Okay, this is going to be a recurring item in this conf, "the issue
of the month"  The idea is to take one hot issue a month, and have a
vote and discussion of its merits.
   The first "issue of the month" (for June 1995) is:

     "Should Drugs Be Legalized?"  (yes or no?)

Let the voting begin!

39 responses total.

  As I mentioned previously, I believe that the government does not
have the right to tell adult citizens how to lead their lives or what
beliefs they should hold.  So I believe that the choice of whether to
use drugs or not is a personal and private one.  The most widely
used drug in the world is alchohol and that is legal.  We make billions
off alchohol and tobacco related taxes.  Much of the crime in this
country is drug related.  When prohibition ended, organized crime lost
much of its power, and had they not been able to turn to the sale of other
drugs, they may not have survived.
        So I believe drugs should be legalized.  Tax the hell out of them,
and keep them behind the counter so kids cant get them.  We are losing the
drug war in this country right now, and I think it is a good bet that
if drugs are legalized, they will lose much of their luster.  And far
fewer people would die because they bought bad drugs in the street.  
        I think at a minimum, usage should not be illegal for adults.  I am
a responsible adult and if I want to use marijuana or cocaine, I dont think
it is the government's place to tell me that I cannot.

I disagree. I think this is a public health issue to some degree.
Of course I am not a libertarian, so my thinking isn't colored by that.

I think legalizing dangerous drugs is a bad idea,
EVEN if we are losing the drug war, and EVEN if there are drugs out
there such as alcohol that we are not making illegal.

I have alcohol in moderation nearly every day. I have no ill health
effects, and some benefits. Can anyone say the same of heroin, or cocaine?

I will not apply the same argument to marijuana, as it is not a dangerous
drug, or at least not dangerous enough to be illegal, and in some cases
can be quite benefitial, like alcohol. I am in favor of its legalization,
but not all dangerous drugs.

Can we say "frat party"?   Alcohol *is* a serious drug, seriously abused.
We should outlaw it, just to be consistent with our reasoning for outlawing
other drugs.

Marijuana should be legalized and controlled - it is not sufficiently
dangerous to spend billions on eradication. Cocaine is deadly. It should
be illegal and fought with everything we can bring to bear. 

Alcohol is not as dangerous as cocaine or heroin. I think it is completely
consistent to advocate banning those drugs but not alcohol.

They all share the following problems:  
Death by overdose
Addiction, sometimes very severe
Impairs various brain fuctions, sometimes resulting in death or injury from
easily avoidable accidents
When outlawed, there is excessive black market trade, including violence
Long term health risks

I still don't see any major difference between alcohol and cocaine or
heroin, and yes, I do occasionally drink alcohol.

Banning a drug is a complex social phenomenon. You are totally ignoring
the population's reaction to such a ban. You are also ignoring the fact
that millions of people enjoy alcohol without any of those problems.
Can you say the same of cocaine or heroin? Of course not.
There is a HUGE difference, and you are just ignoring it.

I don't think either of us is qualified to discuss cocaine or heroin at
the "who enjoys it safely" level.  Both are legitimate pharmeceutical [sp]
products.  To my knowledge, doctors do not prescribe alcohol for anything.
A careful analysis of cocaine or heroin users might produce similar "safe use"
percentages as alcohol.  The main difference, and in my opinion the source
of most "drug problems" (gang violence, overdose) *is* the outlaw status. 
I'm not necessarily arguing for legalization, but I think it is quite
hypocritical to say that "millions safely enjoy alcohol, so therefore we
should not outlaw it".  What about those who are addicted, what about the
clearly documented cases of random individual violence involving abuse of
alcohol, etc?

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, at least a little.  I do consider alcohol
a dangerous drug, one which I do sometimes use.  

And where are zook and rcurl when we need them?   :) :)

In what way is the statement "millions safely enjoy alcohol, so therefore we
should not outlaw it" hypocritical?

It points out that there is a disadvantage to society in outlawing it.
One that does not apply in the case of cocaine and heroin.

I am making no attempt to deny the dangers of alcohol. I just don't think
the presence of those dangers justifies banning. Any attempt would only
incur widespread disrespect for the law. Because we must tolerate alcohol
as a society, it does not follow that we must tolerate everything.

Hmmm...
"Any attempt [at banning alcohol] would only incur widespread disrespect for
the law."
Yes, Prohibition failed miserably.  It should be obvious that the War on Drugs
is doing about as well.  We *already* have a widespread disrespect for the
law, thanks to excessive enforcement and ridiculous drug laws.  A huge amount
of inner-city violence is drug-related, and amost all of that is because of
the enormous profits to be had manufacturing, distributing, and selling drugs.
Why is it that the only real business opportunity in some areas is massively
illegal?  (no, I'm not a conspiracy buff :)  )  I think you've allowed that
you don't lump marijuana in with the "hard drugs", which is good, since it
is about as benign as caffine (I did have friends in high school who abused
No-Doz) and its "stepping stone to harder drugs" reputation comes from being
illegal rather than any chemical properties.

Can we link this to somewhere, or maybe invite more people in?  This is
getting pretty interesting.

Hmmm...  I could really get talkative on this one.  There are several
complex issues raised by the above responses.  Are they drugs?  Do they
have legitimate uses?  Do they have dangers?  If dangerous, would banning
them help?  Etc.  Yes, in my opinion, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, marijuana,
heroin, cocaine (LSD, PCP, opium, etc, etc) are drugs.  They all demonstrate
pharmacologic effects on the body (with dose-response curves), and are all
demonstrably addictive both psychologically and physically.  Do they have
legitimate (medicinal) uses?  Yes, to a certain degree.  Ethanol is the
treatment of choice for methanol (wood alcohol) and similar poisonings.  It
is given in large doses intravenously in order to compete with and block
the toxin from the body's metabolic pathways (which generate the actual
toxic byproducts) until the toxin can be excreted.  Marijuana has been
previously used for treatment of glaucoma, and is an excellent anti-emetic
agent.  Cocaine is an excellent local anesthetic and vasoconstrictor.  It
would be very useful in the treatment of minor lacerations/suturing, although
its use is generally restricted to ENT work.  Amphetamines are used in the
treatment of narcolepsy and attention-deficit disorder.
 Do they have dangers?  Yes!  I think there are three main categories of
danger: 1) Getting stupid, 2) addictive side effects, and 3) medical side
effects.
 The drugs we are talking about all impair judgement, making one stupid. 
There are effects on higher reasoning (eg. impulse control) and motor control
(eg. sedatives --> slowed reactions).  I think people commonly underestimate
the problems caused by getting stupid.  I do not have exact figures, but I
have heard that well over half of traffic accidents involve people who had
"intoxicated" levels of alcohol measurable in their blood.  Obviously, a
random sample of drivers would find a much smaller percentage, implying a
causative role for the alcohol.  Alcohol causes decreased impulse control
leading to problems like spousal and child abuse, suicide, bar fights,
violence, etc.  Other drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc) also have psychoactive
effects, with a similar potential for "getting stupid".  If you could
guarantee that the person using the stuff would not interact with anyone
during the entire intoxicated period, that would be one thing.  This, of
course, will not happen.
 Addictive side effects is something I've coined for the ritual/social
milieu associated with being addicted to something.  Initially, this will
start with benign behavior (hanging out with people with same habit, eg)
and progress to more malignant behavior (entire world revolves around
getting more drug.  Person steals and kills to get drug). Obviously, each
drug varies in its addictive potential and virulence (and people vary in
their susceptibility to a given agent), but each drug has examples where
people have gone to the completely malignant extreme.
 Medical side effects?  Yes, all drugs (legit or otherwise) have
side effects.  For example, alcohol can cause cirrhosis, peripheral
neuropathy, dementia, and gout, in susceptible individuals.  Cocaine
(especially acutely) can cause heart attacks and strokes.  Ephedrine, a
stimulant found in over-the-counter fatigue aids, can occasionally cause
cardiomyopathy (an irreversible weakening of the heart muscle).  Most of
the illegitimate drugs, however, have not been studied in the same depth in
regard to long-term side effects as have bona fide pharmaceutical agents,
so their long-term medical effects remain unclear.
 Should we ban (or legalize) drugs?  I have a very jaded perspective:  I
have seen the people messed up by drugs.  It is not pretty.  It is not the
least bit pretty.  I think *all* of the drugs currently banned should stay
that way.  Furthermore, I would ban nicotine and especially tobacco.  Alcohol
is a more complex issue:  in low doses (one drink/day) it has been shown to
have health benefits, although in higher doses it tends to have adverse health
effects (raises blood pressure and cholesterol, for example).  I think here
I would let adults make their own choices, but I would severely penalize
people for their "got stupid" acts like drunk driving and disorderly
conduct.  For example, if an intoxicated person started a fight, I would
put that guy in prison (eg. 90 days).  That's very harsh, but some people
use the fact that they were drinking to excuse otherwise rude, crass, or
downright obnoxious behavior that would never be tolerated had they not
been drinking.  Date rape is one of the things that comes to mind under
this category, just as an example.
 Would bans work?  This is a subjective opinion, but despite what people say
about the prohibition, it did have effects.  The absolute level of drinking
in the country went way down, and the number of admissions for alcohol-
related medical disorders (cirrhosis, GI bleeding, etc) went down as well.
The logical inference is that banning other substances would cause their
use to go down as well.  Not zero, but less.  This would have to be balanced
against the increase in black market trafficking and all that that would
entail.  If I were king, I probably would do it.
 Anyways, it appears that once again I have let my verbosity become
maximized...

Verbosity excused, zook.  I *love* technical explanations, especially on
a subject I was already arguing about.  Thanks!  :)  

I don't think outlawing anything is a really good solution, although having
it just disappear would be fine with me.  I'd give up caffine and alcohol
(not that I use much of either anyway) to have everything else go away
as a recreational substance.  I think we'd probaaly just find something
else to abuse.

(Btw, I tried to make clear where I stated facts and where I stated
opinions...)

Re 10: Yes there is widespread disrespect for the law in the drug communities.
But large as this is it is nothing compared to our experience with 
prohibition. The disrespect was in the entire community then.
And it will be again if we ever try it again.
Equating these is quite inappropriate, I think. 

Re 11: Despite its length I enjoyed that analysis. I had been thinking about
introducing tobacco into our discussion (if we got bored just talking
to ourselves), and you did it for me.

Well, while I agree that I detest tobacco and detest its use
(which is much more stringly than I feel about alcohol)
I think banning it is quite impractical for reasons similar to those
I used to reject banning alcohol. I do not deny any of the claims
that alcohol or nicotine are drugs -- I just think we need to be
practical, not idealistic, when we argue in favor of banning things.

Alcohol kills people when it is misused, but it is also used acceptably.
I have trouble extending that to tobacco, but I think it's pushing way
to hard to argue for banning tobacco.

BTW I never intended a ban on anything to apply to its medical use.

(Good thing I'm not king, eh?)

One idea touted as more practical is to tax the heck out of the offending
substance(s).

There would certainly be an economic benefit to taxing it instead of paying
to eradicate it.  Also, all the drug kingpins would be out of business, since
the prices would drop radically once legalized.

I think the main problem is addictive personalities.  Alcohol, drugs,
religion, it doesn't seem to matter exactly what the addiction is.  The
classic is junkies who "find Jesus", and drop all their substances, only to
spend just as much time and energy on religion.  Probably better, overall,
but still not good.  The dark side of the "born again" movement seems to be
based on people who got into religion as a last resort and are easily
manipulated by  the bad side of it.

Naw, some of those guys really do find their way out through spiritualism.
Of course, some of them are just poor slobs manipulated by a new set of
addictions...

All right.  Time to cut the bull and look at the holistic picture (I know very
anti post modern idea)
Think of the
Igny
Think of the
help
q
q

Think of the inercity child and pre teen.  Very little oprotunity!  Very
depressing world to grow up in.  From the economic point there is no exploit
able resource.  I state that only way out of the getto for many of today's
inercity teens is the drug business.  Legalizing drugs would take away the
only hope of a better life for many of this country's next genereation. 
Look at how the service industry has grown that services the aging babyboomers
The primary industry of Florida is ripping off old people.
Before we dicide to legalize drugs let's consider the economic consequences
of losing a valuable non-regulated market to this country.[A

I have to disagree that the illegal drug market leads to a better life for
enough inner city youth to make it worth keeping around...for every one
person who gets a 'better life' out of it (and I'd also disagree that a
better life can be measured in terms of gold chains, $200 shoes, and 
flashy cars), how many end up dead or in jail?

We've had this discussion here before.  It's true, as someone pointed
out above, that cocaine *is* legal for certain medical purposes.  I think
plastic surgeons to this day use something called "cocaine mud" as a topical
anesthetic during nose surgery.  So, all we're talking about is making it
available without a prescription, like booze.

I understand the arguments in favor of "legalizing" cocaine.  It would be
a good way of driving down the cost and thereby reducing cocaine-related
thefts, burglaries, assualt and murder, etc., etc.  Even if we ignore the
fundamentally racist nature of this argument ("Let the blacks in the
inner city destroy themselves with this drug, just so long as they don't
come and burglarize us whites any more"), I still have a question that
no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to:  Do we legalize prozac,
insulin and inderol, too? -- Or do just legalize the bad drugs?  If just
the bad drugs, why?  

To Cathy
Ok.  Forget about the illicit market.  What about the legal market?  What
about all the people who make their living off of illegalized drugs.  More
than 40% of the prison population is there for drug offences.  What about the
prison gards, the probation officers and the lawyers?  The police force would
have even less to do.  The DEA would have to be disbanded. 
        I think this drug problem is a major chunk of the american economy's
well being.  Much like the book 'Brave Newt World'  "ending is better than
mending".

I'll concede that the illegal drug trade is expanding the portion of the 
economy associated with the prison system. (Why am I reminded of the 
statistic I've heard that at current rates of growth, by 2020 everyone in
the state of Michigan will either be in prison or employed by the department
of corrections?) But there are other, more productive things the state could
spend the money on. Education. Fixing roads. Encouraging economic development
in manufacturing and research. Heck, cutting taxes. Then there's the high
economic cost of crime...property damage, the flight of business, increased
insurance rates, I'm sure there are other monetary costs. Add to that the
human cost: How many innocent lives is a prison guard's job worth? News
stories about small children killed in the crossfire of a turf war, or when
someone shot up their house as an act of revenge, are becoming disgustingly
common. Should people have to live in fear to keep a lawyer working? Total
it all up. I personally don't think it's worth it...

>

re #21:  It is the trafficking and the drug war that are devestating
         the inner cities, much more than the drug use.  It is racist
         to assume that, given greater access, the inner cities would
         be more "ruined" by a drug than would society at large.

Right.  The biggest problem with drugs is not the drugs themselves, it is the
massive profits from illegal sales and the resulting gang violence.

I'm saying that the motivation for legalizing drugs is transparently
racist in William Buckley and his ilk.  It may or may not be "racist"
to assume that the inner cities would be more ruined by legalization
than the affluent suburbs -- nevertheless, that's exactly what would
happen.  My original question stands: Are we going to legalize Prozac
and Inderol, or just heroin and crack?

Is tn what drugs should be legalized?  I do not think that is the question.
 We cannot legalize just one drug.  If we allow one then we will have to allow
all.  It might mean the return to the traveling elexor sales man and the "let
the buyer beware".  But history is moving backwards any

Well there's a straight answer.  

So, in addition to heroin, cocaine, PCP and methamphetamine, 
you also favor making insulin, thorazine, methotrexate, 
epinephrine, and coumadin all available over the counter?  
As you may know, insulin is what diabetics use to control 
their blood sugar; thorazine turns raving psychotics into 
silent psychotics; methotrexate is one of those anti-cancer 
chemotherapy drugs that makes you vomit and your hair fall 
out; epinephrine does all kinds of wonderful things like 
constricting your blood vessels and sending your heart into 
overdrive, and is sometimes carried around as a last resort 
by people who are hyperallergic to bee stings; and coumadin, 
in effect, turns people with circulatory disease into 
hemophiliacs in order to prevent them from having strokes or 
heart attacks due to blood clots.  

So we make all of those drugs legal.  Now how would I go and 
get some?  Like, walk into a drugstore and pick some off the 
shelf?

Sure.  Think of the wonderful applications.  For example, if prozac had been
available in the late 60's the manson family could easily been turned into
fleetwoodmac.

re #27:  Why would that be the effect?  (Have you been in a "high drug
         sales" neighborhood lately?  Beyond the question of whether
         there would be deterioration, what's left to deteriorate?)

re #28:  Why?  At present, we have legal alcohol, cigarettes, and a host
         of OTC pharmaceuticals.

Come to think of it, if the drug market is unregulated it might 
correct itself.  There wouldn't be much demand for most of these 
drugs except among patients under a physician's care.  Even 
where there was a demand, the manufacturers might be too afraid 
of lawsuits to go OTC.  It's a real challenge to think of 
advertising slogans for the OTC brands of some of these drugs.  
"The Coumadin Pledge: You may bleed to death from your next 
paper cut, but you'll never have a heart attack."  Or: 
"Thorazine -- for those special times when you just want to sit 
there and drool."  

In fact, I wonder if drugs can ever be truly unregulated.  If 
the government bows out of the picture some day, look for the 
drug companies and the AMA to self-regulate so as to minimize 
lawsuits and maximize profits.

        RE # 32 ROTFL on the Thorazine ad.

Are we talking about prescription drugs now (Zook has not been following
closely for awhile)?  There are certainly some good candidates to become
OTC drugs (witness the emerging antacid market - pepcid, tagamet, etc),
but for the larger majority of medications, the subtleties of
drug prescribing are lost on the average consumer.  And, potentially
dangerous.  For instance, my very own mother, who practically lives on
Seldane, decided she would take an antibiotic for some upper respiratory
symptoms.  Not unreasonable, but she picked out of her little home
pharmacy a bottle of erythromycin and took some.  For those unaware of
this combination, it is a *big* no-no.  Fortunately, she did fine.  After
I read her a riot act, that is.

A bit late, but . . .

I think legalising (i.e., making available OTC) cocaine and heroin, and
probably most of the other 'designer' drugs would be a overall gain for
society.  I don't think Prozac, Coumadin, et al, would also have to be
available the same way, since they are more effective with the advice of a
physician.

There are a lot of people who probably are capable of self diagnosing 
depression though. Also, most OTC drugs tend to be cheaper. I wouldnt 
be opposed to having something like Prozac sold OTC. 

        You'd need to change your paradigm from punishment to education and
treatment, and use the sales tax from drug sales to help fund treatment, in
order for that to work.

Well, yeah.

        We, as a society, need to get over the habit of making an icon out of
a problem, and then making that icon illegal or otherwise symbolically
burning it, then.  I don't think we're quite ready for legalization, though
I'm not sure if the alternative is worse.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss