Quote:

---

for drugs like heroin and meth i think it should be legal but highly regulated, and rehab should be government sponsored and free for those who need it, drug abuse as a social ill is a fact of life and the responsiblity for harm reduction lies on the government. Jail never helped anybody.

---

Or even illegal but still available through government programs to help addicts get off the drug. I agree with you that it's extremely important to have harm minimisation policies, and to admit that people will still use drugs. Making those drugs illegal to begin with serves one purpose: it spreads a general stigmatism about their use, which helps to discourage people taking up the habit. Also, the government wouldn't like to be seen actually selling heroin.
Cannabis and mushrooms and other soft drugs are okay, because it's easy for the general public to believe (rightfully) that they are relatively harmless and it's okay to be able to buy them in coffee shops.

But heroin and meth? People are never going to accept them being freely available in shops, because the negative effects are so apparent.

So the best solution (I think) is to make the addictive drugs illegal but provide support for people wanting to kick the habit; and meanwhile make the soft drugs legal but regulated, which will improve the quality of them immensely.

Quote:

---

zouden said:
You could say the same thing about mandatory seatbelts in cars.

"There should be NO middle ground at all.

All or none is the only legit way to go. Either completely ban people from driving or completely expose them to the risks of moving at high speed."

It's a false dichotomy. Why not try minimize the risks and damages while still allowing people to enjoy themselves?

---

Quote:

---

All drugs including alcohol should be illegal.

---

I see you haven't read any history.

Quote:

---

zouden said:
You could say the same thing about mandatory seatbelts in cars.

"There should be NO middle ground at all.

All or none is the only legit way to go. Either completely ban people from driving or completely expose them to the risks of moving at high speed."

It's a false dichotomy. Why not try minimize the risks and damages while still allowing people to enjoy themselves?

---

Who the fuck is the government to tell me what to do with my body? They have no right to and that is a FACT.
People want to it up? Let them.
People want to it up? Let them.
Whatever, let people do what they want.
The thing is, if they get so deep into it then the government should not have to carry the burden and they can just die off. It may sound cruel, but that is life: cruel. It's your choice to become an addict and you have to pay the consequences.

Quote:

---

But from the standpoint of the government, citizens getting high all the time is no way to maintain a country.

---

But letting them get drunk all the time is A-OK

Quote:

---

The Cypher said:
Just to play devil's advocate here, what if we compared two countries: one where the citizens didn't partake in ANY recreational drug use, and one where the citizens were allowed to delve into as many drugs as they pleased. Which do you think would have a more productive economy, have more jobs, and innovate more science and technological inventions?

From the standpoint of the individual, obviously no-one wants the government telling them what to do. But from the standpoint of the government, citizens getting high all the time is no way to maintain a country.

---

Quote:

---

If the system put all efforts into preventing smuggling of these drugs into the US instead of incarcerating everyone they would make a big difference.

---

Quote:

---

Chemy said:
Well it makes a lot more sense than incarcerating 1.9 million people per year and not affecting drug sales at all.

---

Quote:

---

The Cypher said:
Just to play devil's advocate here, what if we compared two countries: one where the citizens didn't partake in ANY recreational drug use, and one where the citizens were allowed to delve into as many drugs as they pleased. Which do you think would have a more productive economy, have more jobs, and innovate more science and technological inventions?

From the standpoint of the individual, obviously no-one wants the government telling them what to do. But from the standpoint of the government, citizens getting high all the time is no way to maintain a country.

---

Hmm....that's an interesting point. Unfortunately, no such country exists, so we have to use demographics to predict what would happen if all drugs we legalised. You suggested that productivity might go down, which makes sense, but I suspect crime would also go down if drugs were legalised. So what the biggest overall effect be?
We'd have to ask a population statistician, because none of us are going to have the answers