They should be legal.

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 

I think drugs should absolutely be legal. People don't not do crack because it's illegal, they do it because it fucks you up. Generally someone who doesn't do drugs now won't do it when it's legal (in fact by removing the taboo aspect you can argue it reduces drug use)

The drug war is ridiculous. Simply the cost to taxpayers, etc. that could be used for enterprise or business or education is being used to stop people from doing what they want to their own bodies. Listen, I don't care if you inject meth up your asshole, as long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process by all means go for it.

An in response to arguments saying drugs cause people to be violent, etc: that would also mean alcohol, knives, guns, etc should be illegal too. Driving or hurting someone under influence of drugs should ABSOLUTELY be HIGHLY illegal, but otherwise usage alone does not warrant arrest

 
bIastoise:
I think drugs should absolutely be legal. People don't not do crack because it's illegal, they do it because it fucks you up. Generally someone who doesn't do drugs now won't do it when it's legal (in fact by removing the taboo aspect you can argue it reduces drug use)

The drug war is ridiculous. Simply the cost to taxpayers, etc. that could be used for enterprise or business or education is being used to stop people from doing what they want to their own bodies. Listen, I don't care if you inject meth up your asshole, as long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process by all means go for it.

An in response to arguments saying drugs cause people to be violent, etc: that would also mean alcohol, knives, guns, etc should be illegal too. Driving or hurting someone under influence of drugs should ABSOLUTELY be HIGHLY illegal, but otherwise usage alone does not warrant arrest

Maybe so, but some would argue attempting to remove items from society (knives, guns, etc.) that have been ingrained in our culture and/or everyday lives is a bit different from allowing more items to be inserted. And I realize not everyone gets high and runs around and stabs people, but it does happen...and truth be told, the violent aspect, although concerning and unacceptable, probably constitutes a substantially smaller portion of the overall cost to society...#1 being medical costs (I assume, I don't have figures on this).

I think my problem with the legalization of drugs has more to do with the state that our country is currently in when it comes to personal responsibility. People want to argue that the government shouldn't be in our personal lives but the government (read: taxpayers) foot the bill, to the tune of trillions of dollars per year,for all sorts of social programs which have provided virtually no benefit to society. My point being, if someone wants to use drugs, then they shouldn't receive free or subsidized care from the taxpayers when they OD or when they become addicts. Obviously that just isn't going to happen, but serves as an example of why I disagree with it.

Another issue is testing for the effects of drugs other than alcohol. I'm not a drug master, so I don't know and maybe someone has some insight, but how do you quickly test if someone is under the influence of a drug (other than alcohol) if you are a LEO and you just pulled someone over for a tail light being out, or something of the sort? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but just asking a legitimate question. Maybe the effect of some drugs don't impair your motor skills, so they shouldn't be illegal to drive on, but what about the ones that do...do you just run a field sobriety test (maybe a newly developed one that would target the effects of certain drugs), arrest them and then run a blood test to check for it's contents and then charge them?

One problem I see with the whole issue is that I feel people are being naive when it comes to the repercussions of such a drastic change. People think that things will instantly get better because the free markets are at work, but I wholeheartedly feel things will get much worse for some period of time and then eventually get better. Obviously many people feel that some folks are driven to drugs because of the 'illegal' label they are given, but I'm hear to tell you that there are many people who don't use drugs because of that same term. I know several people, myself included, that have never done any sort of illegal substance simply because it was deemed illegal. I know personally, that the fear of being caught doing something illegal deterred me from using drugs and I know I would be much more open to trying/using them if they were legal. Again, it's anecdotal and I have no clue how many people are out there that have a similar feeling, but I think it's safe to assume that there are many.

Another issue with legalizing drugs is that it removes the 'illegal' tag which carries with it a stigma...which can act as a layer of protection from those who don't want to use them. When you are young you are far more susceptible to peer pressure. Kids involved in illegal activities will often get their friends who otherwise wouldn't be involved to do so, simply as a way of justifying to themselves that their activities really aren't 'that' bad. As a young kid/teenager you will almost inevitably be exposed to drugs and someone will most likely offer you some. If they are illegal, you can simply say no thanks man, that stuff is illegal and I could lose the football scholarship I might be getting, lose my job, etc. If it's legalized, then you are asking teenagers to stand on their own merits, which is hard enough to do as an adult. You are more likely to be pressured and/or teased for not doing something because you are "scared" or a "nerd" or "not cool" than you are because "haha, so-and-so doesn't want to break the law or be a criminal"...it's much easier to walk away from the second one.

I stand on the fence about this topic because from a moral point of view I see drugs as destructive and I've seen the harm they have caused people who are not capable of using them in a responsible manner. On the other hand, I don't care for the government's nose in the personal lives of it's citizens.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
bIastoise:
happypantsmcgee:
^^Video above is NSFW just fyi
I'm pretty sure the two girls making out in the thumbnail gave it away
Well for those of us that, you know, actually have jobs I didn't think typing an extra 4 letters would hurt anything.
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

Friedman and Sowell are beasts. Seriously, I can't believe that the shitheads that I went to school with have never heard of either of these two.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

Fully agree with friedman. Make it legal and tax the shit out of it ! There is so much income to be made by taxing these goods. It would tremendously weaken the "black economy".

However there should be restrictions. A country being known for drug tourism is not good (netherlands anyone ?). The dutch hate the fact that people just go there to smoke up, there are so many other things to do there.. (red light district.. oh no wait thats bad too... :P) Maastricht is considering allowing only dutch citizens to purchase drugs in coffee-shops to calm down the germans and belgians going there only to smoke up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/world/europe/18dutch.html

 

^^I don't know how long that will last if and when they see a huge decrease in tourism dollars. I know that there is a shit ton to do there outside of smoking in coffee shops but I think they underestimate the amount of money that comes from the tourists that go there to smoke and do other things. Not to mention there are a shit ton of little restaurants and stuff that would close in 2 weeks when this goes into effect (wokaway for example).

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 
happypantsmcgee:
^^I don't know how long that will last if and when they see a huge decrease in tourism dollars. I know that there is a shit ton to do there outside of smoking in coffee shops but I think they underestimate the amount of money that comes from the tourists that go there to smoke and do other things. Not to mention there are a shit ton of little restaurants and stuff that would close in 2 weeks when this goes into effect (wokaway for example).

WokAWay!!!! That place is awesome.

“Millionaires don't use astrology, billionaires do”
 

I remember learning in a psych class that the DARE program has absolutely ZERO impact on drug use rates, but people would never kill the program because they would then be 'pro drug use'. Our country is shitting itself on a massive scale. Legalized it, tax the fuck out of it, and let the druggies kill themselves off and do us all a favor. In the real world, people aren't going to stop using drugs, but the person who controls distribution has the power: right now, that's gangs, bikers, and the mafia.......as much as I don't like them, I'd prefer if it were the gov't running that shit show.

The only other solution is to start exterminating drug dealers: just start killing them off. Until the United States removed the Taliban for example, drug use was at almost zero because the penalty for all drug related activity was death. But then again, that was the Taliban, so yeah, so good for my point.

Get busy living
 

It's too late in the game. The 'war on drugs' involved a ton of negative propaganda fed to the people - the government can't suddenly change its mind and have the people do so as well. They've already been brainwashed into believing what the government wanted them to believe at the time.

 
Nachos:
It's too late in the game. The 'war on drugs' involved a ton of negative propaganda fed to the people - the government can't suddenly change its mind and have the people do so as well. They've already been brainwashed into believing what the government wanted them to believe at the time.
Yeah, sure, whatever. In the late 80's Saddam was our man. A decade later we went to war against him.

Public opinion is fickle and controllable.

Get busy living
 
Nobama88:
I have not had a chance to watch the video yet, but a couple things come to mind.

I am all for legalizing weed for 18 year old +, but I am not sure about the harder stuff.

What do we do with all the coke and heroin heads that will surely come out of this. I dont believe for a minute that more kids wont try the stuff because it is no longer illegal. I believe we will see increase usage once society deems it legal.

Maybe I was one of the few who was extremely curious about shit as a high schooler, but the only reason I wouldnt dare touch the shit was for fear of getting in some serious trouble and fucking my future up. If I felt there were no repercussions for me I very well may have tried it just once.Most high schoolers dont think past that day. Today, I am smart and mature enough to know that regardless if its legal or not, I wouldnt touch the stuff. So, with more kids willing to go out and try the stuff just once, we are going to see a huge spike in addictive users. Heroin is something like 20% of first time users become addicted. Alcohol is in the 2-5% range. And I think we can all agree heroin is a nasty drug - there will be expenses that society will have to pick up to deal wtih the new addicts. Now, I doubt those expenses will come anywhere close to the war on drugs, but also take into account the lack of productivity we will lose from those new users as they use and die or use and then go through treatment, etc.

Also, if my memory serves me correct, the Dutch legalized everything but now they are pulling away from it all. They have seen a lot of negatives to it - from tourists coming to town just to get fucked up to mobsters proping up and running the shops on their terms even though what they were selling was legal and regulated.

I am very open about legalzing drugs completely, but I am just not sold yet that this wouldn't be absolutely detromental to our society.

Why don't we have dangerous beer/wine thugs?

Drug use is more of a symptom of cultural rot than a cause of decay.

Imagine your most virtuous role models: dedicated fathers/husbands, ethical/successful businessmen, your loyal/honest/dependable friend. Would any of them jeopardize their lives with hard drugs? Will drugs suddenly leap out of the street and into their body? No.

All of us have free will.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
Nobama88:
A user cant handle a stable job or life. So we will be forced to support his habit by giving him shelter, clothes, food and treatment.
We do this now though don't we...
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 
Nobama88:
^ ^ ^ ^

We all have free will, I agree. But does this mean that your free will is going to be taking my taxpayer money once you cant take care of yourself or your family? Or are we going to allow your free will to live and die by the needle and not have government support when shit hits the fan (if you are using any of the hard drugsm shit will hit the fan).

A user cant handle a stable job or life. So we will be forced to support his habit by giving him shelter, clothes, food and treatment. How long do we support the users? Indefinitley? Its the ultimate nanny state. We can force an average person who is lazy to get a job by cutting the benefits off but we cant force a heroin addict to get sober and get a job. They would rather use and die in the streets.

You can have a glass of wine (some say its even healthy) but you cant just have a shot of heroin. Shit doesnt work that way. Its a whole different ball game and world. We arent talking about having a big mac once a week, heroin will fuck you up instantly. Like I said earlier after just ONE use over 20% of users become addicted. There are real consequences to legalizing the hard stuff, its not just as easy as saying "free will, just let it be and tax the stuff".

BTW I consider myself a "light" libertarian on most issues.

I don't dispute the danger of drugs. But they are a symptom not a cause. We don't have the capacity to centrally plan drug prevention beause we cannot legislate someone's desires.

I don't support the welfare state (the ultimate moral hazard). Personal assistance should come from private charities that enforce drug-free environments for food/shelter/clothing.

I'd rather end drug violence, close the covert drug economy, and de-populate our petty drug prisons.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
veritas14:
Nobama88:
^ ^ ^ ^

We all have free will, I agree. But does this mean that your free will is going to be taking my taxpayer money once you cant take care of yourself or your family? Or are we going to allow your free will to live and die by the needle and not have government support when shit hits the fan (if you are using any of the hard drugsm shit will hit the fan).

A user cant handle a stable job or life. So we will be forced to support his habit by giving him shelter, clothes, food and treatment. How long do we support the users? Indefinitley? Its the ultimate nanny state. We can force an average person who is lazy to get a job by cutting the benefits off but we cant force a heroin addict to get sober and get a job. They would rather use and die in the streets.

You can have a glass of wine (some say its even healthy) but you cant just have a shot of heroin. Shit doesnt work that way. Its a whole different ball game and world. We arent talking about having a big mac once a week, heroin will fuck you up instantly. Like I said earlier after just ONE use over 20% of users become addicted. There are real consequences to legalizing the hard stuff, its not just as easy as saying "free will, just let it be and tax the stuff".

BTW I consider myself a "light" libertarian on most issues.

I don't dispute the danger of drugs. But they are a symptom not a cause. We don't have the capacity to centrally plan drug prevention beause we cannot legislate someone's desires.

I don't support the welfare state (the ultimate moral hazard). Personal assistance should come from private charities that enforce drug-free environments for food/shelter/clothing.

I'd rather end drug violence, close the covert drug economy, and de-populate our petty drug prisons.

I was going to add something until I read your post. Your post sums up exactly the way I think. Libertarian I assume?

 
Nobama88:
^ ^ ^ ^

We all have free will, I agree. But does this mean that your free will is going to be taking my taxpayer money once you cant take care of yourself or your family? Or are we going to allow your free will to live and die by the needle and not have government support when shit hits the fan (if you are using any of the hard drugsm shit will hit the fan).

A user cant handle a stable job or life. So we will be forced to support his habit by giving him shelter, clothes, food and treatment. How long do we support the users? Indefinitley? Its the ultimate nanny state. We can force an average person who is lazy to get a job by cutting the benefits off but we cant force a heroin addict to get sober and get a job. They would rather use and die in the streets.

You can have a glass of wine (some say its even healthy) but you cant just have a shot of heroin. Shit doesnt work that way. Its a whole different ball game and world. We arent talking about having a big mac once a week, heroin will fuck you up instantly. Like I said earlier after just ONE use over 20% of users become addicted. There are real consequences to legalizing the hard stuff, its not just as easy as saying "free will, just let it be and tax the stuff".

BTW I consider myself a "light" libertarian on most issues.

Nobama, time and time out, it has been proven that drug use doesn't rise, and in the case of Portugal, decreases after the end of prohibition.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
happypantsmcgee:
I think his point was that the illegal drug trade leads to many more 'random' acts of violence than there would be if there was no need to commit illegal acts in order to profit from the sale of drugs.
16rl:
Did't you hear about all the killings in mexico due to gang-related drug wars ? These events might not be occurring in the US but they are still relevant to the problem.
veritas14:
Drug dealers trade in a product that is illegal so they have no recourse to the legal/justice system when they are wronged. They use violent means to enforce payment and punish theft by their sub-dealers.

Drug addicts also do desperate, often violent things to acquire drugs/drug money.

I was talking about violence against innocent bystanders and kids, not by and against people in the drug trade. In the video Friedman practically said there’s a direct causal relationship between drug illegality and violence against innocent bystanders, specifically drive-by’s killing kids, and I didn’t see the connection. Good point about Mexico though, I don’t know much about it actually. But even there, I bet the vast majority of drug violence is by and against people involved in drugs and to a lesser extent law enforcement, for the reasons you guys discussed. Is there collateral damage or other ways innocent people are affect? Sure, but how big of a figure can it be?

eokpar02:
Nobama, time and time out, it has been proven that drug use doesn't rise, and in the case of Portugal, decreases after the end of prohibition.

How can you “prove” that when you can’t hold everything else constant? This isn’t a lab experiment. For example, Portugal’s decriminalization coincided with a global decline in marijuana usage for different reasons. (By the way, they didn’t fully legalize drugs, they got rid of jail-time for drug users, who might still have to go to rehab or pay a fine, and didn’t change anything for dealers.)

Anyways, I don’t think you can take a black and white approach to this one. If the benefit / cost of drug legality can be written out as a function of some variables, then the variables are going to be different for different drugs and the same approach probably won’t be optimal for drugs as different as marijuana and heroine. For example, the most obvious variables are how addictive the drug is and how badly it can ruin your life. This will amplify the cost (or benefit) of more (or less) people trying drugs as a result of legalization.

Will more people try drugs if they’re legalized? They will try a drug if it’s legalized because: (a) they’re no longer afraid of legal repercussions; and (b) it becomes more socially acceptable, since there is a two-way feedback loop between the legal system and people’s ethical views. This will be offset by: (c) fear of the health repercussions; and (d) the fact that doing drugs might be less cool if it’s legal and easily attainable. There are also other factors like education and peer pressure, so really who knows?

Although my best guess is that (a) and (b) are bigger factors than people think in the case of drugs. It's not really like alcohol where it's completely normal and everyone drinks. Kids want to try drinking because they are curious, and because doing so makes them cool. But they all also know that it's something that adults do - so it can't be that bad - and it's their way of telling the world that they don't appreciate being called kids and consider themselves grown-ups. This is very different than the way kids think about drugs, and legalizing drugs can change this and make drugs way more common among teens.

But I guess there are lots of benefits to legalizing drugs as well. My personal opinion is that the best approach to discouraging something harmful is some combination of availability and education anyway. Sort of like how we're trying to educate people now about not being fat. But if you make fat food illegal fatties will freak out and probably eat more black market fast food just to spite you and be rebels.

 

In the same way you use alcohol recreationally, you can use other drugs. Drug abuse is a symptom of other problems. The drugs themselves don't cause their abuse.

There is absolutely no difference between doing some blow and binge drinking on your saturday night out, and there is no difference between having a beer and smoking a joint, when you get home after work. Other than it's legality

 
ugglan:
In the same way you use alcohol recreationally, you can use other drugs. Drug abuse is a symptom of other problems. The drugs themselves don't cause their abuse.

There is absolutely no difference between doing some blow and binge drinking on your saturday night out, and there is no difference between having a beer and smoking a joint, when you get home after work. Other than it's legality

??? dead wrong

Drinking everyday for a month and then stopping is easy. Doing blow every day for a month is damn near impossible due to the extremely addictive nature of the chemical itself. If drugs were legalized, it would have to start with weed and a few others where physical addiction takes years to build.

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:
ugglan:
In the same way you use alcohol recreationally, you can use other drugs. Drug abuse is a symptom of other problems. The drugs themselves don't cause their abuse.

There is absolutely no difference between doing some blow and binge drinking on your saturday night out, and there is no difference between having a beer and smoking a joint, when you get home after work. Other than it's legality

??? dead wrong

Drinking everyday for a month and then stopping is easy. Doing blow every day for a month is damn near impossible due to the extremely addictive nature of the chemical itself. If drugs were legalized, it would have to start with weed and a few others where physical addiction takes years to build.

Is blow going to magically jump into the bodies of previous non-users?

/Scene from Mr. Griffin Goes to Washington: "Cigarettes killed my father...and raped my mother!"

Drugs remain a symptom of greater cultural/moral problems. My abstention from drugs is not legislatively induced. It is my choice not to touch the stuff.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
Nobama88:
CPH.... Exactly.

Yeah, I posted all that before I got down to your posts...so it's basically a accidental rehash. Maybe you're a brother from another mother, lol.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

i'm cool with drugs, as long as all drugs are laced with some sort of long term birth control - i.e. you would have to be off drugs for at least a year before u r able to impregnate/get pregnant

More is good, all is better
 
Argonaut:
i'm cool with drugs, as long as all drugs are laced with some sort of long term birth control - i.e. you would have to be off drugs for at least a year before u r able to impregnate/get pregnant

Measures like these make me more prone to support the legalization, lol.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
Argonaut:
i'm cool with drugs, as long as all drugs are laced with some sort of long term birth control - i.e. you would have to be off drugs for at least a year before u r able to impregnate/get pregnant

Measures like these make me more prone to support the legalization, lol.

Regards

I'm all about the win-win solutions :)

More is good, all is better
 

Bayer still has the trademark for Heroin.

Also, Nobama's argument IMHO is no different than me already paying for the care of alcoholics or obese people. They know the dangers and choose to do so. Do I think 1 time using crack, heroin, etc. is enough to get u addicted? Not at all. SWIM has gotten high on a lot of drugs and is not addicted to any of them. I have been high on pain drugs that the doc injected me with in the hospital for an operation and did not like the feeling, so I don't go and as for a continuance or look for the drug (ativan) on the black market...that simple.

I don't care about people having DARE type things, but the continued illegalization of drugs forces a lot of people into jail and as Friedman said- into harder and harder drugs. If the sh*t costs $200/g why not inject it if it works better and longer. Why not get crack (like $3 for a hit) vs coke ($50).

Also, cph, for some reason I think that if I was a drug dealer, and someone stole my product, I would not be going to the police anytime soon to report the crime. Instead they handle it themselves. In order to handle it themselves they bring weapons, simply because its safer than not having weapons, this leads to a small arms race between drug gangs. Undoubtably there are completely random acts of violence (black boy shot in suburbia) but most violent acts are against people in the urban poor areas as recourse for other drug dealings. Violence against a gang member's family, friends, people liing in the other gang's turf, or people who are thought to associate with them (may be innocent). If you take the need to weaponize and take away the ability to sell drugs- where do the urban poor turn to? There's only so much to steal, most likely they would go into a lower margin business...like a regular job. Illegal weapons dealing would decrease because a majority of the guns in America are sold on the black market to said drug-based gangs. No business can exist without a profit motive, gangs included.

As long as the drugs come with sufficient warnings (like the currently legalized drugs- alcohol and tobacco) I have no problem with them being sod for recreational use to those say...18+ (lower drinking age to match :))

I can argue all day..rebut!

Reality hits you hard, bro...
 
MMBinNC:
...Also, Nobama's argument IMHO is no different than me already paying for the care of alcoholics or obese people. They know the dangers and choose to do so. Do I think 1 time using crack, heroin, etc. is enough to get u addicted? Not at all. SWIM has gotten high on a lot of drugs and is not addicted to any of them. I have been high on pain drugs that the doc injected me with in the hospital for an operation and did not like the feeling, so I don't go and as for a continuance or look for the drug (ativan) on the black market...that simple.

The difference is you are already taking care of those people vs. adding more to the pile...how is more of a bad thing not 'more bad'?

And there are plenty of people that have surgeries/operations that do become addicted while taking pain medicine in recovery. Just because you don't doesn't mean no one does. What if I'm an excellent driver and have a Lambo...should there be no speed limit because I know how to handle a car at high speeds and because my brake system and steering is capable of swerving and/or stopping before a hitting an object that flies out in the road in front of me?

MMBinNC:
I don't care about people having DARE type things, but the continued illegalization of drugs forces a lot of people into jail and as Friedman said- into harder and harder drugs. If the sh*t costs $200/g why not inject it if it works better and longer. Why not get crack (like $3 for a hit) vs coke ($50).

Again, we are attempting to rectify someone's bad behavior just by making that behavior no longer bad. This doesn't make sense. If I can't buy a 12 pack of beer on Sunday because I live in GA and the state has some backwards ass liquor laws, I don't say fuck it, I'm going to get some crack...I just don't drink beer that day...or I got to a bar or restaurant (like I said, backwards). The people that do this have something wrong with them, it's not the law that forces them to seek harder drugs, it's their inability to control themselves. If I really want to drive 50mph down a residential street but the speed limit is 25mph, I don't swerve onto the swerve onto the sidewalk and attempt to hit pedestrians...and say, if only there wasn't a speed limit I wouldn't be driving on the sidewalk.

MMBinNC:
Also, cph, for some reason I think that if I was a drug dealer, and someone stole my product, I would not be going to the police anytime soon to report the crime. Instead they handle it themselves. In order to handle it themselves they bring weapons, simply because its safer than not having weapons, this leads to a small arms race between drug gangs. Undoubtably there are completely random acts of violence (black boy shot in suburbia) but most violent acts are against people in the urban poor areas as recourse for other drug dealings. Violence against a gang member's family, friends, people liing in the other gang's turf, or people who are thought to associate with them (may be innocent). If you take the need to weaponize and take away the ability to sell drugs- where do the urban poor turn to? There's only so much to steal, most likely they would go into a lower margin business...like a regular job. Illegal weapons dealing would decrease because a majority of the guns in America are sold on the black market to said drug-based gangs. No business can exist without a profit motive, gangs included.

I'm willing to bet there are far more guns in the 'hood than there are drug dealers and gang members. People carry weapons in places they feel unsafe...this would be an area where there are gangs and drug dealers...and sure, lots of those weapons are used by those drug dealers, but telling them they aren't allowed to sell drugs anymore won't make them give away their weapons...because there will still be thieves and rapists and people who hate you for no real reason, etc.

Also, I am still uncertain that legalizing drugs is going to leave all of these drug dealers and gang bangers unemployed and force them to drop off applications at the local fast food joint. These people don't want to work and don't want to hold a real job, which is one of the reasons they are on the streets 'hustlin' to begin with. If drug dealers aren't allowed to sell drugs because they become legalized control substances then who will sell them? The drug companies through a local pharmacy of course...which will be robbed on a regular basis, then those drugs resold on the streets to the people who can't afford them at the local pharmacy. Prescription pain meds and cigarettes, to some degree, are great examples. They are both things that can be acquired in a legal manner yet there is still a black market for them. Why? Because not everyone can get access to pain medicines and not everyone can afford the high cost of cigarettes. Now you have people robbing pharmacies to the point that some of them refuse to carry certain legal drugs and you have criminal rings that are trucking cigarettes across state lines so they don't have to pay taxes, etc.

Bottom line, this stuff isn't going away, even with the legalization because there will always be bad people. For some reason many people (often political liberals) think that bad people only exist because of laws/rules...when, in fact, laws/rules only exist because of bad people.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
Also, I am still uncertain that legalizing drugs is going to leave all of these drug dealers and gang bangers unemployed and force them to drop off applications at the local fast food joint. These people don't want to work and don't want to hold a real job, which is one of the reasons they are on the streets 'hustlin' to begin with. If drug dealers aren't allowed to sell drugs because they become legalized control substances then who will sell them? The drug companies through a local pharmacy of course...which will be robbed on a regular basis, then those drugs resold on the streets to the people who can't afford them at the local pharmacy. Prescription pain meds and cigarettes, to some degree, are great examples. They are both things that can be acquired in a legal manner yet there is still a black market for them. Why? Because not everyone can get access to pain medicines and not everyone can afford the high cost of cigarettes. Now you have people robbing pharmacies to the point that some of them refuse to carry certain legal drugs and you have criminal rings that are trucking cigarettes across state lines so they don't have to pay taxes, etc.

Bottom line, this stuff isn't going away, even with the legalization because there will always be bad people. For some reason many people (often political liberals) think that bad people only exist because of laws/rules...when, in fact, laws/rules only exist because of bad people.

Regards

If this was actually true, there would be a massive black market for alcohol. I mean, people want to drink, not everyone has a job to pay for alcohol, so there must be a street corner presence of people hawking their wares, right? If we legalized drugs, they wouldn't be selling at their inflated levels in legitimate establishments; they would be cheap and safe.

Saying we shouldn't legalize drugs because sometime, somewhere, and someplace there will be someone selling it illegally is fairly redundant.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

Making drugs illegal just gives a massive market to the worst among us. There would be no crips, bloods, MS13, Medelin cartel, Mexican drug cartels and other drug gangs without our government's supposed moral intervention. Our first attempt at prohibition was an epic failure. Yet, even with this impressive failure, that only a federal government could pull off, people still have the audacity to say that the last 50 years of crime statistics don't matter. I have debated this issue many times on this forum and the same intransigent people have put their backs to the precipice to defend the irrational protrusion of government intervention. I am just happy that most educated people who I have met have all been in favor of drug legalization.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

Hmmm another drug legalization thread...

I think any rational person can see that the current system isn't working; It never has, and it never will. Where there is demand, someone will supply, plain and simple. People like to get high, why not let them do it at their own discretion?

Let's say drugs get "legalized" tomorrow. Pharmacies start selling cocaine, heroin etc. etc. OTC. No doubt there would be chaos initially: drug dealers would be out of work instantly and may resort to violence, addicts would be dropping like flies because of a limitless drug supply, and a whole host of other distasteful things would happen.

After a little while these things would sort themselves out. Intelligent drug dealers would move on to fraud while the morons would be forced into pseudo retirement, addicts would find a new way to survive like they always do, and life as we know it would go on.

The REAL problem that would arise from drug legalization is having the government as the main supplier of narcotics to US citizens. They would make so much money off of taxing the drug trade it's ridiculous. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Drug companies would be able to advertise heroin, cocaine, ecstasy etc. etc. Worse still, they would be given carte blanche to develop new, better, more addictive drugs. I read in one of my pharmacology textbooks that scientists have already synthesized a drug 200 times more powerful than cocaine. That was 5 years ago.

They could literally enslave the country without so much as a shot fired.

 
Babyj18777:
Hmmm another drug legalization thread...

I think any rational person can see that the current system isn't working; It never has, and it never will. Where there is demand, someone will supply, plain and simple. People like to get high, why not let them do it at their own discretion?

Let's say drugs get "legalized" tomorrow. Pharmacies start selling cocaine, heroin etc. etc. OTC. No doubt there would be chaos initially: drug dealers would be out of work instantly and may resort to violence, addicts would be dropping like flies because of a limitless drug supply, and a whole host of other distasteful things would happen.

After a little while these things would sort themselves out. Intelligent drug dealers would move on to fraud while the morons would be forced into pseudo retirement, addicts would find a new way to survive like they always do, and life as we know it would go on.

The REAL problem that would arise from drug legalization is having the government as the main supplier of narcotics to US citizens. They would make so much money off of taxing the drug trade it's ridiculous. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Drug companies would be able to advertise heroin, cocaine, ecstasy etc. etc. Worse still, they would be given carte blanche to develop new, better, more addictive drugs. I read in one of my pharmacology textbooks that scientists have already synthesized a drug 200 times more powerful than cocaine. That was 5 years ago.

They could literally enslave the country without so much as a shot fired.

Like I was saying, regulation of this market would be necessary. But the fact is legalization of the more obvious once, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, PCP, meth (yes)...big names, would help more than hurt. The fact is that gradual legalization would prove far better than any other route because it would encourage self-restraint. Did a lot of people die from alcohol poisoning after Prohibition ended...probably. But the social stigmas and gradual awareness of alcohol made it safe. Will some people get addicted...sure, just like they do with alcohol or cigarettes. But the benefits, as outlined before and above, outweigh the negative. I do think that anyone hospitalized (or an ambulance called) for an OD should enter rehab (state supported) which would be similar to Portugal's idea (decriminalization w/ rehab) and would reduce the number of addict- even from where it stands today.

You want some stark figures, about 50% of street prostitutes are addicted to injectable drugs (white mostly) and a high percentage are addicted to crack (mainly black) That is from Sex for Sale by Ronald Weitzer. Without the drugs (high cost due to prohibition) many women could earn less money escape the circuit. Many said that they were only able to bear the shame of prostituting themselves because they were high. i.e. No drugs = no sex. If I was some kind of filthy liberal I'd call this drug induced sex slavery. But then again I am for legalizing prostitution.

Do I think prostitution would evaporate without drugs...of course not. Most women could afford drugs if they held an ok job, wen't divorced, criminals, or mentally ill. But this is just another piece of the puzzle, the lower LT addiction rates arising from drug legalization and support for addicts would curb the impulses to get into prostitution. Many of the women only prostituted part time to supplement their drug habit...so it would help. All of the major crime areas of America could benefit from legalization's reduced drug-related crime rate. And the economy would be bette...MORE SIN TAXES!!! (joking)

I have taken a few classes on drugs and such (mainly policy implications) I can throw facts and figures at you all day as to the studied benefits of drug legalization. You can look at it in other countries, draw corollaries to Prohibition, the lower binge drinking percentage of teens in countries with lowered drinking ages, etc. Some people can't be convinced, but hopefully people will be over time and we move toward more and more freedoms.

Also, why do hospitals use morphine instead of heroin? Just the name? (and I mean the drug, oxycontin is considered to be like Heroin, but isn't the same chemical)

Reality hits you hard, bro...
 
Oxycontin is the trade name for time-release oxycodone. Oxycodone, morphine, and heroin are formed from a similar chemical "backbone", with slightly different atoms on certain parts of this backbone. However, oxycodone and heroin are more different structurally than morphine and heroin, SWIM believes. Heroin has 2 acetyl groups on either end of the molecule which increase its ability to get into the brain more efficiently, thus accounting for its strength. It may cross quicker than morphine, but it certainly crosses more efficiently, milligram for milligram.

Oxycodone and morphine probably dont "pass into the brain" at drastically different rates, and actually they are of equal potency in most dosage equivalance charts. HOWEVER they have different bioavailabilities, and are only subjectively equal when administered IV. Oxycodone absorbs through the stomach into the blood much more efficiently than morphine, run a search on bioavailabilities to see what I mean. So orally, oxycodone absorbs maybe 8-10 times more efficiently than morphine, meaning 20 mg oxycodone would feel much stronger than 20 mg morphine if a SWIM tried them at different times.

Heroin doesnt absorb that well orally, SWIM hears, but if compared to morphine and oxycodone strengths in terms of IV routes, heroin has at least twice the potency of oxycodone or morphine.

...still don't know

Reality hits you hard, bro...
 
MMBinNC:
Oxycontin is the trade name for time-release oxycodone. Oxycodone, morphine, and heroin are formed from a similar chemical "backbone", with slightly different atoms on certain parts of this backbone. However, oxycodone and heroin are more different structurally than morphine and heroin, SWIM believes. Heroin has 2 acetyl groups on either end of the molecule which increase its ability to get into the brain more efficiently, thus accounting for its strength. It may cross quicker than morphine, but it certainly crosses more efficiently, milligram for milligram.

Oxycodone and morphine probably dont "pass into the brain" at drastically different rates, and actually they are of equal potency in most dosage equivalance charts. HOWEVER they have different bioavailabilities, and are only subjectively equal when administered IV. Oxycodone absorbs through the stomach into the blood much more efficiently than morphine, run a search on bioavailabilities to see what I mean. So orally, oxycodone absorbs maybe 8-10 times more efficiently than morphine, meaning 20 mg oxycodone would feel much stronger than 20 mg morphine if a SWIM tried them at different times.

Heroin doesnt absorb that well orally, SWIM hears, but if compared to morphine and oxycodone strengths in terms of IV routes, heroin has at least twice the potency of oxycodone or morphine.

...still don't know

^ all derive from opium, have minor chemical variations.

Agree that the long term solution to drug abuse is to address the 'rot' in society: the solution is ultimately cultural. Legalizing drugs is really just a way of having the gov't re-establish control of the situation, and only part of mechanics of the solution.

Get busy living
 
Drug companies would be able to advertise heroin, cocaine, ecstasy etc. etc. Worse still, they would be given carte blanche to develop new, better, more addictive drugs.

perhaps it will finally put a can on advertising drugs directly to the consumer, who generally has no way of discerning whether the drug that makes the cloud go away is suitable for him/her.

Many of the anti-depressants (though they supposedly don't cause addiction) have some seriously fucked up side effects, and by side effects I don't mean nausea and diarrhea, I mean completely fucking with your head.
Did you know that in a small group of people Cymbalta induces severe delirium pretty much around the fucking clock? Some of the benzodiazepines, used as prescription sleep aid and anti-anxiety, can also seriously fuck with people's heads, for example Halcion (triazolam) can instigate violence in people without violent tendencies.

More is good, all is better
 
Drug companies would be able to advertise heroin, cocaine, ecstasy etc. etc. Worse still, they would be given carte blanche to develop new, better, more addictive drugs.

perhaps it will finally put a can on advertising drugs directly to the consumer, who generally has no way of discerning whether the drug that makes the cloud go away is suitable for him/her.

Many of the anti-depressants (though they supposedly don't cause addiction) have some seriously fucked up side effects, and by side effects I don't mean nausea and diarrhea, I mean completely fucking with your head.
Did you know that in a small group of people Cymbalta induces severe delirium pretty much around the fucking clock? Some of the benzodiazepines, used as prescription sleep aid and anti-anxiety, can also seriously fuck with people's heads, for example Halcion (triazolam) can instigate violence in people without violent tendencies.

More is good, all is better
 

The one claim I can't wrap my head around is the claim that violence wouldn't abet if cut the revenues to gangs. If we cut their constant supply of funds, how else would they support their violence? Violence related to the illicit sale of alcohol ceased overnight after we ceased our prohibition.

Imagine the resources that are wasted arming our police officers to the teeth, making sure that they have interceptor vests with trauma plates and state of the art armored vehicles was spent on education or returned to the populace in the form of a tax rebate.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

^^^Cph, what proportion of total cigarettes sold are sold on the black market? The illicit sale cigarettes is different from the illicit sale drugs because selling cigarettes isn't illegal; avoiding taxes on the cigarettes is.

Obviously people sell and resell things, but that is such a small proportion of the total market. Today, 100% of the drugs sold are sold on the black market. When legalized, virtually all would be sold on the legitimate market. Yes, people will still sell drugs in the black market, but I would imagine that this would be akin to the illicit sales of tobacco products.

We have debated this before and re litigating the issue would be retarded. The war on drugs is indefensible.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
eokpar02:
^^^Cph, what proportion of total cigarettes sold are sold on the black market? The illicit sale cigarettes is different from the illicit sale drugs because selling cigarettes isn't illegal; avoiding taxes on the cigarettes is.

Obviously people sell and resell things, but that is such a small proportion of the total market. Today, 100% of the drugs sold are sold on the black market. When legalized, virtually all would be sold on the legitimate market. Yes, people will still sell drugs in the black market, but I would imagine that this would be akin to the illicit sales of tobacco products.

We have debated this before and re litigating the issue would be retarded. The war on drugs is indefensible.

I don't know the number of cigarettes, but it's estimated that the tax revenue lost from the gray/black market is about $5B per year total to the individual states.

Yes, I realize that you want drugs to be legal, but that doesn't make the war on drugs indefensible. Believe it or not, this country was founded on principle that many still believe in. Some of those principles are related to religion and through those religious, or semi religious, principles people still believe in right and wrong. Lots of people in this country are against legalizing drugs because it contradicts the values that they hold which are the values held by their parents and grandparents, etc. Some people are just not willing to compromise their beliefs so there are less people in jail for petty drug crimes. Some people see crimes as crimes and the perpetrators of those crimes as criminals...not kinda criminals, which is a distinction many on the left love to make. "This crime isn't so bad and they are taking up a lot of resources, so we should just make that illegal activity legal and that will free up additional resources"...I just don't know if I can get on board with that train of thought.

We don't' live or operate in a static environment, it is rather dynamic. We can't try one thing and see if it checks out and then switch right back if it doesn't (actually, it's possible, just not easily done). In my opinion there are repercussions for legalizing drugs that many people, yourself included just gloss over. As in previous debates surrounding the same topic people have touted legalization as a light switch that will be flipped and drug cartels will crumble, the violence in Mexico will disappear, the ghettos of America will begin to prosper because gang will no longer exist and all of these people who skip or drop out of school that terrorize and rob and steal and rape...well, they will just find jobs instead. That just all seems like bullshit to me quite frankly.

I know this is a tough issue because it involves the control of our liberties, but allowing us to do something that is potentially destructive (legalizing drugs) is much different from taking something away that has been engrained in our culture (prohibition). I personally like the idea of the government keeping it's nose out of my life and not restricting my every move...but I also fear what will come out of them doing so in this instance...especially considering the dependency that they have already created.

I also realize it's a losing battle on a site like this because the vast majority are hardworking, dedicated and smart...that is to say, not your average American. So when it comes to topics like drug use, people here advocate it because they've done drugs here and there and never became addicts and many, if not most, come from some sort of upper middle class or upper class background and rampant drug abuse isn't something they have ever been exposed to..so often times they have this misconception that it hardly exists. The truth is it does exist and it tears families apart, is the root of a massive amount of crime and it perpetuates a culture that is degenerative and dependent...things that none of us, here on WSO want.

As I've said before, I'm on the fence about the issue because on one side I see the value in not wanting the government to control my life but on the other I am just not convinced things won't get worse.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
Yes, I realize that you want drugs to be legal, but that doesn't make the war on drugs indefensible. Believe it or not, this country was founded on principle that many still believe in. Some of those principles are related to religion and through those religious, or semi religious, principles people still believe in right and wrong. Lots of people in this country are against legalizing drugs because it contradicts the values that they hold which are the values held by their parents and grandparents, etc. Some people are just not willing to compromise their beliefs so there are less people in jail for petty drug crimes. Some people see crimes as crimes and the perpetrators of those crimes as criminals...not kinda criminals, which is a distinction many on the left love to make. "This crime isn't so bad and they are taking up a lot of resources, so we should just make that illegal activity legal and that will free up additional resources"...I just don't know if I can get on board with that train of thought.
Two questions here. First, what are those values you are talking about?. Second, what should the fundamental determinant for something to be considered a crime? more specifically, say someone does marijuana, why should this be a crime? why producing it should be a crime?. Because it has always been that way is a very dangerous argument.
Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 
cphbravo96:
Yes, I realize that you want drugs to be legal, but that doesn't make the war on drugs indefensible. Believe it or not, this country was founded on principle that many still believe in. Some of those principles are related to religion and through those religious, or semi religious, principles people still believe in right and wrong. Lots of people in this country are against legalizing drugs because it contradicts the values that they hold which are the values held by their parents and grandparents, etc. Some people are just not willing to compromise their beliefs so there are less people in jail for petty drug crimes. Some people see crimes as crimes and the perpetrators of those crimes as criminals...not kinda criminals, which is a distinction many on the left love to make. "This crime isn't so bad and they are taking up a lot of resources, so we should just make that illegal activity legal and that will free up additional resources"...I just don't know if I can get on board with that train of thought.

What principles are you talking about? Have you actually read the constitution and the declaration of independence? The 10th amendment clearly states that any power not vested in the Federal Government and restricted to the state and the people are that of the people and the state. Its called the Commerce Clause. Our first go at prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Thus, since there is no amendment that says the government can pursue those who produce drugs, then the very War on Drugs is unconstitutional. Why does unconstitutional government intervention appeal to inherent values? To say that the war on drugs somehow appeals to American values is nonsensical. The declaration of independence clearly states libertine values that most people like myself appeal to. The founding fathers were against intervention and would be rolling their graves.

Do you honestly think that the War on Drugs was the result of American beliefs? Are you kidding me? If so, did American values changes from the beginning of prohibition till the end? Was there some metamorphosis? Do you know heroine and cocaine used to sold at convenience stores? Do you know the oil companies were the biggest proponents of prohibiting marijuana because they were afraid that hemp oil would supplant oil?

And if Americans are against drug use, why is alcohol legal? Why is tobacco legal? Alcohol kills nearly 50 thousand people a year, leads to public indecency, etc.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

I am not sure where some of you guys are getting your information but hard drug use is absolutely illegal in the Netherlands. Cocaine, Heroin, Meth, etc were never legal in Amsterdam or anywhere else in the Netherlands.

Another question that makes this whole legalisation debate more complicated is what about prescription drugs? How could you legalise Heroin but not Morphine and Fentanyl? It doesn't make much sense as they are all painkillers of varying strengths. It sort of completely destroys the relationship doctors have with their patients if all drugs were legalised and I don't see how you could be for legalising drugs like Meth and Heroin and not for legalising all painkillers and amphetamines. It doesn't make much sense.

 
awm55:
Another question that makes this whole legalisation debate more complicated is what about prescription drugs? How could you legalise Heroin but not Morphine and Fentanyl? It doesn't make much sense as they are all painkillers of varying strengths. It sort of completely destroys the relationship doctors have with their patients if all drugs were legalised and I don't see how you could be for legalising drugs like Meth and Heroin and not for legalising all painkillers and amphetamines. It doesn't make much sense.

Milton wasn't saying that Morphine and Fentanyl should be illegal. Milton is actually in favor of abolishing the FDA and letting individuals decide what drugs they want to take (painkillers, or otherwise). I totally don't understand your comment about "destroying the relationship between patient and doctor" as doctors could still advise patients on what medications to take (just like they currently advise people on what foods to each, what exercises to do, whether or not to ice/wrap, etc).

For anyone who's interested: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/02/richard_epstein.html

 
econ][quote=awm55:
Another question that makes this whole legalisation debate more complicated is what about prescription drugs? How could you legalise Heroin but not Morphine and Fentanyl? It doesn't make much sense as they are all painkillers of varying strengths. It sort of completely destroys the relationship doctors have with their patients if all drugs were legalised and I don't see how you could be for legalising drugs like Meth and Heroin and not for legalising all painkillers and amphetamines. It doesn't make much sense.

Milton wasn't saying that Morphine and Fentanyl should be illegal. Milton is actually in favor of abolishing the FDA and letting individuals decide what drugs they want to take (painkillers, or otherwise). I totally don't understand your comment about "destroying the relationship between patient and doctor" as doctors could still advise patients on what medications to take (just like they currently advise people on what foods to each, what exercises to do, whether or not to ice/wrap, etc).

For anyone who's interested: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/02/richard_epstein.html[/quote]

So how would it work? Would you need a prescription to get access to drugs or would you be able to go to a pharmacy and get any drug you want? I just understand how you could have a society where all drugs (both prescription and illicit) would be available to anyone who wants them. This is what Milton is advocating is it not? Isn't he saying that a person should no longer need to get a prescription through a medical professional to get access to drugs?

 
awm55:
I am not sure where some of you guys are getting your information but hard drug use is absolutely illegal in the Netherlands. Cocaine, Heroin, Meth, etc were never legal in Amsterdam or anywhere else in the Netherlands.

Another question that makes this whole legalisation debate more complicated is what about prescription drugs? How could you legalise Heroin but not Morphine and Fentanyl? It doesn't make much sense as they are all painkillers of varying strengths. It sort of completely destroys the relationship doctors have with their patients if all drugs were legalised and I don't see how you could be for legalising drugs like Meth and Heroin and not for legalising all painkillers and amphetamines. It doesn't make much sense.

I also think it should be a question of use and strength. Fentanyl, which I have taken since I am allergic to Morphine, is 100x stronger than morphine so its far more dangerous for self administration. Hundreds of addicts die each year from having fentanyl cut into their heroin (its cheaper i guess?). Not many people go out and get fentanyl so its legal but not used recreationally as much. Make some big names legal, but the smaller names don't need to be. I think ignorance and the prevalence of other drugs would be powerful. And beyer could pull out the old Heroin ads.

Heroin!!!!!

Reality hits you hard, bro...
 
txjustin:
So wall street people are smart enough to handle unregulated access to prescription drugs? Considering lots of them abuse prescription drugs now, I find that statement very funny.

Exactly. And they are smarter than your general population. Deregulating ( assuming anyone is actually suicidal enough to pursue that agenda) prescription meds is also going to give rise to the the fringe radical religious movements, the ones that don't believe in medications and think that everything can be fixed with prayer. So half the people is gonna be fucked up, another half nuts. Anyone who is remotely intelligent is going to move to Canada or something.

More is good, all is better
 

I'm gonna go against the prescription drug thing. I think that what people think of as "recreational" drugs are thought of as so for a reason. Even the worst ones (let's say painkillers) don't cause serious side effects as long as you don't OD. Percocet is dangerous, not because of the oxycodone in it, it is dangerous because of the paracemetol in it...aka Tylenol. It is there to prevent recreational use of the drug. On the other hand, some prescription medications can be dangerous when taken as prescribed. Last summer I got a serious lung infection and was on vancomycin, levofloxacin, imipenem, and fentanyl...all IV. Taken as prescribed, everything was fine. But when I used the vancomycin a few months later...as prescribed...I had to have hemodialysis after a few weeks and lost quite a bit of hearing. Most prescription drugs are much more dangerous than recreational drugs. Hell, I took some medication for my lungs before that increased my aggressiveness so much I broke a wall in my home and also was getting out of my car to yell at people if they cut me off...and I weigh like nothing.

There is also the issue of self-treatment for this. When the treatment is "let's take enough of dis shit to get high as FUCKKKKKK" thats easy to tell. But if they are coughing a lot....a lot of people are dumb enough to either go online see that they have XXX Super disease and the only way to treat it is high dose YYY (which is deadly if taken in high amounts) thats a problem. Less people would go in for treatment than before, but self treatment is not good. When treating an underlying problem, it's much harder to do as the effects of the medicine aren't immediately noticeable- like if they got high.

Some things the FDA do are stupid...we all know that, but overal I think that it is necessary to keep us safe, because we don't really know what these drugs do. How would they get approved? Who would force a recall if they are dangerous? Hell, how would anyone know if they were dangerous? Look at the issue of Remington Arms and the problems with the 700 rifle. No mandate to recall, the problems are brushed under the mat. And medicines have a far greater earnings potential and possible harm from issuing/not issuing a recall. The FDA probably needs some reforms, but the day I go and buy methotrexate at CVS hopefully is very far off.

Reality hits you hard, bro...
 
MMBinNC:
I'm gonna go against the prescription drug thing. I think that what people think of as "recreational" drugs are thought of as so for a reason. Even the worst ones (let's say painkillers) don't cause serious side effects as long as you don't OD. Percocet is dangerous, not because of the oxycodone in it, it is dangerous because of the paracemetol in it...aka Tylenol. It is there to prevent recreational use of the drug. On the other hand, some prescription medications can be dangerous when taken as prescribed. Last summer I got a serious lung infection and was on vancomycin, levofloxacin, imipenem, and fentanyl...all IV. Taken as prescribed, everything was fine. But when I used the vancomycin a few months later...as prescribed...I had to have hemodialysis after a few weeks and lost quite a bit of hearing. Most prescription drugs are much more dangerous than recreational drugs. Hell, I took some medication for my lungs before that increased my aggressiveness so much I broke a wall in my home and also was getting out of my car to yell at people if they cut me off...and I weigh like nothing.

There is also the issue of self-treatment for this. When the treatment is "let's take enough of dis shit to get high as FUCKKKKKK" thats easy to tell. But if they are coughing a lot....a lot of people are dumb enough to either go online see that they have XXX Super disease and the only way to treat it is high dose YYY (which is deadly if taken in high amounts) thats a problem. Less people would go in for treatment than before, but self treatment is not good. When treating an underlying problem, it's much harder to do as the effects of the medicine aren't immediately noticeable- like if they got high.

Some things the FDA do are stupid...we all know that, but overal I think that it is necessary to keep us safe, because we don't really know what these drugs do. How would they get approved? Who would force a recall if they are dangerous? Hell, how would anyone know if they were dangerous? Look at the issue of Remington Arms and the problems with the 700 rifle. No mandate to recall, the problems are brushed under the mat. And medicines have a far greater earnings potential and possible harm from issuing/not issuing a recall. The FDA probably needs some reforms, but the day I go and buy methotrexate at CVS hopefully is very far off.

More Milton Friedman wisdom:

(Better yet, check out Free to Chose "Who Protects the Consumer" and watch a younger Milton make a stronger case.)

 

Nope, it's not the first time. Watch the Milton Friedman links I posted above, awm. Not to mention, I never said that people couldn't seek medical expertise WHEN THEY THINK IT'S NECESSARY.

 

Unless each state fully manufactures and develops its own set of drugs and sells it only within the state, there will be interstate commerce, which if I am not mistaken (and I am not) is federal domain.

I am pretty sure Founding Fathers had no intention of letting churches build societies, as evidenced by Separation of Church and State

More is good, all is better
 
Argonaut:
Unless each state fully manufactures and develops its own set of drugs and sells it only within the state, there will be interstate commerce, which if I am not mistaken (and I am not) is federal domain.

I am pretty sure Founding Fathers had no intention of letting churches build societies, as evidenced by Separation of Church and State

Technically, no. They trusted churches/religion to build the character of the people, but would be horrified by tax money being paid to religions.

Interstate commerce is used to justify a LOT of stuff only remotely related to commerce, and is the catch all phrase that the federal gov't uses to expand its power where all else fails....

Get busy living
 
Argonaut:
Unless each state fully manufactures and develops its own set of drugs and sells it only within the state, there will be interstate commerce, which if I am not mistaken (and I am not) is federal domain.

I am pretty sure Founding Fathers had no intention of letting churches build societies, as evidenced by Separation of Church and State

1- Correct. One state commercial activity is untouchable by the Feds under the Commerce Clause. I would encourage drug manufacturers to take advantage of this if their other political disincentives were removed.

2- You have no clue what you are talking about. The Founders banned an official Government Religion. They ENSHRINED the freedom of religions/churches to flourish, grow and impact society. I'd love to read "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution.... still searching for it...

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
  1. It is not economically viable for the drug manufacturers to do that. It is not economically viable for the state to have its own FDA-like body. Without regulation and standards, how would you make sure that your pill of blood pressure medication contains exactly the dose it says it does?

  2. Thomas Jefferson:
    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State
More is good, all is better
 
Argonaut:
1. It is not economically viable for the drug manufacturers to do that. It is not economically viable for the state to have its own FDA-like body. Without regulation and standards, how would you make sure that your pill of blood pressure medication contains exactly the dose it says it does?
  1. Thomas Jefferson:
    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

1- Companies have incentives to provide a functioning product. They risk lawsuits and losing customers and thus their bankruptcy. The court system and a competitive market are enough. There are numerous 3rd party PRIVATE quality testers that would put the products to the test and the costs would be more directly born by the drug companies/drug users, instead of by EVERY taxpayer with the FDA.

2- You did not quote the Constitution. You reference the private correspondence of one man. The Constitution prevented the Church of England from repeating in America. It did not outlaw religion in society. How quickly you forget that the churches BUILT much of America. Catholics & Protestants ran in addition to their churches a variety of schools, aide societies, fraternal organizations, and guilds that provided for immigrants and the poor well before any state intervention.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
veritas14:
Argonaut:
1. It is not economically viable for the drug manufacturers to do that. It is not economically viable for the state to have its own FDA-like body. Without regulation and standards, how would you make sure that your pill of blood pressure medication contains exactly the dose it says it does?
  1. Thomas Jefferson:
    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

1- Companies have incentives to provide a functioning product. They risk lawsuits and losing customers and thus their bankruptcy. The court system and a competitive market are enough. There are numerous 3rd party PRIVATE quality testers that would put the products to the test and the costs would be more directly born by the drug companies/drug users, instead of by EVERY taxpayer with the FDA.

2- You did not quote the Constitution. You reference the private correspondence of one man. The Constitution prevented the Church of England from repeating in America. It did not outlaw religion in society. How quickly you forget that the churches BUILT much of America. Catholics & Protestants ran in addition to their churches a variety of schools, aide societies, fraternal organizations, and guilds that provided for immigrants and the poor well before any state intervention.

How would private testing agencies get funding? And don't you think there is a conflict of interest between a private company choosing another private company to test a drug that would result in a windfall profit if it was passed?

 
veritas14:
Argonaut:
1. It is not economically viable for the drug manufacturers to do that. It is not economically viable for the state to have its own FDA-like body. Without regulation and standards, how would you make sure that your pill of blood pressure medication contains exactly the dose it says it does?
  1. Thomas Jefferson:
    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

1- Companies have incentives to provide a functioning product. They risk lawsuits and losing customers and thus their bankruptcy. The court system and a competitive market are enough. There are numerous 3rd party PRIVATE quality testers that would put the products to the test and the costs would be more directly born by the drug companies/drug users, instead of by EVERY taxpayer with the FDA.

2- You did not quote the Constitution. You reference the private correspondence of one man. The Constitution prevented the Church of England from repeating in America. It did not outlaw religion in society. How quickly you forget that the churches BUILT much of America. Catholics & Protestants ran in addition to their churches a variety of schools, aide societies, fraternal organizations, and guilds that provided for immigrants and the poor well before any state intervention.

  1. You say it like there are no incentives to provide a crappy product. High cost due to testing would make drugs prohibitively expensive (and definitely forget about insurance $10 RX copays), the only states that will have any kind of drugs would be California and Texas (maybe also NY and Florida)

  2. You are pro-church, and that's fine but go and re-read my post that you are arguing with. And i am pretty sure churches building societies is not in a constitution either, moreover Founding Fathers on several occasions highlighted their intent for separation of church and state, so you can't really claim that they envisioned the heavy lifting to be done by the churches, and were vehemently opposed to a body like the FDA.

John Adams:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
More is good, all is better
 
txjustin:
I can't speak for Veritas, but all I want is less government intrusion and want the government to do what the Constitution outlined it to do. NO more, no less.

I really want someone to explain to me why a document written 250 years ago should be applied as written to modern society? Society changes and things have become much more complex than they were in the 18'th century. I think in general the central tenants of the constitution should be upheld, but I just don't see how controlling potentially dangerous prescription drugs is something that is akin to tyrrany in your mind.

 
awm55:
txjustin:
I can't speak for Veritas, but all I want is less government intrusion and want the government to do what the Constitution outlined it to do. NO more, no less.

I really want someone to explain to me why a document written 250 years ago should be applied as written to modern society? Society changes and things have become much more complex than they were in the 18'th century. I think in general the central tenants of the constitution should be upheld, but I just don't see how controlling potentially dangerous prescription drugs is something that is akin to tyrrany in your mind.

Your 1st sentence is exactly why liberals scare me.

 

Undoubtably a private entity could perform the same activities as the FDA, but that would require a lot of time to create. If you are so bent on getting rid of the FDA I think it would be better for the government to divest it as a non-profit entity and have government-accredited non-profits who perform the same function. But just getting rid of the FDA would be disastrous. There needs to be some way to test these drugs and recall them. There are thousands of drugs recalled later for disastrous side effects, imagine if non of them were tested further or had a place to complain to. Only a small percentage of drugs in development make it to production, without the FDA a lot of those would be on the market today- harming people directly or indirectly. Drugs sold ot under the purview of the FDA, such as herbal supplements, take a long time to recall and often do nothing. If the FFDA disappears, what is to stop the same from happening to prescription meds? It would be much easier to have a Phase I & II trial then the FDA which may require many more to prove safety and efficacy. More than enough companies are fine with putting out an inferior product if its cheap and makes them money. I'm fine if we decentralize and privatize the FDA but the core functions of the FDA are necessary.

Reality hits you hard, bro...
 
MMBinNC:
But just getting rid of the FDA would be disastrous.

I agree. In fact, in most cases I'd be in favor of reducing the scope of gov't, but also realize it can't be done in one fell swoop, as the consequences would be disastrous. Even Milton Friedman himself was usually in favor of phasing things out over a five year period.

 
econ:
MMBinNC:
But just getting rid of the FDA would be disastrous.

I agree. In fact, in most cases I'd be in favor of reducing the scope of gov't, but also realize it can't be done in one fell swoop, as the consequences would be disastrous. Even Milton Friedman himself was usually in favor of phasing things out over a five year period.

MMB, please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think you mentioned the disastrousness of eliminating the FDA to emphasize that it should be slowly phased out instead. I thought what you meant is that even if FDA is to be eliminated, some different body performing the same role would have to be in place of it.

More is good, all is better
 

As an aside, I am a huge fan of the constitution, and the concept of limited government in particular. However, I do not believe that laissez-faire approach to limiting the government was ever the intended approach, because while it limits the power of the government when it comes to businesses, it gives businesses the power to trespass on the rights of the individuals. If an individual dies because an unscrupulous company is selling some stomach upset medication they know can lead to death (i.e. risk is too high comparing to the potential benefit), then the company has pursued profits (which is not an inalienable right) by taking that individual's life (which is an inalienable right, protected by the constitution)

Without government, the individuals have very limited recourse against businesses. It is not explicitly spelled out anywhere, but I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers never intended to let the businesses have the right to cheat or extort the individuals.

A much better mode of limiting government is checks and balances. Not just in the classical sense of legislative-executive-judicial branches interaction, but also in a more broad sense of government-businesses-people interaction. Businesses have more power than the people, government has more power than the businesses, and people have more power than the government. Neither can really go buckwild with their power, because it will come back to negatively affect them, but each also has enough power to prevent the others from going buckwild.

Moreover, I think that a triad-based relationship between various entities is more stable than a mutual-only interaction. People cannot regulate businesses directly. Yeah, CR performed some research and found cars that need to be recalled, and the car manufacturer voluntarily recalled them, but if NHTSA wasn't in place to force a recall, how many more car manufacturers would have decided that its cheaper to just pay out lawsuits to individuals, than invest in a safer design? Because of the public outcry NHTSA had to step in and force the recall of Ford Pinto, precisely because Ford did not listen to the public outcry. More importantly, how would CR know that a vehicle doesn't comply with federal motor vehicle safety standards if there was no federal body to set the standards?

More is good, all is better
 

Econ, I think you have a track record of misunderstanding what people say and/or twisting people's words to support your personal agenda. As evidenced by your post, you are well aware that you are not acknowledging the point MMB made, and are actually making an entirely different point - so why would you quote him?

MMB structured his argument as [ IF you absolutely must eliminate the FDA, THEN bodies performing the same function must be in place.], NOT [you absolutely must eliminate the FDA, but first put in place bodies performing the same function]. You "agreeing" with him makes it seem as if he actually holds the same point of view as you do, which BTW just a page ago was that of fully deregulating drugs (and not just decentralizing the power that regulates them)

econ:
awm55:
So no prescriptions would be needed to get any drugs?

Yep, you got it.

awm55:
Do you not see the logistical/ethical problems this would cause from a medical standpoint?

No, I do not. The moral issue I see, is people like you an the FDA telling me what medications I can take. How do you know better than I do what's good for me?

awm55:
How is a member of the public supposed to know drug contraindications, side effects, etc?

That's a good point - I guess we should need prescriptions for asprin, on account of the possibility of Reye's syndrome? Did you know that taking grapefruit juice along with many medications is incredibly dangerous (maybe even lethal)? I guess we should need prescriptions for grapefruit juice too, wouldn't you agree? How is the public supposed to know about the dangers of grapefruit juice?

awm55:
How is a doctor supposed to know what prescription drugs their patient is taking on the side?

Uhhh... the same way they do now, by asking them???

awm55:
Most drugs need to be administered under the close watch of a doctor for a reason.

Then people will pay doctors to administer these drugs, since it's in their best interest. People defer to one another in markets all the time. If I have a car problem, I don't mess around - I take that thing to a mechanic and make sure it's fixed correctly, so I don't hurt myself driving a bum car later.

awm55:
Its one thing to legalise soft recreational drugs, its quite another to legalise all prescription drugs that have no recreational use. This could cause people to try to self diagnose and self medicate

Who said self diagnosis and self medication is necessarily a bad thing? Also, why do you presume that people wouldn't defer to doctors when necessary? Lastly, let me give you two examples of things that I am more than capable of handing myself, despite currently needing a prescription. One is contact lenses. I wear contacts, and have done so for over ten years. Every two years I am forced (by law) to get a new prescription. I could easily go to an contact store, try some on, and figure out which ones I need. But, this wouldn't keep eye doctor salaries nearly as high - so it's a no-go. Second, I have taken pain killers (non-recreationally) a few times in my life. I really don't need a doctor to prescribe them to me, I am quite capable of deciding for myself when I need them.

More is good, all is better
 
Argonaut:
Econ, I think you have a track record of misunderstanding what people say and/or twisting people's words to support your personal agenda.

LOL - well, you're definitely entitled to your own opinion.

Argonaut:
As evidenced by your post, you are well aware that you are not acknowledging the point MMB made, and are actually making an entirely different point - so why would you quote him?

I quoted him for two reasons: 1) I agree with that statement. Notice I didn't include anything more than those 10 words, since I didn't want it to be confused with me saying we were in agreement on everything; just those 10 words. I was hoping this would make it clear for the readers to follow what I agree with, since, afterall, I agreed with EXACTLY what I was quoting. I guess you missed the point. Maybe you're the one with the track record of misunderstanding? 2) I was actually using that quote as an opportunity to make my position more clear. Most people probably assume I'd argue that we should abolish the FDA tomorrow and everything would be hunky dorey. I was trying to make it clear that I actually don't think that at all, and make it clear that I actually understand the pitfalls of such an extreme policy. I even tried to point out that many iconic libertarians also understand this issue (hence quoting Milton Friedman). Anyone could ask me: "Do you think we should abolish public schools, welfare, and publicly funded health care?" and I would answer "Yes." But if they asked me, "Should we do it all in one fell swoop tomorrow?" then I would answer "No, that'd be disastorous. We should phase them out." So, I decided to make my own position clear by stating that explicitly. Guess you missed the point, but what else is new...

Argonaut:
You "agreeing" with him makes it seem as if he actually holds the same point of view as you do,

Not for those on this forum who are smart enough to realize that MMB made many, many points/statements, and realized that one can agree with some and disagree with some. In my case, I totally agreed with one of his statements, so I quoted it (nothing more and nothing less) and made my own position clear. In other words, I said, "I agree with this particular sentence, and here's why." The only one jumping to silly conclusions about me making it look like we're in agreement on every little point is you. For future reference, if I agree with MMB on everything, then I will quote everything. If I agree with a small chunk of it and want to comment, then I'll only quote that chunk. Similarly, if I disagree with a chunk of it and want to comment, then I'll only quote that chunk. Got it? I choose my quotes so that my comments are directly related to that quote. A pretty simple concept, so hopefully you won't get it twisted in the future...

 

econ, you plucked several words out of context and tried to place them into a different context. that's what's known as "twisting words" if you say: "Jesus, that crazy lady was acting as if I wanted to rape 3 year olds" and end up with something like this:

pedobear:
econ:
I wanted to rape 3 year olds
I prefer to make love to 3 year olds, but I see where you are coming from
that would be very akin to what you are doing.
More is good, all is better
 
Argonaut:
econ, you plucked several words out of context and tried to place them into a different context. that's what's known as "twisting words" if you say: "Jesus, that crazy lady was acting as if I wanted to rape 3 year olds" and end up with something like this:
pedobear:
econ:
I wanted to rape 3 year olds
I prefer to make love to 3 year olds, but I see where you are coming from
that would be very akin to what you are doing.

LOL - you are such a clown...

I put up a nice, long post that completed shows how retarded your claims were, and you follow up with this rubbish. Priceless! In fact, I'm (literally) gonna give you a silver banana, since this response was so amusing. SB for you Argo, way to go, thanks for entertaining me and making me laugh!

 

The FDA kills far more people than the "evil" Big Pharma.

The FDA causes needless delays to lifesaving drugs.

Why?

Because the incentives are aligned for FDA inspectors to prevent any risk taking on behalf of medicine. If I have cancer, I have a greater tolerance for side effects, even increased mortality because my untreated mortality is very high.

Instead of communicating risks, eliminating truly poisonous drugs and streamlining the process, the FDA grinds the drug approval process to a crawl. This makes less drugs available and increases the cost of the few drugs that make it to the public.

I suppose you people also believe the FAA (and not market forces) keeps Boeing from building faulty planes?

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
veritas14:
The FDA kills far more people than the "evil" Big Pharma.

I'd like to see some numbers on that. Also big pharma aren't the ones that work on all these experimental drugs. They let the small co take it to approval, then buy it out

veritas14:
The FDA causes needless delays to lifesaving drugs.

Why?

what do you consider to be a life-saving drug? There are very few drugs that are actually bringing something substantially new to the market, most of them are attempting to do what another drug is doing, but with less side effects. For example Vioxx's mode of action was very similar to naproxen, but without upsetting the stomach. Except that ooops, it caused heart failures and multiple deaths. I'll take upset stomach over that any day. On the other hand the drug company I am invested in has came out with a filtering device that works with an already approved chemo drug. The device isolates a particular organ and floods it with super high doses of the chemo drug (can kill a person at concentration like that, if it makes it out to the bloodstream), then filters the drug out of the blood before the blood returns to the rest of the body. I think that is a good application, but we'll find out fairly soon if I'm right.
veritas14:
Because the incentives are aligned for FDA inspectors to prevent any risk taking on behalf of medicine. If I have cancer, I have a greater tolerance for side effects, even increased mortality because my untreated mortality is very high.
there ARE conventional and approved treatments for cancer out there. If you have cancer, you should stick to what works, instead of looking to participate in guinea pig experiments.
veritas14:
Instead of communicating risks, eliminating truly poisonous drugs and streamlining the process, the FDA grinds the drug approval process to a crawl. This makes less drugs available and increases the cost of the few drugs that make it to the public.

I suppose you people also believe the FAA (and not market forces) keeps Boeing from building faulty planes?

They don't know the risks, that's why studies have to be done.

Boeing is a 50 bln market cap company, with billions in profit each year, they have a lot of skin in the game. Most of the new drug companies are small cap and microcap. The drugs they are pushing through are often the only drug in development by the company, and it's a make-or-break drug. Boeing doesn't have new plane manufacturers trying to take its market share every day either, so even if they started slacking, it would take the market some time to get a replacement. Boeing would suffer, but market would suffer more

More is good, all is better
 
veritas14:
The FDA kills far more people than the "evil" Big Pharma.

The FDA causes needless delays to lifesaving drugs.

Why?

Because the incentives are aligned for FDA inspectors to prevent any risk taking on behalf of medicine. If I have cancer, I have a greater tolerance for side effects, even increased mortality because my untreated mortality is very high.

Instead of communicating risks, eliminating truly poisonous drugs and streamlining the process, the FDA grinds the drug approval process to a crawl. This makes less drugs available and increases the cost of the few drugs that make it to the public.

I suppose you people also believe the FAA (and not market forces) keeps Boeing from building faulty planes?

Thank you! Finally, someone gets it!

 
TheKing:
awm55 is not a troll. At all. He just has a different point of view from you.

awm55 talks past people's arguments, resorts to ad hominem attacks in the face of evidence and frequently hijacks threads. He is a troll.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 
TheKing:
And unlike issues caused by conflicts of interests at financial rating agencies, you can't fix the problems by bailing out dead people.

Don't you get it? Under the present system, the bailout would come for the PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY.

And the bank bailout didn't fix anything...

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

There is some study that I read a few weeks ago that for every dollar of tax revenue the government would get from legalizing drugs, they would spend 5-7 on increased healthcare costs. This particular study didn't include the affect on law enforcement as relates to how many would lose their jobs, how much governments would save in law enforcement salary, equipment, insurance, etc. I would be interested to see a comprehensive study that, somehow, at least attempted to address these aspects of the issue.

That being said, I personally think that the use of drugs shouldn't be wholly legal or illegal. I think one would have to admit the possibility that legalizing drugs would open the gates to a new portion of the population becoming addicted to drugs and using disproportionate amounts of their income towards their habit at the expense of other obligations. Realistically, I think the uptick in drug use would obviously lead to more needs in the form of addiction education and rehab facilities.

After all that, to answer your question I would advocate for a step by step type process. Weed being first because I think we can all agree that pot has been proven to be fairly safe. Then move on to other drugs, substances, etc. I would also advocate for taxes on these things greater than or equal to the taxes on cigarettes.

I do think that if California is able to legalize marijuana and do so successfully without far reaching effects on the population at large and use prop 19 to to raise huge tax revenue (especially in light of record deficits in that state) then there will be a massive push towards legalization on a macro level.

Side note: If this happens I am going to put every fucking penny I have into Frito-Lay stock.

Just my .02 cents

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

I have to take issue with the notion of legalizing for the express purpose of generating tax revenue. I hear the argument all over the place. In fact, it's a large part of the argument in favor in California right now. Look at all the tax money we can raise by making pot legal and then taxing the hell out of it.

It amounts to a moral violation on par with making something that grows in the ground "illegal" in the first place. If you don't have the right to make something natural illegal, then you certainly don't have the right to tax it just because you suddenly pulled your head out of your ass.

Are you taxed on the tomatoes you grow in your garden?

I'm not saying commercially procured drugs shouldn't be subject to the same local sales tax that every other product incurs, but to level an additional unconstitutional tariff on a product that amounts to nothing more than a "sin" tax is ludicrous. And before you ask, yes, I feel the same way about excess taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

 
Edmundo Braverman:
I have to take issue with the notion of legalizing for the express purpose of generating tax revenue. I hear the argument all over the place. In fact, it's a large part of the argument in favor in California right now. Look at all the tax money we can raise by making pot legal and then taxing the hell out of it.

It amounts to a moral violation on par with making something that grows in the ground "illegal" in the first place. If you don't have the right to make something natural illegal, then you certainly don't have the right to tax it just because you suddenly pulled your head out of your ass.

Are you taxed on the tomatoes you grow in your garden?

I'm not saying commercially procured drugs shouldn't be subject to the same local sales tax that every other product incurs, but to level an additional unconstitutional tariff on a product that amounts to nothing more than a "sin" tax is ludicrous. And before you ask, yes, I feel the same way about excess taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

Valid point to be sure, but I would respond thusly. At what point does the 'fruit of the earth' argument no longer apply? Weed, yes, absolutely. You can walk outside, pick it up and smoke it (basically). I think one would also have to include mushrooms in that category as well. But what about Cocaine? Comes from a plant but requires more processing. Or opium? Then at the opposite end of the spectrum the ecstasy and LSD stuff. I think the sin tax is a fantastic point and, admittedly, not something I have really considered to this point. I do enjoy a good cigar at times as well as dip whenever I feel like I can get away with it so I am acutely aware of the tobacco tax

Essentially what I am asking, since you are much more informed than myself on the issue, how would you draw the line so to speak on what would or wouldn't be legal?

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

Since no man has the natural right to tell any other man what he can and cannot ingest, nothing would be illegal. Let's not forget that the Declaration of Independence itself is written on hemp paper.

Where the law enters is what happens if someone under the influence impedes the rights of or causes injury to others. We have well established (though not particularly well thought out) laws in place to deter driving around while fucked-in-half drunk, so the same would apply.

I am much more in favor of a zero-tolerance DUI law (you blow even .01 and you go to jail for a year, do not pass Go, do not collect $200) than the current nebulous .08 policy that only benefits the cops, courts, and lawyers. In my perfect world, the law would apply equally to drug infractions.

 

We waste so much money a year on inmates in our prisons for petty drug crimes, we lose out on so much tax revenue from the illiegalization of marijuana, and we waste so much drug enforcement dollars on finding these thiefs for petty pot crimes, not to mention the war south of the border that will spill over into the US because of none other than weed. There is seriously so type of corruption going on in politics as to why marijuana is still not legal. They will wake up one day and realize how wrong they are about this, and it will truly become a free land.

The reason marijuana is still illegal is because these huge pharma companies like Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and Merck would rather manipulate you into thinking you have depression/ADD/ADHD/Bi-Polar and force you to be psychologically dependent on the drugs they manufacture with obscene profit margins and little substitutes rather than give you lost cost marijuana which will cure the minor back pain, depression.

Now, hardcore drugs are a whole different animal .I am from the south, and methamphetamine is a huge drug down here which can literally kill people in the process of manufacturing/recreational use. These hardcore drugs such as meth, cocaine and other opium derived products, extasy, can kill people. These drugs cause class warfare amongst the nation. The cause children to go unfed, families to lose savings and live on the streets collecting unemployment and other government benefits.

Lastly, the medical cost to treating such drug addictions is astounding. There are hospitals that go bankrupt because they have to treat AIDS from syringe use, overdose, and other addictions which is taking so much of our taxpayers dollars for what? So some poor redneck can get high. It;s absurd

 
kimbo:
Say X years from now, you catch your kid (could be hs or college) doing heroin with friends. You confront him/her and the response is..."but dad, it's completely legal." What then?

It's definitely not to be taken lightly. I'm all in favor of age restrictions like we currently have (except that I would lower the drinking age to 18 yesterday - it's an absolute travesty that you can take a bullet for your country or put a fool in the White House but you can't go buy a beer).

The truth is it's all in how you raise your kids. There are plenty of kids out there who don't smoke or drink because of the way they were raised. And the scenario of a high school kid doing heroin only speaks to the fallacy that prohibition works - if someone wants to do drugs, regardless of age or legality, they're going to do them.

 

I am in favor of taking steps to legalize drugs. I would start with marijuana and if that works well move to something a little higher up.

Reasons: Millions of Americans smoke pot every day while it is illegal. If it is made legal, the cigarette companies would commercialize it, and the government can tax it like cigarettes/alcohol. The taxes, combined with hiring less prosecutors/judges/prision guards would save hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.

Also, while I am not a personal fan of marijuana, I have tried it and alcohol certainly impairs you more than weed. Alcohol is more addictive (pot is not physically addicting). I agree with Edmundo that you should not be driving while high.

I come from a pretty diverse town (we had the super rich, the super poor, and everyone inbetween), and gangs have most of their revenues from selling pot. If it is legal then they cannot compete with Altria or Philip Morris. I think there would be a huge decline in gang activity around the country. I cannot stress this point enough.

 
vanillathunder12:
I am in favor of taking steps to legalize drugs. I would start with marijuana and if that works well move to something a little higher up.

Reasons: Millions of Americans smoke pot every day while it is illegal. If it is made legal, the cigarette companies would commercialize it, and the government can tax it like cigarettes/alcohol. The taxes, combined with hiring less prosecutors/judges/prision guards would save hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.

Also, while I am not a personal fan of marijuana, I have tried it and alcohol certainly impairs you more than weed. Alcohol is more addictive (pot is not physically addicting). I agree with Edmundo that you should not be driving while high.

I come from a pretty diverse town (we had the super rich, the super poor, and everyone inbetween), and gangs have most of their revenues from selling pot. If it is legal then they cannot compete with Altria or Philip Morris. I think there would be a huge decline in gang activity around the country. I cannot stress this point enough.

There are plenty of drugs other than weed to sell...so I doubt gang activity would decline.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

While I support the full legalization of marijuana, the fact that the Netherlands is becoming more and more strict with its drug laws gives me pause. That nation at large has determined that un-restricted access to drugs and prostitution does not necessarily create the ideal quality of life. So I'm a little more reluctant to state matter-of-factly that full legalization of drugs is the best step.

Array
 

I would legalize everything. The reasons are too many to list; it's utterly ridiculous that these archaic laws still exist in a "free" country.

I think it's pretty obvious that drugs should never have been made illegal in the first place. If alcohol prohibition is any indication, drug laws have realistically only encouraged the recreational use of narcotics, and the punishment handed down for drug crimes has done nothing to deter re-offenders. In other words drug legislation has been a failure.

@happypantsmcgee I would really like to see that study. If it doesn't include the savings related to law enforcement activities than the point is moot. Who cares if it costs an extra 5 dollars in health care if it saves 10 in legal?

@eyelikecheese you raise an interesting point with the pharmaceutical companies. Assuming drugs became legal, what kind of drugs would big pharma unleash? The things they kick out now, adderall, oxycontin etc., are simply derivatives of naturally occurring substances. If getting high became acceptable, what kind of terrible (awesome?) stuff could they cook up in the lab given free rein? Would Aldous Huxley's Soma become reality? Would that be a bad thing?

@edmundo braverman I wholeheartedly agree with you that they should not legalize marijuana because of the tax incentives, however they wouldn't do it if it would COST the government money - Government always grows, it never shrinks.

 

About the only thing I can agree on is legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. If it helps ease someone's pain, then by all means. AND reduce the drinking age to 18, or leave it up to the states to decide an appropriate age instead of coercing them by denying them highway funding if they refuse. It's one of the tiny handful of things where I disagreed with Reagan.

However, I think it would be ridiculous to make the argument that if we legalize drugs, people won't abuse them anymore. Drugs are a huge issue that often gets swept under the rug. Legalizing hard drugs like cocaine/heroin would worsen the pain and suffering of families with drug abusers and make them available to a wider segment of the population. It's crazy. Do these academics seriously think about what they're proposing?

And as for the argument that we could make tons of revenue by taxing legalized drugs--as we all know, both Congress and states like California are the gold standard for fiscal responsibility, right? It won't matter how much revenue they bring in; they'll STILL be in the red. Dumbasses.

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com
 
Pfalzer:
However, I think it would be ridiculous to make the argument that if we legalize drugs, people won't abuse them anymore. Drugs are a huge issue that often gets swept under the rug. Legalizing hard drugs like cocaine/heroin would worsen the pain and suffering of families with drug abusers and make them available to a wider segment of the population. It's crazy. Do these academics seriously think about what they're proposing?

I don't think anyone made the argument that by legalizing drugs we will stop abuse. The argument is harm reduction.

The classic example is alcohol: When alcohol was made illegal, alcohol abuse actually increased, as did violent crime and incarceration. Today, alcohol is legal, and yes people still abuse it, however rival gangs aren't shooting each other over turf as the academic in the video so eloquently described.

It's pretty obvious that drug prohibition failed in the same way that alcohol prohibition did.

 

Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. After 5 years, incidents of death by overdose dropped by 25% and HIV infections dropped by 75%. None of the crazy predictions of societal collapse came true.

@ kimbo -

You explain to your son that right/wise and wrong/stupid are not defined by the legal system. You shouldn't have to think too long to come up with examples of morally reprehensible laws.

 

Full legalization of pot would be a positive step for the country.

Pot is a nonfactor drug and is equilvalent to alcohol and should be treated with the same local regulation.

Dont give it to kids, harsh fines for driving while under the influence

I honestly dont think people that never touched drugs before will simply decide to try pot just because its illegal.

There may be an increase in usage but the US will be no more worse off.

I never understood the idea that even in America you are not allowed to put a substance in your body.

I think full legalization would be an extension of freedom in the United States.

 

Edmundo,

I completely agree with you, it's all about how you raise your kids. However, when it comes to drugs, I just don't have faith in the youth of America (on a national scale). If parenting was so great, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do now with regards to drugs, gang violence, and the like. I'm not preaching a socialist agenda here, all I'm saying is that when it comes to drugs, drawing that line is going to be very difficult.

Over the last five years, I know of five people who've overdosed on heroin (friend's little brother and teens in near by high schools). It's so sad, I've even seen billboards from parents discouraging the use of black tar heroin because their kid died from it. You might be wondering WTF is going on and believe me, so was I as this is in the northern burbs of Chicago. Drugs are becoming a big problem in high school these days and I'm not just talking about weed.

You are also correct in that if someone wanted to do drugs, regardless of age or legality, they'll do them. My argument is that drugs being illegal serve as an added deterrant. Not only do you have to worry about the harmful effects of drugs on the body/brain, but you also have to worry about going to jail and how it's going to affect your life, family, career, etc. If you conclude that you're okay with taking those risks, you are obviously going to do them anyway so go for it. I guess I'm just not a fan of making it easier for everyone to buy and use drugs, I believe moral hazard plays a role.

Please note that my view applies to the hardcore drugs, I haven't formed an opinoin on marijuana. Perhaps in a different post....

vanillathunder12 : "I think there would be a huge decline in gang activity around the country. I cannot stress this point enough."

^ If they can't sell marijuana, they'll sell cocaine. If not that then something else. I just cant seem to buy that argument.

 

I am not for drug legalization, not even marijuana (except for medical purposes). I would also like to note that I have done more than my fair share of drugs, so to me its not a moral issue or being against drug usage. I like drugs and have fun with them.

That being said, I do not have faith in my fellow American to use drugs responsibly. They way the system currently works is that you gotta go out of your way to do drugs. I like that. There is a taboo to drugs which acts as a natural deterrent for many. Let's face it drugs, whether you are looking at an underachiever stoner or a full blown meth head, have the great ability to ruin lives. Currently, this only effects those of which are bold enough to break to social taboos and use drugs. However, I feel if drugs were legal more people would get sucked into usage and more lives would be ruined. Could you even imagine the marketing that would go into the billion dollar industry, think of the beer commercials or tobacco print advertisements but for acid, shrooms, cocaine...just the thought is scary enough. Or what about investors who's primary concern in an ROI and thus want to insure their clients are addicted regardless of the negative side effects. Remember fellow WSOs not everyone has the same logic and intelligence that we do and don't know when to say when. If that means that I gotta go out of my way to buy something so be it, I'd rather myself be inconvenienced than every dipshit out there using.

I also do not like the alcohol prohibition analogy. Alcohol had been a common place in society for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's consumed at social gathers and taken with meals. It is widely used and part of our social fabric. Prohibition was a means to buck society as a whole. Drug usage never has nor never will be as common place. Nor was drug usage ever legal. Its not a right that was temporarily taken away. The analogy does not hold.

I also do not like the constitution was printed on hemp argument. For starters hemp used as rope and textile does not equate to smoking weed. Second, there is a huge difference between natural marijuana and hydroponic super strains of weed. As someone that has smoked some of the dankest weed as well as some of the shittiest I can attest, they aren't even in the same stratosphere. It would be as if someone invented an alcohol a thousand time more potent than the rum drank in colonial times and try to claim them as equals, both just rum.

I'm not naive to the fact that the whole war on drugs thing is a colossal waste of money. I also think that imprisoning people for petty drug infractions is not the way to go. You can't merely try to kill a market but cutting off the supply, especially if there is such a great demand. There are probably much better things we can do improve the drug problem in America. Restructuring the laws to eliminate prison time for limited drug position/sale would create a tremendous amount of tax saving. Maybe the way to go is to give very large fines for low end drug dealers instead of jail time. Increase revenue while decreasing expenses. I'm sure we could be creative and create a better system if we all thought long and hard about it.

Basically, it's clear the current systems needs reform. However, full blown legalization is not the answer.

 
ke18sb:
I also do not like the alcohol prohibition analogy. Alcohol had been a common place in society for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's consumed at social gathers and taken with meals. It is widely used and part of our social fabric. Prohibition was a means to buck society as a whole. Drug usage never has nor never will be as common place. Nor was drug usage ever legal. Its not a right that was temporarily taken away. The analogy does not hold.

Lies. Marijuana and heroine were smoked by people in North America before there even was an America.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

Nay.

Saying that legalization of drugs will lower crime is like saying that eliminating prop trading will prevent another crash. It's good that many of you guys have never come into contact with a real drug dealer (no your boy that had those dimes in college doesn't count), because the notion that legalization would somehow alleviate this issue is laughable.

As far as the economic side of the coin, if you think smoking a J after work would help your life out overall, maybe it would. I'm of the opinion that the mountain of lazy shitbags we have in this country would turn into a full blown range and that if we are apathetic and weak now, the man tit booster effect legalization would have on our society would be equivalent to a longer term depression than we've ever experienced (economically and psychologically).

I don't have the time or interest to go into detail. All I will say is that as a guy who has too much experience with about ten different sides of this issue...no good can come of it.

I'm not saying the system is good right now, but legalization would make it worse. Decrim is cool for weed to some extent, but the stigma associated with pot smoking is actually an overall benefit for the U.S.

 
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
Nay.

Saying that legalization of drugs will lower crime is like saying that eliminating prop trading will prevent another crash. It's good that many of you guys have never come into contact with a real drug dealer (no your boy that had those dimes in college doesn't count), because the notion that legalization would somehow alleviate this issue is laughable.

Why did the end of prohibition reduce crime?

It is more than obvious that crime will go down. The federal government is essentially saying "nananana" as it closes its eyes and ears and pretends that its prohibition of drugs will prevent unscrupulous people from reaping the massive rewards from the drug trade.

The federal government is driving up the price while doing nothing to reduce demand; for example, more than half of all college aged adults smoked marijuana last year. This may push normal, middle class people out and away from the market, but will do nothing to drive those who don't care about incarceration or those who are willing to kill or maim. Legalization will drive down the price and thus reduce the incentive for maiming or killing others. Thus, crime would drop.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
Nay.

Saying that legalization of drugs will lower crime is like saying that eliminating prop trading will prevent another crash. It's good that many of you guys have never come into contact with a real drug dealer (no your boy that had those dimes in college doesn't count), because the notion that legalization would somehow alleviate this issue is laughable.

As far as the economic side of the coin, if you think smoking a J after work would help your life out overall, maybe it would. I'm of the opinion that the mountain of lazy shitbags we have in this country would turn into a full blown range and that if we are apathetic and weak now, the man tit booster effect legalization would have on our society would be equivalent to a longer term depression than we've ever experienced (economically and psychologically).

I don't have the time or interest to go into detail. All I will say is that as a guy who has too much experience with about ten different sides of this issue...no good can come of it.

I'm not saying the system is good right now, but legalization would make it worse. Decrim is cool for weed to some extent, but the stigma associated with pot smoking is actually an overall benefit for the U.S.

Your analogy regarding drug dealing and prop trading is way off. Here is a more accurate one: Saying legalizing drugs would eliminate drug related crime is like saying eliminating high frequency trading would eliminate high frequency trading related market crashes. Makes sense doesn't it?

I've had more than my fair share of experience with "real" drug dealers and legalizing drugs would go a long way to preventing this type of person from succeeding in the criminal underworld. Your typical mid to low level drug dealer is lazy and undereducated but very clever. They see drugs as a way to make a substantial amount of money for very little effort and they are correct. Take away this ability and they've got nowhere left to go. Violent crime provides nowhere near the economic incentive and complex financial crimes requires a level of sophistication that these people do not possess and never will. What's left is small time fraud which is much easier to track and less harmful to society as a whole.

As far as the argument that productivity will tumble goes, I just don't see it. People who are getting high are gonna get high anyways, may as well let them. Let the money users spend flow to an educated person who fills a demand, rather than a scumbag drug dealer who's pushing misery.

 

Et illo dolorum omnis quia amet consequatur. Aut nostrum sed eligendi sit. Est in aut optio natus nostrum. Soluta explicabo nihil eos itaque sint qui.

Aut fugit autem eveniet ab sapiente minima. Sequi in aut recusandae eum atque perferendis sit cum. Eaque perferendis sequi id molestias cumque ipsum quis.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

Sunt perferendis est ut qui enim fuga cupiditate fugit. Ducimus alias at et unde fugiat. Consequatur iste quia qui.

Fugiat qui ut dolorum odio sunt. Voluptate sit accusantium suscipit expedita ad. Nam magnam labore dolorem rerum ut. Hic est consequatur quae nemo quia aperiam. Delectus soluta ea beatae beatae eos perferendis debitis. Autem facilis hic iure id deserunt.

 

Numquam autem ut et cupiditate omnis debitis. Asperiores unde at sit necessitatibus qui qui.

Perspiciatis ex distinctio maiores esse non et unde. Aspernatur illo illo quis neque fuga et. Vero repudiandae perferendis maiores voluptatem dignissimos. Veritatis recusandae molestias et inventore et optio fugit. Provident placeat pariatur nihil corrupti sit enim recusandae. Mollitia velit fuga ut tempore.

Fugit explicabo occaecati nemo eius ducimus distinctio iusto. Dolores eveniet voluptatem totam asperiores.

"I don't know how else to put this, but... we're over." "Okay. I disagree."
 

Cum modi alias aut distinctio. Quod aspernatur nemo libero itaque placeat. Dicta tenetur quam dolorem harum. Atque dolor rerum non iusto cumque.

Laborum facere aut ut delectus eos. Qui alias et sequi perferendis consequatur omnis quis. Ratione sunt dolorem a rerum. Voluptatibus placeat maiores et. Soluta nulla nulla veritatis provident.

Quo qui tempora ipsum assumenda natus. Officiis aut enim et sed odit quos. Iste fuga in quo tempore vel ut et.

Pariatur qui in et et id. Et et quo nihil magnam debitis quos laboriosam rerum. Quod similique non ut dicta iure qui. Nobis asperiores assumenda officia molestiae autem eaque consequuntur.

 

Possimus voluptatum molestiae ut nesciunt. Veritatis quia voluptatem aut. Et cumque qui non ut accusantium voluptatem consequatur nihil. Reiciendis id magni ea libero adipisci. Amet excepturi omnis iste tenetur. Voluptas aliquam ut accusantium inventore ut.

Eveniet dolorem aut dolor omnis magni. Odit qui quos amet et.

Hic quia amet facilis quo molestiae vero. Quis est esse laborum qui ipsum.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”