Drugs and their illegality

[nubs]

Throw away all of the gifts of life for a cheap hit of weed? So everyone who has ever done weed is living a worthless life?
Obama?
Stephen King?
Michael Phelps?
Usain Bolt?
Nearly any musician you can think of?
Carl Sagan?
Former head of Harvard Medical School?
Angelina Jolie? Brad Pitt? The list goes on and on. I'm not saying weed will make you successful, I'm just showing you that using marijuana will not ruin your life.

You asked if we want to enjoy the gifts of life?
Some people believe weed can be one of the greatest and cheapest gifts of life, and you want to turn it down? How rude
Most people who have done acid suggest that it is one of the most amazing experiences they've ever had. Stop being so anti-drugs and realise that some of them aren't as bad as you've been made to believe. Just keep an open mind is all I'm saying

xo

But quoting a list of people who are famous is by no means representative of all users (and who is to say that some of these people don't have problems anyhow?). I don't see how that's an argument. To say that it is not disruptive to a person's life would need some sort of large-study, probably longitudinal. Russ has cited some cases supporting negative health effects, so I guess the question you could ask is 'are these minor/major health effects substantial or are there lifestyle benefits that warrant legalising it. I.e. does benefit outweigh risk?

like I said, I was simply demonstrating that weed will not destroy your life, by giving examples of people who have been successful and have used weed
I never said that weed will make you successful, I'm just pointing out the marijuana use does not mean that you will fail at everything

[ninwa]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-pot-health-idUSTRE8092BC20120110  //  http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11282/marijuana-shown-be-less-damaging-lungs-tobacco

[nubs]

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/show/predicting-cannabis-use

[Russ]

What I'm taking from those stories is that cannabis should not be legalized. Agree/Disagree?

[nubs]

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11282/marijuana-shown-be-less-damaging-lungs-tobacco
Even from that story^ posted by ninwa? I haven't read the other one

I respect people's choice to not do marijuana, but I would hope that if I were to ever do it, that decision would also be respected.

My main issue is freedom of choice. In a country like Australia, a decision that doesn't pose some sort of danger to others should not be punished (I can't think of an example where it should be, at least).
Freedom of religion, freedom to marry someone regardless of gender, and freedom to smoke or do drugs
It is my decision. If I wanted to eat 3 big macs a day for the rest of my life, I would be well within my rights to do so. If I wanted to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes or have 10 drinks a day, I would be allowed to. I understand the potential adverse effects, and if I'm still willing to risk it, then I should be able to without having the added risk of a fine or jail time.

It is my body, and as long as I won't be harming anyone else in the process, I should be allowed to do drugs. I should be respected enough to make that decision. As an adult, I shouldn't need to be nannied anymore. In a country like Australia, I should have the right to choose.

Besides this, there are theories that the legalisation of all drugs will deeply benefit us on a social and economic level

[Russ]

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11282/marijuana-shown-be-less-damaging-lungs-tobacco
Even from that story^ posted by ninwa? I haven't read the other one

Given that they compared the effects of a joint a day to a pack a day (365 joints vs 7300 cigarettes), I'm not entirely surprised by what they found. As far as I can tell, they didn't adjust for the higher rate of tobacco smoking which seems extremely odd. Anyway, all they did was find that tobacco was worse for you, not that marijuana is harmless. They did have a rather amusing statistic about non smokers earning more and being more educated though.

You can do whatever you want to your body, but I am completely sure that you would expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab when you need medical treatment for obesity/liver failure/respiratory disease. If you actually have any evidence that legalizing marijuana wouldn't result in a substantial economic drain then sure, post it. But until then you really don't have a leg to stand on with that argument

[Mech]

Firstly, I want to clarify that I am not a drug-user nor have I got any inkling to become one. I am quite content with the occasional whiskey and beer. Secondly, it is absurd to think you will completely end drug use by criminalizing drugs. There will always be people who will consume drugs. I am not aware of the drug laws in Australia as they currently exist, but I am aware that America had a "war on drugs" which was ineffective and spent billions on prosecuting users who were in possession of recreational amounts of cannabis and having committed no crime beyond possession. It seems an absolute waste of money to be prosecuting individuals with recreational cannabis; you clog up the justice system with individuals who have a few grams of weed that they are going to go home to the privacy of their home and smoke it.

They are not dealing, they have not committed assault and they are not any dire threat to taxpayers (which I might add they also are a taxpayer and they are entitled to social benefits; I fail to see how you can qualify this with saying "Only people who have lifestyle X can qualify for this benefit."). That money spent on prosecuting recreational users could be spent on real, effective drug rehabilitation programs or even siphoned back into social benefits to treat bigger issues than, "I dislike potheads." Legalizing the substance would also undermine the black market economy of drugs (if government clinics are in control on weed distribution at dirt cheap prices whereby third-party sellers could not compete with the price), reduce crime associated to pay for the recreational usage (e.g. petty theft/burglary to pay for the usage if the government provides cheap weed) and reduces stigma which may inhibit users from seeking programs to stop their use.

So, what I am suggesting is:

• Substances, in particular cannabis, should not be criminalized universally;certain usage of these drugs should be criminalized.
• To qualify what I mean by "the usage of these drugs", this would mean making a clear distinction between trafficking (criminalized), selling (criminalized unless conducted by the government) and recreational use (legalized). Recreational usage would be legalized so long as the person partaking in this usage adhere to the other laws of the country.
• Recreational usage, defined by a standardized amount, with no associated criminal behaviour (e.g. driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence) should not be a crime.

[nubs]

If you actually have any evidence that legalizing marijuana wouldn't result in a substantial economic drain then sure, post it. But until then you really don't have a leg to stand on with that argument

Legalising marijuana is predicted to work wonders for the economy. I remember a piece written by a professor of economics at Harvard last year who suggested that all drugs should be legalised.

I haven't looked into it recently, but the drug industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in America alone. Due to the underground nature of the industry, the government doesn't get a single cent of this money. If you legalise marijuana at the very least (which is the largest out of all the drug industries) it could be taxed like alcohol and cigarettes are.
Furthermore, thousands of jobs will be made available.

Keeping people in prison is extremely expensive. Legalising drugs will reduce the number of people in prison.

What about the money spent on fighting drugs? The predicted figure for 2011 was at the very least 23 billion for the US alone.

This is an article regarding the piece co-authored by that economics professor I was talking about before
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-10-06/news/30087487_1_drug-legalization-miron-says-addicts

"Legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

According to their website, "The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

Also keep in mind that if drugs were to ever be legalised, the theory is that they would be taxed at a much higher rate when compared to alcohol or tobacco

I cannot see how it could be an economic drain.. at all

EDIT:
Some of this is just what I remember from the research I did for my english oral^
I could find the figures etc if you want but otherwise cbf

[VivaTequila]

If you actually have any evidence that legalizing marijuana wouldn't result in a substantial economic drain then sure, post it. But until then you really don't have a leg to stand on with that argument

Legalising marijuana is predicted to work wonders for the economy. I remember a piece written by a professor of economics at Harvard last year who suggested that all drugs should be legalised.

I haven't looked into it recently, but the drug industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in America alone. Due to the underground nature of the industry, the government doesn't get a single cent of this money. If you legalise marijuana at the very least (which is the largest out of all the drug industries) it could be taxed like alcohol and cigarettes are.
Furthermore, thousands of jobs will be made available.

Keeping people in prison is extremely expensive. Legalising drugs will reduce the number of people in prison.

What about the money spent on fighting drugs? The predicted figure for 2011 was at the very least 23 billion for the US alone.

This is an article regarding the piece co-authored by that economics professor I was talking about before
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-10-06/news/30087487_1_drug-legalization-miron-says-addicts

"Legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

According to their website, "The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

Also keep in mind that if drugs were to ever be legalised, the theory is that they would be taxed at a much higher rate when compared to alcohol or tobacco

I cannot see how it could be an economic drain.. at all

EDIT:
Some of this is just what I remember from the research I did for my english oral^
I could find the figures etc if you want but otherwise cbf

One way that it can be an economic drain is the money that the government then has to invest into drug rehabilitation programs which would incontrovertibly be in higher demand if ease of access is allowed to addictive substances.

But similar concepts have worked wonders for GDP -  look at gambling. Addictive, unhealthy, and people tend to waste their money on it... and the government cashes in big time. Sure, they have to establish advertisements and infrastructure which stops problem gamblers in their tracks, but undoubtedly they'd profit serious amounts.

[nubs]

Drug 'dissuasion' or rehab programs are much cheaper than imprisoning people, and are morally justified to a greater extent

A significant increase shouldn't be expected in drug use however. Certainly not for this generation, and especially for the harder drugs. Somewhere down the line, the softer drugs may become as prevalent alcohol or tobacco though
But yeah, to say it would 'drain' the economy is ridiculous. There is a lot of money to be made.
But when looking at potentially legalising marijuana specifically, an argument could be raised about the losses pharmaceutical companies will make. But it seems that the revenue earnt from marijuana sales would account for that loss anyway

[VivaTequila]

Drug 'dissuasion' or rehab programs are much cheaper than imprisoning people, and are morally justified to a greater extent

A significant increase shouldn't be expected in drug use however. Certainly not for this generation, and especially for the harder drugs. Somewhere down the line, the softer drugs may become as prevalent alcohol or tobacco though
But yeah, to say it would 'drain' the economy is ridiculous. There is a lot of money to be made.
But when looking at potentially legalising marijuana specifically, an argument could be raised about the losses pharmaceutical companies will make. But it seems that the revenue earnt from marijuana sales would account for that loss anyway

you would make many more arguments against legalising marijuana before you would look at the losses that pharmaceutical companies make lol... to be frank i think you're pulling shit out of your arse to make discussion

because you would know whether or not legalising drugs would increase this generations drug usage significantly, oh - especially the harder drugs.

[nubs]

Legalising drugs would not significantly increase this generation's hard drug use...

and with the thing about the losses pharmaceutical companies would make, we were discussing the economic repercussions of legalising marijuana, and big pharma stands to lose the most money if marijuana were to be legalised out of all the industries. So no, I don't think I would raise any other arguments before looking at the losses made by the pharmaceutical companies

[Russ]

Nirbaan careful with the unsubstantiated claims there...

"Legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

Just so you know, this guy (and the journal he published in) are extremely biased in that they're extremely polarized, anti government. Anyway, that estimate makes absolutely no correction for the costs of drug legalization. All he's done is say that we would stop spending on prohibition, so we'd save X dollars, which is a remarkably short sighted view.

I cannot see how it could be an economic drain.. at all

Do you say the same thing about McDonald's, because we're taxing that and it's people's choice to eat it?

EDIT:
Some of this is just what I remember from the research I did for my english oral^
I could find the figures etc if you want but otherwise cbf

Yes, I would like references/numbers/data, if they're available

[nubs]

I didn't get what you meant with the McDonald's part

And I guess I didn't factor in the potential surge in drug use.

Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion; states collected around $5.5 billion. Taken together, this is less than 10 percent of the over $185 billion in alcohol-related costs from health care, lost productivity, and criminal justice. Tobacco also does not carry its economic weight when we tax it; each year we spend more than $200 billion on its social costs and collect only about $25 billion in taxes.

So I guess if we did legalise drugs, taxing them wouldn't make up for the social and health care costs if it is in anyway comparable to alcohol and tobacco. But, as it is, one would assume a lot of money is already being spent on drug related health care costs, so the only reason not to legalise drugs from an economic POV would be if the money saved + the money generated from tax revenue was less than the increase in health care costs if drugs were to be legalised.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/budget%202010%20Final.pdf

The report estimates that  legalizing  drugs  would  save  roughly  $48.7 billion per year in
government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition.  $33.1 billion of this savings would
accrue to state and local governments,  while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal
government.    Approximately $13.7 billion of the savings would results from legalization of
marijuana, $22.3 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $12.8 from legalization of
other drugs.

The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $34.3 billion annually,
assuming legal drugs  are taxed  at rates  comparable to  those  on  alcohol and tobacco. 
Approximately $6.4 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana, $23.9
billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $4.0 billion from legalization of other drugs.

EDIT: I just realised that these figures^ pretty much came from the same guy I spoke about before, sorry

I really can't find anything that gives me an estimate on the potential increase in health care costs if drugs were to be legalised, yet, but I'm looking into that now
But yeah, would the costs increase by 83 billion? I really have no idea

Also, they didn't factor in the amount of money that would be saved in regards to the prison system. The amount of time someone spends in rehab is much cheaper to facilitate than someone who spends the same amount of time in jail - you can find support for that easily online yourself, and I'm yet to find something that contradicts this.

Also, whether or not drug use would actually increase is another story, as some past experiences have indicated that use would decrease. If this would be the case, then you would expect a decrease in health care costs. But at the same time, other situations have indicated an increase in use is likely - but whether or not that increase would equate to over 80 billion dollars in health care cost, I don't know.

Something else:
Legalising drugs would end the production of unclean and contaminated product. This in itself could increase safer use and decrease health related issues for any one individual, couldn't it? Decrease the spread of infection through dirty needles etc

[humanimal]

Going back to this graph that was posted a few pages ago (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg), drugs of high dependance and physical harm should not be legalised (or legalised only for prescription) as when people become dependant on these drugs they almost always cost the tax systrem more than they contribute, and therefore become a burden on the healthcare and welfare systems. I don't want to pay for people to spend their welfare benefits on putting a burden on the healthcare system by spending their time getting high.