mainly because I try to do a lot of research and proceed cautiously when it comes to new experiences, but I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the closest I have ever been to death in my life thus far has been due to alcohol-related decisions I've made. Stupid, stupid stupid.

[Mr_Moore]

"Just because you don't prohibit something doesn't mean you're actively promoting its use."

My logic goes like this. We know that many drugs are highly addicting with a lot of negative impacts on our health and we know what that addiction can lead to. In my opinion it seems irresponsible of a society not to be against something that has this affect on us. Why leave it open for others to find out what kind of hell drugs has to offer?

[Mr_Moore]

"The insanity of drug prohibition is never made more stark than when viewed in the context of our culture's approach to alcohol."

This sentence is very true when viewing that graph and it also raises a lot of questions. If to pick one of those drugs, why is marijuana illegal?

[Edukashun]

[ QUOTE ]
"The insanity of drug prohibition is never made more stark than when viewed in the context of our culture's approach to alcohol."

This sentence is very true when viewing that graph and it also raises a lot of questions. If to pick one of those drugs, why is marijuana illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've just found this on google so it might not be the most reliable source but an interesting read all the same

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
"Just because you don't prohibit something doesn't mean you're actively promoting its use."

My logic goes like this. We know that many drugs are highly addicting with a lot of negative impacts on our health and we know what that addiction can lead to. In my opinion it seems irresponsible of a society not to be against something that has this affect on us. Why leave it open for others to find out what kind of hell drugs has to offer?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of things which are addictive and can deteriorate your health as I mentioned before. You don't have to be for drug prohibition to be against drug use. There's education, free exchange of information, good parenting, objective data and a million other ways to let people know what risks they take. It's not illegal for me to have unprotected sex and the results could be fatal. There's tons of information out there for me to access to assess the risks and choose accordingly. I don't need society to threaten me with violence in order for me to choose wisely. A free society has risks because it has choices -- freedom means responsibility. Threatening violence to eliminate risks has shown to invariably do more harm than good.

[Chips Ahoy]

[ QUOTE ]
"Just because you don't prohibit something doesn't mean you're actively promoting its use."

My logic goes like this. We know that many drugs are highly addicting with a lot of negative impacts on our health and we know what that addiction can lead to. In my opinion it seems irresponsible of a society not to be against something that has this affect on us. Why leave it open for others to find out what kind of hell drugs has to offer?

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't a choice between a world with drugs and a world without. There will be drugs, and people will use them -- mostly because it feels good. Your choice is if you want to criminalize their use and sale or not.

Look at the good and harm drugs do, look at how much you reduce their use by criminalizing them, look at the costs of criminalizing drugs. If you are a greatest good for society type of person (as your OP suggests), the decision to prohibit becomes a math problem. I think the costs of the war on drugs dwarfs the benefits, but it might be worth investigating -- if you can be persuaded by numbers.

If you are a personal freedom type of person then the idea of prohibiting the private transactions of consenting adults is absurd.

[lehighguy]

This is the same logic they used to ban poker.

Poker is addictive.
Poker addicts do bad thing to themselves.
Poker addicts are a harm to society.
Internet poker sites are run by unscrupulous people.

I would have thought after witnessing something you love taken away from you first hand you would have an understanding for the issue. I guess what is all boils down to you people in the end is:

1) I want the things I don't like outlawed
2) I want the things I like to be legal
3) F-uck anyone elses preferences on 1 + 2.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Just because you don't prohibit something doesn't mean you're actively promoting its use."

My logic goes like this. We know that many drugs are highly addicting with a lot of negative impacts on our health and we know what that addiction can lead to. In my opinion it seems irresponsible of a society not to be against something that has this affect on us. Why leave it open for others to find out what kind of hell drugs has to offer?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of things which are addictive and can deteriorate your health as I mentioned before. You don't have to be for drug prohibition to be against drug use. There's education, free exchange of information, good parenting, objective data and a million other ways to let people know what risks they take. It's not illegal for me to have unprotected sex and the results could be fatal. There's tons of information out there for me to access to assess the risks and choose accordingly. I don't need society to threaten me with violence in order for me to choose wisely. A free society has risks because it has choices -- freedom means responsibility. Threatening violence to eliminate risks has shown to invariably do more harm than good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post. (minor possible quibble question: the use of the word "invariably" in the last sentence? Overall, though, I agree with the essence of your post and think you hit on some important concepts).