Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Health
 Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Grockel
New Member

5 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2013 :  09:24:44  Show Profile Send Grockel a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Can anyone provide me with good arguments supporting the prohibition of drugs? Here are my arguments against the prohibition:

1. Prohibiting drugs increases violence. Murder rates dropped significantly when the USA ended it's prohibition of alcohol in the 1930's.

2. The prohibition of drugs is counter productive, it results in the funding of organized crime, terrorists and corrupt politicians.

3. The prohibition of drugs is hypocrisy, alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than most drugs yet they are legal. The danger posed by drugs has been grossly exaggerated.

4. Many drug users are otherwise law abiding people, criminalizing them is unfair and a waste of police resources.

5. The war on drugs shows no sign of ending and appears to be unwinnable.

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2013 :  09:46:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Grockel

Can anyone provide me with good arguments supporting the prohibition of drugs? Here are my arguments against the prohibition:

1. Prohibiting drugs increases violence. Murder rates dropped significantly when the USA ended it's prohibition of alcohol in the 1930's.

2. The prohibition of drugs is counter productive, it results in the funding of organized crime, terrorists and corrupt politicians.

3. The prohibition of drugs is hypocrisy, alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than most drugs yet they are legal. The danger posed by drugs has been grossly exaggerated.

4. Many drug users are otherwise law abiding people, criminalizing them is unfair and a waste of police resources.

5. The war on drugs shows no sign of ending and appears to be unwinnable.


The problem here is in overgeneralization.

Some drugs are not as damaging as alcohol or tobacco. There are others that are more damaging.

If you mean marijuana as the drug in question, then yes, it is a drug that does not have the damaging effects of smoking or alcohol. However, it does need more research into what makes one inebriated enough to disqualify one from driving a car.

The illegality of cannabis comes from DuPont making a synthetic textile to which cannabis was superior (and continues to be superior).

As cannabis products are not "gateway" drugs as claimed nor is it a psychotropic drug and does fund street gangs and other criminal enterprizes, it should be rife for legalization.

Other drugs, not so much. Crystal meth and harder drugs have a long track record of severe mental and physical damage that occurs over a smaller period of time than alcohol and tobacco. In addition, these harder drugs can cause psychotic breaks. By focusing efforts towards reducing harder drugs, the impact can be greater in addition to removing a significant funding stream for cartels and street gangs.

Point 1 seems to be a post hoc ergo proper hoc reasoning.

Point 2 shows the result of banning any item. The question is, what is the audience/cash flow they serve. Removing cannabis from the equasion, how much cash are we talking about and how much product?

Point 3 is a rash overgeneralization. The danger for some drugs has been overstated. For some drugs it is understated ot accurate.

Point 4 applies to cannabis users. Harder drug users tend to resort to crime to fund their habits.

Point 5 so is the war on terror. As with all "wars" one must make smart decisions on where to strike and how to use the limited resources at your disposal.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Grockel
New Member

5 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2013 :  13:18:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Grockel a Private Message  Reply with Quote
[i]Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

Some drugs are not as damaging as alcohol or tobacco. There are others that are more damaging.

If you mean marijuana as the drug in question, then yes, it is a drug that does not have the damaging effects of smoking or alcohol. However, it does need more research into what makes one inebriated enough to disqualify one from driving a car.

The illegality of cannabis comes from DuPont making a synthetic textile to which cannabis was superior (and continues to be superior).

As cannabis products are not "gateway" drugs as claimed nor is it a psychotropic drug and does fund street gangs and other criminal enterprizes, it should be rife for legalization.

Other drugs, not so much. Crystal meth and harder drugs have a long track record of severe mental and physical damage that occurs over a smaller period of time than alcohol and tobacco. In addition, these harder drugs can cause psychotic breaks. By focusing efforts towards reducing harder drugs, the impact can be greater in addition to removing a significant funding stream for cartels and street gangs.

Point 1 seems to be a post hoc ergo proper hoc reasoning.

Point 2 shows the result of banning any item. The question is, what is the audience/cash flow they serve. Removing cannabis from the equasion, how much cash are we talking about and how much product?

Point 3 is a rash overgeneralization. The danger for some drugs has been overstated. For some drugs it is understated ot accurate.

Point 4 applies to cannabis users. Harder drug users tend to resort to crime to fund their habits.

Point 5 so is the war on terror. As with all "wars" one must make smart decisions on where to strike and how to use the limited resources at your disposal.


But what if it just isn't possible to 'prohibit' hard drugs like meth and heroin? Does that make a difference? After all meth is illegal and users still have access to it. The only think prohibition achieves is allowing criminals to profit rather than some pharmaceutical company.

Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 02/27/2013 :  14:42:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Two reasons for the war on drugs. To put poor people, mainly people of color, in prison, and to be able to use the war on drugs as an excuse for neocolonialism, as in Columbia.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2013 :  06:38:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Grockel

[i]Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

Some drugs are not as damaging as alcohol or tobacco. There are others that are more damaging.

If you mean marijuana as the drug in question, then yes, it is a drug that does not have the damaging effects of smoking or alcohol. However, it does need more research into what makes one inebriated enough to disqualify one from driving a car.

The illegality of cannabis comes from DuPont making a synthetic textile to which cannabis was superior (and continues to be superior).

As cannabis products are not "gateway" drugs as claimed nor is it a psychotropic drug and does fund street gangs and other criminal enterprizes, it should be rife for legalization.

Other drugs, not so much. Crystal meth and harder drugs have a long track record of severe mental and physical damage that occurs over a smaller period of time than alcohol and tobacco. In addition, these harder drugs can cause psychotic breaks. By focusing efforts towards reducing harder drugs, the impact can be greater in addition to removing a significant funding stream for cartels and street gangs.

Point 1 seems to be a post hoc ergo proper hoc reasoning.

Point 2 shows the result of banning any item. The question is, what is the audience/cash flow they serve. Removing cannabis from the equasion, how much cash are we talking about and how much product?

Point 3 is a rash overgeneralization. The danger for some drugs has been overstated. For some drugs it is understated ot accurate.

Point 4 applies to cannabis users. Harder drug users tend to resort to crime to fund their habits.

Point 5 so is the war on terror. As with all "wars" one must make smart decisions on where to strike and how to use the limited resources at your disposal.


But what if it just isn't possible to 'prohibit' hard drugs like meth and heroin? Does that make a difference? After all meth is illegal and users still have access to it. The only think prohibition achieves is allowing criminals to profit rather than some pharmaceutical company.




If you are talking about wiping it out completely, that is a fools errand. You will never stop all illegal activity of any type. Only thing you can do is make it look like way too much effort. In this case, you can offer a legal alternative. The point of a drug enforcement effort is to retard or shrink the usage of a drug. It will never eliminate it.

Criminals also have a profit/risk calculation. One shown by the evolution of manufacturing methodologies of meth. It used to be that a meth cook required the chemist to boil ether (usually on a gas stove). This had a high risk of a high order explosion. Now, it consists of a shake-n-bake methodology which has a lower risk of chemical burns. Criminals will be criminals as long as they percieve some sort of monetary gain.

You also assume I don't think of pharmaceutical companies as drug cartels. That is a poor assumption. The only difference I see in Merck and the Mediene cartel is that Merck pays taxes.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

energyscholar
New Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2013 :  13:07:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send energyscholar a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Can we find any legitimate reasons FOR drug prohibition that hold up under careful scrutiny?
(Hint: Probably not). Anyone care to make the attempt?


"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper
Edited by - energyscholar on 03/01/2013 13:09:46
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2013 :  13:15:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by energyscholar

Can we find any legitimate reasons FOR drug prohibition that hold up under careful scrutiny?
(Hint: Probably not). Anyone care to make the attempt?




I thought I had in my response to our resident troll here.

Now, are we talking about a blanket drug prohibition as it is in force today or are we talking about drug prohibiition excluding cannabis?

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

energyscholar
New Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2013 :  14:18:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send energyscholar a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I was referring to well thought out reasoning, that holds up under careful examination, for any drug prohibition, ever. Feel free to choose ANY psychoactive substance (may be as harmful and toxic as you wish), and try to make a reasonable argument why it ought to be legally prohibited. Feel free to invent your own imaginary substance. Good luck!

I include study of the historical record as part of 'careful examination'. There are many historical attempts at drug prohibition, and examination of this record does not bode well for arguments in favor of prohibition. For example, can anyone find, anywhere in the historical record, even one example of a 'successful' drug prohibition? Feel free to use any reasonable definition of 'success' ...

(Hint: do not look to the origins or history of USA drug policy for any 'reasonable' arguments. USA drug policy was based on racism and religious intolerance. )

"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper
Edited by - energyscholar on 03/01/2013 14:28:13
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2013 :  21:38:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Opium during the Mao regime? Not that it was handled in a way we'd be happy with in the U.S., but it was I guess effective.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2013 :  23:39:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by energyscholar

Feel free to invent your own imaginary substance.
That makes it easy. The state has a definite and rational interest in reducing the use of any drug which causes homicidal psychosis in even, say, 5% of its users. A liberal attitude towards such a substance would mean tacitly condoning murder. Even if the users weren't often successful, and mostly all they did was maim or even just bruise their targets, the government would be compelled to try to stop its use.

The state also has a compelling interest to limit the use of any drug, like heroin, which produces such a powerful euphoria that its users often cannot function, and which is highly addicting. Users become a burden to others, which certainly overrides their freedom to use.

That's what a rational drug policy boils down to: a weighing of individual freedom against other people's freedom to avoid subsidizing (or being a victim of) the drug users' actions.

Obviously, a zero-tolerance policy would mean a complete prohibition on alcohol, marijuana, tobacco and even nitrate poppers - since people do dumb things while intoxicated by even the most innocuous of drugs - leading to a contradiction when people resort to crimes to get their hands on such things, simple prohibition isn't a rational policy. But there exists a middle ground somewhere between total prohibition and complete legality, and that middle position (individually tailored to specific drugs) is where the rational policy lies.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2013 :  11:23:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Cigarette smoking has declined over the years due largely to government programs such as education, restricting advertising and restricting sales according to age. I think we can do even better. We don't do it by cutting funding for these programs. I think also (off the top of my head without researching) poorer people use more dangerous drugs in more dangerous ways, such as huffing paint or sniffing glue, so decreasing poverty (worldwide) might even improve the situation. I don't think we improve the situation by putting people in prison.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

energyscholar
New Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2013 :  14:15:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send energyscholar a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Excellent! I agree that Mao's opium policy (execute anyone caught using opium!) was highly effective, and is probably the closest thing in the historical record to a 'successful' drug prohibition. Also, I am pleased someone used my 'feel free to invent your own substance' quip to provide a strong argument for the extreme end of the spectrum, which was my purpose. I agree.

Gorgo's intuition is correct that lower income people do tend to take higher-risk approaches to drug use, according to the the topical literature. I agree with him that one possible solution would be to raise more people out of poverty, but I don't think that solution is viable. The global economic advancement agenda seems to have have failed (since about 1980!), and it seems likely that increased, not decreased, poverty is probably in the cards for most humans. I agree with Gorgo that imprisoning drug users is probably not the basis for an effective prohibition.

It seems we should either find that rational policy point, as Dave W. suggests, else go directly to summary executions (starting with myself, I suppose), as Chairman Mao might suggest.




"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2013 :  13:33:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by energyscholar

I was referring to well thought out reasoning, that holds up under careful examination, for any drug prohibition, ever. Feel free to choose ANY psychoactive substance (may be as harmful and toxic as you wish), and try to make a reasonable argument why it ought to be legally prohibited. Feel free to invent your own imaginary substance. Good luck!

I include study of the historical record as part of 'careful examination'. There are many historical attempts at drug prohibition, and examination of this record does not bode well for arguments in favor of prohibition. For example, can anyone find, anywhere in the historical record, even one example of a 'successful' drug prohibition? Feel free to use any reasonable definition of 'success' ...

(Hint: do not look to the origins or history of USA drug policy for any 'reasonable' arguments. USA drug policy was based on racism and religious intolerance. )


OK, Prohibition against fucketyuptium because it causes psychotic breaks 40% of the time. By actually focusing on a single drug that has extreme physical and mental damage associated with it.

Allow for rehab for users and stiff penalties for manufacturers and distributers.

For public safety, the drug must be banned. It is dangerous to take and dangerous to distribute.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2013 :  22:14:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Maybe if someone could also list some of the problems associated with legalisation it would be more easy to weigh up the pros and cons.

Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2013 :  06:57:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Maybe if someone could also list some of the problems associated with legalisation it would be more easy to weigh up the pros and cons.


Determining through blood content what constitutes inebriation to a point where piloting a vehicle is dangerous for most of the population.

Pharmaceutical lobby

Chemical company lobby

Textile company lobby

Congress in general

Making rules for the ATF/FDA for the inherent territorial pissing match

Taxation bodies

For harder drugs, the impact on medical and social services due to increased usage. (Some straight ticket voters believe if the government okays its use, it must be safe)

Law enforcement attitudes on the drug (Damn hippies/meth heads/crack heads/etc and/or they aren't white, either)

Hand wringing from temperance leagues (which have a long history of lying about the impacts of a particular drug)

Uproar from religious organizations (see Congress)

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 03/12/2013 :  15:31:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by energyscholar

Excellent! I agree that Mao's opium policy (execute anyone caught using opium!) was highly effective, and is probably the closest thing in the historical record to a 'successful' drug prohibition.


You asked for a successful one, not a righteous one, lol.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.19 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000