WMN: t3_2nhvh5_t1_cmeydjl

[TITLE]

CMV: Not all drugs should be legal.

[looklistencreate]

"All drugs should be legal" is a very popular view on reddit, or at least its proponents are very vocal here. I don't believe this is possible without dire consequences that outweigh whatever benefits may exist. There have been quite a few CMVs arguing AGAINST this particular view of mine, including one that was mistitled to make it look like he agreed with me. To clarify, I'm not endorsing the status quo in terms of drug policy. I personally think the drugs that are illegal should be the worst in terms of dependence and bodily harm. For instance, I personally don't use marijuana but I believe it's ridiculous that cannabis use is illegal while alcohol and tobacco, much more harmful and addictive drugs, are legal. This CMV applies to crack, heroin, powder cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, etc. I'm opposed to the legalization of drugs that have much higher addiction potential and are much more bodily harmful than drugs that are currently legal. I also do think it’s a good idea to focus more state effort on addiction recovery. The main argument for the legalization of ALL substances is that it will allegedly curb the power of drug cartels that commit horrendous acts of violence all over the world. I've heard a lot of vague arguments that we should "tax and regulate" these drugs in order to curb abuse while cutting cartel profits. These two goals are generally at odds with each other. Any effective method of undercutting cartels will make hard drugs more available to everyone. You can regulate them all you want, but you’ll only accomplish the intended purpose of cutting profits to drug cartels if you make cocaine and heroin easier to get elsewhere. I believe that there will be more addicts and heavy drug users if this is the case. Currently, there are more tobacco and alcohol users in the US than marijuana users, and I credit that to the fact that marijuana is illegal and harder to get. This is DESPITE the fact that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful and addictive than marijuana. Sure, you’ll be able to get your hands on it if you really want to, but the law does deter millions. Imagine if cocaine and heroin were sold in stores like tobacco is now. Would you feel safe going to the store knowing that an addict might be holding it up for his fix? Would you feel safe letting your kids go to college, knowing that a senior could purchase them a lifelong addiction and possible early death at the 7-11? I understand that many children already live in an environment where drugs are readily available, but millions of others are stopped from using hard drugs by the presence of the law, and we need to stop and think whether we want to give that away over libertarian principles or possible mitigation of street violence. As for the libertarian argument that it's a state infringement upon rights, I personally find rights to be a bit more nuanced than that, and the most simply-worded right isn't always the one that should prevail in a given situation. In this case I consider my right to protection from addicts and addictive substances more important than others’ rights to use those substances. There are horrible costs to the “War on Drugs,” but I don’t see any feasible alternative in the realm of legalizing all addictive substances. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[ronan125]

When people say make all drugs legal, they do not say make all drugs freely available on every street corner. For example, in many places cigarettes are allowed but there are time and place restrictions. No one is saying sell it in supermarkets. The whole point is to open up a legal supply route, which can then be ramped up or down based on what works best. When you completely outlaw it, you are trying for a Utopian society where supply being cut off will cut off demand. Instead the demand will just bring about supply routes controlled by criminals.

[looklistencreate]

The harder we make it to get, the harder we make it to get for kids who don't and can't understand the risks yet. Opening up a legal route will make it more accessible to the people who need protection from drugs, no matter how it's done.

[skinbearxett]

I think you need to break down the problem into two categories, in which one I agree with you the other I disagree. Dealing drugs which have been made illegal should be illegal. The production, transport, distribution, and sale of illicit drugs should be a crime. The use of drugs which are illegal should not be a crime. Portugal made all drug use legal but drug sales illegal, and it has worked well for them. This changes the power balance between the user and the dealer, meaning that an unsatisfied user can report the dealer but never feels animosity to the police officers who may help them in taking down a dodgy dealer. This would mean that drugs would become a valid market, allowing normal market forces to change the makeup of the market from people who splice bug spray into weed to make it seem more potent to those who produce good quality, safe produce. I also think that some drugs should remain illegal like ice, crack, heroin, etc for the near future. I think legalising the less addictive drugs, regulating their production, and taxing their sale would reduce the number of users in total. This would allow the market to prepare for harder things by reducing the relation to crime. Maybe in ten or fifteen years the market would be ready to handle the sale or more potent and addictive drugs but for now it would cause too much collateral damage in the form of people seeking more money to pump into the addiction and turning to illegal means to get it.

[looklistencreate]

∆ I'll give you a delta for getting farther than anyone else. I used to think possession is a good thing to charge for since it removes demand and then makes it easier to take down the dealers, but honestly I'd rather go after the true criminals who are destroying children's lives, not their helpless enablers. I will never feel safe having kids in a community where anybody can legally sell them drugs. I still don't personally condone drug use. Users often know what they're getting into and know that they're financing horrifying and inhumane activities. But the dealers should be the focus, legally speaking, as they are the ones directly violating the community. Plus, rehabilitation for addicts is generally a sounder policy than prison.

[skinbearxett]

I think also adjusting the sentence for drug possession from prison time to rehab time would be a good option. Take someone who currently takes crack and find out why their life is so screwed that it is a good option for them, work on resolving those issues, make crack a bad option compared with other things, person stops taking crack. It is a pretty simple and proven system, again look at Portugal, they have made it a public health issue rather than a criminal issue, and it is working well for them. Also, production, regulation, and sale by the government or a legitimate business takes out all the related crime. There is a lot of peripheral crime to drug activity, specifically in both the illegal production, transport, distribution, and sale and also in the actions of the addicts. Make the addicts able to get their shit at a reasonable price from a good, clean source, you can take care of that issue. Make the product available without the involvement of criminal organisations, and you drastically reduce the viability of those criminal organisations, reducing their ability to make a profit from selling drugs. The worst case is they would undercut the government, making the same product or similar for a lower price. The buyers could still report them as it would not be a crime to buy or use, and the sellers would be running against a very large risk for very little profit. The criminal enterprises would collapse and society would be better for it.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/skinbearxett. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/skinbearxett)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[TheRealSlimYazi]

How about only making these drugs available for purchase online? I agree that they shouldn't be sold at convenience stores, but I don't think anybody would argue that in the first place. If there was a specific shop where only hard drugs were to be sold, robberies would be an everyday problem. Sell them through online vendors, problem solved.

[looklistencreate]

Well seeing as this is just a solution to the robbery problem, it moves the violence back to the individual level. If you can't afford drugs you're going to stick up someone who can. Granted, this happens anyway, but if there are more drug addicts it's going to happen more often.

[monkyyy]

Drugs are expensive because of the black market and "hazard pay" needed for every step in the gang system, and the monopolization that happens form gangs claiming territory and bribing police to take down rival gangs.

[looklistencreate]

The black market is a bad thing. The fact that they're expensive and hard to get is a good thing.

[monkyyy]

..... if you don't want addicts stealing you need to make drugs cheaper

[looklistencreate]

I don't want them to be addicts at all. If more people get addicted due to the easier availability if drugs, those people's lives will be ruined. Making more addicts to stop some from stealing isn't worth it at all.

[monkyyy]

Addicts are self medicating by all expert opinion I've ever seen , there will be addicts so long as social dysfunction exist; if the "ace" study and rat park experiments are anything to go by, the way to reduce addiction is to significantly reduce child abuse; not throwing people in jail.

[looklistencreate]

I'm not precluding that option. We definitely should be stopping all the causes of addiction. You're less likely to turn to drugs if they're harder to find, though, and availability is a cause of addiction as well.

[monkyyy]

No your not, the self-destructive habits just turn up in different drugs or vices, its a game of whack a mole; there is no reason to think someone who is unwilling to work on their problems if a drug is available won't turn to absurd levels of alcoholism or gambling.

[looklistencreate]

You're less likely to get addicted to cocaine based on one self-destructive point in your life if you can't find it, and it's easier to recover from less severe addictions you're left with after the self-destructive causes pass. And again, if you can get addictive drugs, so can some random kid who will ruin his life.

[TheRealSlimYazi]

How many people do you think would go online and order heroin if it became legal today? I guess the difference between the two arguments is that one side thinks it would lead to widespread drug use, and the other believes that little to no difference would be made. You can't compare weed to heroin. The legalization of weed will probably lead to more people smoking it, but that's because the only thing stopping those people from smoking is the law. I think we as a country have come to the realization that weed isn't really that bad for you in moderation. The same can't be said about heroin, meth, etc.

[looklistencreate]

People who do heroin don't do it because they think it's not bad for them. They do it because they're addicted. Many people today are not addicted to heroin because they never tried it, and they never tried it because it's hard to get. Nobody starts doing heroin thinking they'll end up an addict. If you make access difficult, you make addiction less common.

[Gorthaur111]

Less than a third of heroin users ever become addicted. Most people avoid heroin not because it's hard to get, but because they intuitively know that the benefits likely do not outweigh the risks. If you are primarily concerned with reducing the rate of addiction, you should be focusing on honest drug education. It is inconsistent to argue that access to hard drugs should be universally restricted in order to prevent addiction, when you do not argue for the same restrictions on soft drugs. People with genetic and social predispositions to addiction will become addicted to whatever is available. Alcoholism is significantly more likely to be fatal than addiction to amphetamine or cocaine.

[looklistencreate]

Is that true? I know the fatal dosage for alcohol is lower, but cocaine is much more addictive and harmful.

[Gorthaur111]

My uncle died from alcohol withdrawal. Not from the acute effects of alcohol, just from a severe seizure during withdrawal. Stimulants like cocaine and amphetamine don't produce physiological dependence like alcohol does, so withdrawal from them is never fatal.

[looklistencreate]

The withdrawal symptoms of cocaine and amphetamines may not be as severe as alcohol, but there is physiological dependence via the tolerance pattern. And cocaine is regularly rated as more addictive than alcohol because it's much easier to use alcohol without developing addiction.

[TheRealSlimYazi]

[STA-CITE]>They never tried it because it's hard to get [END-CITE]That's where I disagree. People don't try heroin simply because, well, it's heroin, and it's widely known that it kills you. People try heroin because it's cheaper than the drugs they began using. For example, Oxycontin addicts who can't afford Oxy anymore will turn to heroin as a cheap alternative. When you're at the point where you're doing heroin, you're most likely already addicted to something.

[looklistencreate]

Ah, the gateway theory. That supports my view even more, actually. If we can stop more people from doing cocaine, we can stop more people from doing heroin too.

[Gorthaur111]

The most common gateway drugs to heroin these days are prescription opiates like oxycodone. More Americans are addicted to and more Americans die from prescription painkillers than heroin.

[Coolshitblog]

People do NOT typically go from cocaine to heroin. Cocaine is stimulant. Heroin is an opiate, and an analgesic with no stimulant properties. People are way more likely to go from legal (but prescribed) pain killers like Percocet or Vicodin to heroin if/when their prescription runs out.

[Camus140]

Ok, we should keep opiates illegal then, because they can lead to heroin, and keep coke illegal because it can lead to using meth.

[monkyyy]

[STA-CITE]>"All drugs should be legal" is a very popular view on reddit [END-CITE]I could have sworn I was in a tiny minority -------- 2 points: The unavoidable quoting of spooner [STA-CITE]>Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>In vices, the very essence of crime --- that is, the design to injure the person or property of another --- is wanting. [END-CITE]and 2nd the law of unintended consequences: black markets violence and perverse incentives(if drugs are overly expensive and you have a monopoly in the area, you can seek to increase addicts in your gang territory *as an investment*, while walmart can't do so as that costs money and current addicts can seek cheaper products) addicts fearing to get help and low to nonexistent safety standards(even an unregulated market in video games makes the private esrb, you really think drugs won't be heavily regulated in some manner)

[looklistencreate]

Is it impossible to make it easier for addicts to get help without making drugs still difficult to obtain?

[monkyyy]

No, but why would you want a law that didn't follow through... Is that the only thing you took away form my entire post?

[looklistencreate]

It's kind of all I understood. I don't even understand how my goals don't "follow through." Could you explain what you mean by that?

[monkyyy]

What is a law that doesn't have a punishment? All a law is nothing more than an written down threat; and by definition making drugs illegal you are threatening addicts. ------ How is that the only thing you understood? I quoted spooner my favorite philosopher hands down

[looklistencreate]

Quite honestly, I don't really buy high philosophy arguments on this issue. It's great if you can isolate ease of use from sale to minors, but you cant, so it's more than a personal liberty argument. I didn't suggest anything in the realm of a law without punishment. I suggested making it easier for addicts to get treatment while still restricting supply by going after those who sell drugs.

[monkyyy]

[STA-CITE]>It's great if you can isolate ease of use from sale to minors [END-CITE]Disadvantaged minors(i.e. the ones you develop addiction easily) don't have money, unless they get involved in gangs.

[looklistencreate]

That doesn't stop them from getting drunk at a higher rate than they get high now.

[man2010]

If black tar heroine were legalized, would you try it? I know I wouldn't and I don't know many people who would. I don't see why legalizing drugs will make the demand for them increase. Alcohol and tobacco have been extremely popular for many generations which explains their popularity today. On top of this, teaching drugs and using that money to provide rehab services to drug users could ultimately help to reduce the amount of people who are addicted to drugs. You ask if we would feel safe going into a store knowing an addict could be holding it up to get their fix; well, who says this doesn't already happen? People hold up liquor stores for alcohol, tobacco, and cash as well as holding up people for money/valuables to use to buy/trade for drugs. Also, legalizing drugs would absolutely cut into the profits of cartels/organized crime groups. As it stands now drugs are very profitable for organized crime groups which results in large expenses for government law enforcement organizations to pursue these groups. Legalizing drugs would not only take money away from organized crime groups through people buying their drugs from legitimate businesses, it would also allow law enforcement agencies to use more resources to go after violent criminals instead of common drug users. On top of this, the government would save money by not having to jail millions of drug users and could use these extra resources to provide better rehabilitation services for people who are addicted to drugs. Drug use is extremely prevalent and it's obvious that the presence of the law hasn't curbed the demand for drugs. If someone wants to use drugs they will most likely be able to get them. Instead of wasting billions of dollars to throw drug users in jail, why not educate people on why certain drugs are bad and offer rehabilitation services instead of continually throwing drug users in jail or putting them in rehabilitation programs that they have no interest in? Our current method of dealing with drug users has obviously been a failure, so why should we continue with it? The demand for illegal drugs isn't going away anytime soon, and as such the supply well continue from illegal sources. With this in mind, why not legalize and regulate the sale and use of drugs instead of dumping billions of dollars into an effort to stop them which will never happen?

[looklistencreate]

If the law hasn't curbed the demand for drugs, why do more people use alcohol than marijuana? We haven't "stopped" murder, or theft, or any other illegal activity. And still, I want murderers and thieves and drug dealers, all of whom harm others, to be arrested for it. Rehabilitation should be a bigger priority for addicts, I'm not disputing that. The bigger deal is preventing use in younger users, and masking access harder will deter some. It certainly deters them from marijuana.

[man2010]

What do you think is harder for younger users to obtain; alcohol or marijuana? If you asked most people who are under 21 they wild probably tell you that it's easier for them to get marijuana than alcohol. Why? Because drug dealers don't care how old you are whole liquor stores do. Keeping drugs illegal isn't keeping them out of the hands of young people, it's making it easier for them to get.

[looklistencreate]

More teens use alcohol than marijuana, according to the CDC. I'd argue this is because it's easier to find a willing 21-year-old than a criminal drug hook-up, even if they are easy to find.

[man2010]

What percentage of those teens do you think were given alcohol by their parents in limited amounts?

[looklistencreate]

Probably quite a few, but there us no safe and healthy amount of cocaine, heroin or meth.

[man2010]

What do you mean there is no safe amount of cocaine, heroin, or meth?

[looklistencreate]

Basically everyone who ever does these drugs do them in a wholly unsafe manner, even disregarding impurities. There's no point in doing too little heroin to risk addiction or overdose.

[man2010]

[STA-CITE]> There's no point in doing too little heroin to risk addiction or overdose. [END-CITE]Does this same logic apply to alcohol? As in, do you believe that alcohol should be illegal just like heroin? Also, if you don't think there's no point then fine, don't do it. Would legalizing heroin result in you then using heroin? Also, the entire reason why these drugs are done in an unsafe manner in the first place is because they're illegal and thus don't have any quality standards that can be enforced by the government. Aside from that, how are they done in an unsafe manner?

[looklistencreate]

You do not experience any of the effects of heroin without risking addiction or severe bodily harm. This is not true for alcohol. This happens regardless of purity.

[strapt313]

You, nor anyone else has the authority to tell me or anyone else, including an addict, what they can and can't do with their bodies. As for the robbery issue, you are essentially charging people with pre-crime. Why not extend that to driving a car? You have a very real possibility of killing people every time you drive so...

[looklistencreate]

Your access to addictive substances infringes upon my right to live in a community without them. Just because your right is more simply worded doesn't mean it should supersede mine. We judge law by effects. If repealing all drug laws will make the community unsafe it's not worth it.

[DeckardPain]

You could say that about anything though. You're not really contributing to your own debate by throwing that out there. This same topic could be said about anything. **Your opinion:** [STA-CITE]> Your access to addictive substances infringes upon my right to live in a community without them. Just because your right is more simply worded doesn't mean it should supersede mine. [END-CITE]**My spin:** [STA-CITE]> Overzealous attitudes towards [feminism and character designs in gaming](http://videogamewriters.com/quiet-controversy-hideo-kojima-metal-gear-solid-5-taboo-64355) infringes upon my right to enjoy a game the way the developers, writers, and directors envisioned me enjoying the game. Nobody's rights should ever supersede someone elses. [END-CITE]That's the point of people having rights. To be fair to everyone. My point is that this issue isn't exclusive to anything. It's everywhere. In the end I think younger generations need to stop being pussies. You can't always have it your way and that's why compromise exists. Once people like this enter the real world they discover how shit *actually* operates and how the real world runs. Some people make it, some don't.

[looklistencreate]

What, so I'm a "pussy" for wanting people to get thrown in jail for selling addicting, life-ruining stuff to kids?

[DeckardPain]

No. The way you're wording it just isn't doing your stance the justice it needs. First of all you don't seem willing to be convinced at all based on your replies in this thread so far. Secondly the majority of drugs are already illegal. Lastly do you honestly think this even has a small chance of ever happening? Probably not, so it's not really an issue that needs convincing on regardless. Did you just want to drum up a bunch of people that do drugs to shit all over their life decisions? It should be known that I agree with you and drugs should remain illegal, but I think you've got your priorities royally fucked up if you're actually concerned about this ever happening in north america.

[looklistencreate]

Oh, I know this has no chance in hell of happening in the foreseeable future. People constantly throw around "end the war on drugs" as a way of blaming drug laws for criminal activity, and I'm wondering whether anyone actually has a feasible plan for making that work. I personally think it's impossible to do without making the costs outweigh the benefits.

[urinal_deuce]

Check out the Brazil's way of combating crack-cocaine use. They have decriminalized possession but made mandatory educational measures and community service instead of prison.

[looklistencreate]

That's a program I'd be willing to hear out, and I'd like to see the results. But I'd still like to be somewhat harsh on the supply side of things.

[Clockworkfrog]

[STA-CITE]>Your access to addictive substances infringes upon my right to live in a community without them. [END-CITE]Where is it stated that this is a right? I am asking because I am aware of no such right.

[looklistencreate]

Where's *yours*? Neither of these are explicitly codified anywhere. We're just framing our debate in terms of rights. If I had any kids and all drugs were legalized, I would feel obligated to move into a gated community to protect them. The fact that I feel threatened by this proposal shows that there is definitely some form of "right" that you can violate.

[Clockworkfrog]

Your personal preferences are in no way rights. Rights are in fact codified, and just because you feel threatened or disagree with something does not mean you have any right to live in a community without them. You are however welcome to leave where ever you live and try to start your own country where you can establish this right.

[looklistencreate]

I don't know where you are, but I live in the United States, a country which does not have codified a right to ingest whatever substance one pleases. I stated my "right" as a justification, not as a legal protection. Don't attack it on legal grounds when you don't have a leg to stand on in that regard either.

[Clockworkfrog]

1. As long as it is legal you pretty much have the right to injest anything. 2. Where did I mentioning anything about my rights or the legality of anything I do? Before you claim something is a right you should probably look up what rights entail, simply asserting that something is your right is a really bad justification.

[looklistencreate]

I apologize: you used the term "authority" instead of "right." There is a distinction. Also, that was Strapt, not you. So to answer his original question, of course the government has authority to stop you from doing drugs. It's been using that authority for years.

[Clockworkfrog]

I do not use drugs. We have a codified right to injest whatever we want provided that it is legal, this encludes many addictive substances (some of which are considered "drugs"), our right to consume them does not infringe on any right you have, neither does the legalisation of drugs you deem bad. The government also had the authority to stop you from drinking, this ended poorly, drugs may be going the same way as the human cost of criminalisation becomes more well know. Current sentencing for drug related offences only perpetuate the problem. No one wants to be an addict, people do drugs because it provides something they can not get without, often this is the ability to cope with their situation or to function in society. Police are incentivised to go after petty drug related crimes rather then more serious violent crimes. People arrested for these offences are sentenced to disproportionately severe terms and come out of the system worse then when they went in, now even less capable of function in or contributing to society. Many prisons are also run for profit off of tax payer dollars, and there have been numerous occurrences of convicts being funneled into prisons for financial gain. Current drug laws are making a problem worse by actively profiting off of the victims of a desease (which addiction is) instead of helping to fix the problem by identifying why it exists in the first place and going after the cause. I do not know if complete decriminalisation is the best way to go but in a system where police are financially motivated to go after petty crime rather than sexual assault or violent crimes against minorities, I think it is definitely better then the status quo.

[looklistencreate]

I'm definitely not arguing for the status quo. I do, however, think that the only way to make the drug problem better is to stop addicts before they start. Rehabilitation after the fact is a good idea but not nearly as effective as prevention. If you can easily get drugs, my kids can easily get drugs. I do consider that a worse assault on me than banning drugs is on you, if the drugs in question are proven to be extremely addictive and harmful to the point of ruining my kid's life.

[Coolshitblog]

Your access to firearms infringes on my right to live in a community without them. Your access to artery clogging fast food restaurants infringes on my right to live in a community without them. Your access to cigarettes infringes on my right to live in a community without them. Your access to bars and liquor stores infringes on my right to live in a community without them. Are those all legitimate or illegitimate rights claims, in your opinion? If any of them are not - why not? What makes them different from the rights claim you've just made?

[looklistencreate]

Drugs, if made widely available, can and will make your child a desperate addict. For tobacco this is generally societally manageable and less immediately life-threatening. Nobody ever sticks anyone up for cigarette money. Same with liquor and fast food. Cocaine, meth and heroin though? People get *very* desperate over those addictions and do resort to violence if they're experiencing cravings. And the only way to stop that from happening is to prevent them from starting. Guns, last I checked, weren't addictive and that's a different debate.

[Coolshitblog]

No one ever stuck anyone up over liquor??? That's certainly not true.

[looklistencreate]

Shouldn't have said that. Still, compared to heroin or crack the incidence is insignificant. They're much worse. You need to draw the line somewhere.

[redditeyes]

You make it sound as if drugs are not already widely available. They are. Your child can already easily buy drugs and get addicted to them. This is already a fact. The majority of people are not addicts because they understand the bad consequences, not because there is no way to buy it. [STA-CITE]> People get very desperate over those addictions and do resort to violence if they're experiencing cravings [END-CITE]So do alcoholics.

[looklistencreate]

Hard drugs are expensive as hell and selling them carries prison sentences. They are much less available than legal substances. My child, if I am fortunate enough to live in a secure place, will not encounter drugs until well after he's old enough to fully understand the dangers associated with them. I understand that's not everyone's experience, but when dealing with the horrors of addiction I demand maximum security from my community. I want to feel safe knowing that there is some legal protection from people who want to sell drugs to my kid.

[Gorthaur111]

Legalizing drugs actually makes kids less likely to get hold of them, because then they will only be sold to people 21 and up. When I was in high school, it was always much easier to get marijuana than alcohol. College students who grow marijuana are more than happy to sell to high schoolers, but liquor stores would never provide alcohol to a minor. The Netherlands, where marijuana has been sold in coffee shops for decades to people 21+, has less than half the rate of teen marijuana use as the US.

[looklistencreate]

I don't buy that argument for one second. Alcohol is far more accessible to teenagers than marijuana. You need a criminal hookup to get marijuana, not just a friend who's over 21. That's why more people use it. There are also nations with similar or lower marijuana usage rates to the Netherlands where it's completely illegal.

[Gorthaur111]

I live in a state that has legalized marijuana. Before legalization, it was still easier to get marijuana than alcohol. No one ever brought bottles of hard liquor to school, but I can guarantee you that people exchanged joints at school. Now that marijuana is legal, it's not as cool anymore. Some estimates show teen use declining while adult use rises. You won't find any statistics that show teen use skyrocketing after legalization.

[looklistencreate]

Your anecdote isn't backed up by the facts. The CDC reports that more teenagers in the US use alcohol than any illicit drug.

[stratys3]

What if you taking drugs affects the people around you? What if you taking drugs leads to you infringing on the rights of others?

[Mensky]

Then you should be charged for public intoxication, just like how we treat drunk people infringing on the rights of others.

[stratys3]

This might work in the USA... but in places like Canada where we have taxpayers paying for healthcare, it wouldn't work out so easily. Similar to seatbelts... one person's freedom to not wear a seatbelt is offset by the rights of the taxpayer's to not have to pay for his $200,000 hospital bill. Same would apply to drug use - since some drugs would place a burden on healthcare services that cannot be opted out of.

[fanningmace]

If drugs were legal, there would be far fewer drugs dealers (I'm not talking about cartels- I'm talking about individuals and small-time gangs in inner-cities.) With fewer drugs dealers, fewer individuals get arrested and go to jail. Fewer people in jail means a better family life for children. Illegal drugs have torn apart inner-cities. Bootleggers used to be criminals, but there are no longer bootleggers because we have liquor stores. Similarly, drug dealers would all but cease to exist because people could get drugs more cheaply and safely from a store. You may counter and say "well more inner-city parents would do drugs if they are legal." If you have any statistics to support that, I'd be open to hear it. But Portugal (a 1st world country) decriminalized all drugs and it's been working so far: http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7 Portugal only "decriminalized" possession, but by your view that would *increase* usage and instead it has decreased usage. Your "people are scared to do drugs because of the law" does not seem to hold water. Also, as the article says, STDs caused by dirty needles has dropped dramatically. This is another great reason for bringing drugs out into the open.

[looklistencreate]

Honestly, possession isn't as big a deal as sale, but if you can get it you can provide it and that's bad. It isn't that people are scared to do drugs because of the law; I never said that. It deters sale which makes finding them not worth it for some people. I do support needle-providing programs that governments do to stem infectious diseases.

[SIVART33]

Now if it is sold retail there would be restrictions on the drug, how pure it would be and not be cut with anything. Some shady drug dealers and shit in there drugs to add weight, like water in vodka or glass dust in weed. They will know what they are getting, no more snorting meth when you thought you bought coke. that happens, that could kill someone. That very well could get them hooked on two drugs also. It is a dirty drug vs. a clean government issued or regulated drug. The addicts know where to get the drugs anyway, at least give them a spot they can go into and get clean stuff. If someone wants a drug its not to hard to get anyhow. At least it would be taxed, its a billion dollar industry why not have the government make some money off of it, its getting here one way or another. Its more accessible yes, but with restrictions like every other controlled substance it could be better. edit: Spelling and adding one more thing.

[looklistencreate]

That's all well and good if you're already addicted to drugs, but at that point you need treatment and the focus should be helping you out of that. And in stopping the drug problem the priority lies with prevention, and lowering access is a good prevention step.

[SIVART33]

You can't blame gun stores for killing people. So why blame a store or selling something that the person may or may not take. Now everything can be addictive many people across the us are addicted to all sorts of things unhealthy and dangerous but you don't call a snickers an addictive candy. Caffeine is also addictive, more so then most illegal drugs, so do we make all thing illegal that are addictive. Video games are addictive many people look over that addiction because they are not harming anyone nor is someone in there own home doing some drug. Poeple sit infront of there TV for hours upon hours a day get no exercise, should we ban TVs? Do we take away video game, caffeine, sugar, TV, what ever else may be addictive to people?

[looklistencreate]

First off, caffeine is not more addictive than cocaine, heroin or meth, which are the drugs this CMV are about. Secondly, it's not an "all-or-nothing" scenario where we either make all addictive substances legal or none if them. That's terrible either way. We have to draw a line where we think it's horrible that people can have access to these drugs at a young age due to high addictivity.

[SIVART33]

Yes but anyone can go doctor shopping and something they want legally, opioids and prescription pills are just as addictive as any drug. Just because someone wants something making it illegal wont stop people from trying it. http://passitforward.info/images/chart.png (cant find sorce, take with grain of salt) some drugs are made illegal that are not dangerous, non addictive, not harmful but because they are a narcotic they are illegal. At what point do you draw that line. I am on your side btw, i do not think all drugs should be legal but I don't feel i have the right to tell people what they can or can not do. Just trying to open your mind a little.

[looklistencreate]

Ideally we wouldn't have to make drugs illegal as a personal freedom issue, but there's just no way to make sure that drugs aren't getting sold to kids if we let adults have them. I'm most concerned about drugs like crack or meth staying illegal and would prefer we stop spending time and money banning non addictive substances like marijuana.

[SIVART33]

Your kids can get it either way, there is no problem of getting meth or crack in high school. With all drugs legal, a lot money that is wasted would go into informing our kids about the dangers of drugs, taught in school. Just saying a drug is bad doesn't inform the kids of the true nature of drugs. School don't teach a lick of drug info as far as i know its been a few years. There would be public info posted, you would know the dangers of the drug. Having the drugs legal does not mean that the sale would be either, that is another approach. Addiction of a drug is not a crime, we need to stop arresting people for possession, they need help, most know it. Most people will not seek help due to the fact they are scared of getting arrested, getting there lives ruined due to the fact that they are addicted.

[looklistencreate]

If you've read my comments you'll know I'm more concerned about distribution being a criminal offense. I'm all for better education, though. My public school did a good job of teaching me all the effects of drugs and I want everyone to be just as educated on the subject as I am.

[Ragark]

What about krokodil?

[SIVART33]

krokodil is just a cheap ghetto version of Desomorphineh is already a prescription drug. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine