Why are certain drugs illegal?

[wubblegurl]

Disclaimer: not advocating drug use.

just making healthy discussion to be better educate and inform myself.
debate on contempory social and political issues are important to maintaining the citizens up approach to following the law  :police:

Other than the exceptions I'm debating here, I support the criminalisation of the consumption,production and distribution of all other illicit drugs by Australian laws.

- - -

Why are LSD, Salivia (divornum) and 'shrooms' illegal? The only danger posed is psychotic symptoms while on them, which could perfectly well be regulated or taken under proper supervision. In the chase of magic mushrooms, people are more inclined to look for them on their own (and may chance the many, many, toxic varieties of wild fungus) and die. We have a handful in Australia every year. Why make good honest people, looking for some nice evening and harmless fun, criminals? Neither of them are addictive, nor are they neurotoxic. If anyone take's up my challenge, I'd be happy to crush them with irrefutable logic.

Or i'll just pretend I never started this thread and do something else.

[Collin Li]

I'd just like to add that most libertarians, and Ron Paul would probably be inclined to agree with your position.

Yet obviously you find them unsavoury because you've seen them prescribed under right-wing viewpoints? Or am I wrong?

[/0]

The only reason why alcohol is legal is because so many people consume it and it would be impossible to regulate.

I think it's ironic that other, less harmful drugs are illegal, just because they're in the minority.

[Collin Li]

Something interesting to add to this topic:

It is not sustainable to hold a mixed position of "humanitarian towards drug users" but "harsh on drug sellers". Why?

The economics of supply and demand.

"Harsh on drug sellers" equates to stamping out the competition. It drives up prices for drugs, and hence provides a greater incentive to sell drugs. It is an uphill battle.

If you are against drugs, you need to penalise users and buyers as well.

Or, just let people harm themselves, because it is their own body (and they also expose themselves to heaps of risks that equate to "expected harm" by doing things like 'driving' or 'crossing the road').

[slothpomba]

I think a lot of those substances are illegal because they have the potential to cause a lot of harm to the user and other people as well (think car crashes and violence, they would also be general burden on the health system).

You may argue alcohol is bad, I'm not going to argue with you there but it doesn't cause much harm in moderation.  Where as, as far as im aware some of these other drugs, one of these pills has the potential to knock you off or at least do something very nasty.

I'm not in favor of criminalising alcohol and its too late for that anyway but i think other drugs should remain illegal.

Source: The Lancet

[xXNovaxX]

..."only psychotic symptoms which could be regulated"


psychotic symptoms are BAD, far out our society is psychotic enough as it is, are u suggesting a new career would be created where people are employed to "watch" people take drugs so they can "get high, and have fun"......

Look at kids today man, a lot of them don't use drugs yet they are craziest bunch of wild animals.

A lot of them USE drugs, and they are still the craziest bunch of wild animals

Allow the above mentioned drugs, and u get a new evolved species of wild animals....and they will start becoming addicted to them, not because the drug is addictive, but rather their brain says "this is fun i want more"

Hope I don't come across like im blasting your honest wish to start a debate, but when it comes to drugs I jump at anyone who SUGGESTS "lets be more lax"

[Collin Li]

I think a lot of those substances are illegal because they have the potential to cause a lot of harm to the user and other people as well (think car crashes and violence, they would also be general burden on the health system).

You may argue alcohol is bad, I'm not going to argue with you there but it doesn't cause much harm in moderation.  Where as, as far as im aware some of these other drugs, one of these pills has the potential to knock you off or at least do something very nasty.

I'm not in favor of criminalising alcohol and its too late for that anyway but i think other drugs should remain illegal.

Why can't we just criminalise harm, instead of the drug? (The deontological libertarian POV)

[slothpomba]

Something interesting to add to this topic:

It is not sustainable to hold a mixed position of "humanitarian towards drug users" but "harsh on drug sellers". Why?

The economics of supply and demand.

"Harsh on drug sellers" equates to stamping out the competition. It drives up prices for drugs, and hence provides a greater incentive to sell drugs. It is an uphill battle.

If you are against drugs, you need to penalise users and buyers as well.

Or, just let people harm themselves, because it is their own body (and they also expose themselves to heaps of risks that equate to "expected harm" by doing things like 'driving' or 'crossing the road').

I sort of agree with you there mate, but also at the same time allowing drugs would create a larger demand on the public health system and that would end up costing the economy more.

I always found this quiet interesting, in america your required to file a tax return, even if your a drug dealer or something. You could probably even make deductions on crack pipes and hoes... They've actually put a lot of criminals away that way, they didnt have enough evidence to charge them on something else so they got them on tax evasion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:

Why can't we just criminalise harm, instead of the drug? (The deontological libertarian POV)

I dont quiet understand what you mean by criminalising harm? how does one criminalise something like that anyway

[Collin Li]

What I meant was, why don't we just punish people who end up doing harm to others, not just because doing drug X has a 90% chance of causing harm to others.

Good example is alcohol. Many can enjoy a few drinks and cause no harm to others. The ones that do cause harm should be charged though.

[slothpomba]

Some of these drugs alter your mental state a lot more dramatically than alcohol does though.

[/0]

What I meant was, why don't we just punish people who end up doing harm to others, not just because doing drug X has a 90% chance of causing harm to others.

Good example is alcohol. Many can enjoy a few drinks and cause no harm to others. The ones that do cause harm should be charged though.

Absolutely.
Our society is paranoid about things that "might cause harm to others". I think it's this attitude that ultimately restricts our personal freedoms, because it seems we do not even trust ourselves to be responsible.

People should have the freedom to take whatever substances they like, but only when they know the risks and possible consequences. If an innocent bystander is hurt by someone on drugs then the offender would be just as guilty as if he/she were not on drugs, since it was the offender's choice to be in a mentally-altered state.

What is important is that we have the freedom to make the choice. Without the ability to choose, we cannot say we are free.

[TrueLight]

same debate

http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,1825.0.html

yep to /0


here's a for and against legalising drugs debate videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSDYLnL_H6M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BruNnqtodSo

[slothpomba]

What I meant was, why don't we just punish people who end up doing harm to others, not just because doing drug X has a 90% chance of causing harm to others.

Good example is alcohol. Many can enjoy a few drinks and cause no harm to others. The ones that do cause harm should be charged though.

Absolutely.
Our society is paranoid about things that "might cause harm to others". I think it's this attitude that ultimately restricts our personal freedoms, because it seems we do not even trust ourselves to be responsible.

People should have the freedom to take whatever substances they like, but only when they know the risks and possible consequences. If an innocent bystander is hurt by someone on drugs then the offender would be just as guilty as if he/she were not on drugs, since it was the offender's choice to be in a mentally-altered state.

What is important is that we have the freedom to make the choice. Without the ability to choose, we cannot say we are free.

When they go to hospital you pay for their stupidity with your tax money...let alone their (if they have any) poor children who have to suffer the consequences of their parents fucked up choice.. you really support these things?

[Collin Li]

TrueLight and other libertarians have the convenience of arguing that taxpayer healthcare should not exist in the first place, hence internalising all costs, which they believe makes a free society just and possible.

(Taking a back seat in a debate I've put myself in before)

[slothpomba]

I don't know really where i stand on the whole political spectrum, i just agree with what i think is right for that correct issue instead of subscribing to a certain ideology and being constrained by it.

If i had to have a label it'd probably be democratic socialism.