Legalizing Drugs as Solution to Crime?

Remove all ads!

Actually, this is a commonly understood medical concept. There's an old saying that 'the poison is in the dosage', meaning that a little of almost anything can be good for you (even snake venom), but a lot of even the most beneficial of things can turn toxic. There are very few drugs that you can't OD on. Another interesting medical phenomenon is called the paradoxical effect, where a drug given to a child may have the opposite effect that it has on an adult. Sedatives act to stimulate the child, pain-killers act to enhance pain, ect. This isn't nearly as wide-spread, as I think it's only certain drugs that do this, but it is still fairly common.

As to the overall idea of legalizing marajuana, I honestly think it would follow a similar trend as alcohol. Yes, there would be more addicts, but there would also be more understanding, support, and control. Think of a marajuana version of AA, of family interventions without the stigma of illegal activity brooding on people's heads. As to the risk of theft, how many alcoholics turn to theft to feed their habit? Some, certainly, but I doubt it's a vast majority. On the other hand, how many alcoholics end up getting help, either from family, friends, AA or similar groups, or even the legal system (jail is a great way to detox ). And it would probably be even less of a problem, as alcohol most certainly forms chemical addictions, and in some people it forms quickly.

 

One common excuse stupid people use for getting hooked on alcohol or tobacco is "well, it's legal, so it must be safe. I'm addicted but it's society's fault for letting me get that way." People who don't want to legalize MJ or other drugs fear the effect the perceived societal acceptance of the drug would have on such addicts who refuse to take responsibility for their own decisions.

I say legalize the damn stuff but make it very clear in the school system and the court system that any crimes you commit because of your drug usage are your responsibility and yours alone. No "I was drunk / high / stoned / coming down" excuses for ANYTHING. Then the peaceful stoners can toke their hearts out and if they lose their jobs (just as many alcoholics lose their jobs) they can just blame themselves, get some help from SA (Stoners Anonymous -- ha ha), and the police can focus their efforts filling the jails with violent criminals who deserve to be locked up for life rather than people who just like to get high on the weekends.

 

Tobacco is more dangerous than either alcohol or MJ. If you look at the overall health risks and statistical data on smoking it causes more sickness than any other drug.

A large part of the point I'm trying to make to Tal and to you, Joac, is that it already has been "introduced," and simply making it illegal has not solved the problem of its "introduction." It already has widespread use. I don't use any drugs myself, and I am an ex-smoker (15 years), but I do drink a moderate amount of alcohol (which, judging by your remarks, you don't drink at all). Nevertheless, I know scores of people who do smoke MJ occasionally, like maybe one or two times a month, including family members. But then, I don't even eat a McDonalds. Want to talk about health damage? Here:

This is fascinating, the notion that food can be addictive:

However, a lot of people still eat at McDonald's and really don't get sick. I happen to really like McDonald's food, and in fact, I like all kinds of junk food. But I don't eat a lot of it because I know it damages my health. I think most people understand this on some level. I think the two girls who sued McDonal's understood that as well. But they made the CHOICE and accepted the health risks from overeating fast food - just like people who smoke, people who drink excessive alcohol, and people who abuse drugs to the point of addiction. These are individual choices that people make to put their health at risk, or to damage it. You just can't legislate this stuff away and then lock people up, believing that they will stop. It's never worked.

Joac - Your ideas about alcohol almost mirror those of the Temperance Movement that we have had historically in the US. I take it that since you don't drink, you probably don't smoke as well. I find it very commendable that you keep yourself this heathly. There is a lot to be said for it.

The only point I would make is that it's not the alcohol that makes a person a rapist, or a wife beater. In my opinion most of these people would be this way regardless. But I think that alcohol removes their inhibitions that may prevent them from otherwise revealing their true natures. At some point, I think something would set these people off anyway. But the alcohol abuse can be catalyst for agressive behavoir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me

Some statistics on smoking:

Also:

http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccorelateddiseases/u/healthriskspath.htm

 

I drink and I am a nicotine addict. I am just under no illusions about the damage the things causes. I have however cut down a lot on my drinking simply because the inebriation has lost its charm but I still gladly enjoy a cold one or a nice glass of scotch. As for my nicotine addiction it is n the form of "snus" or "snuff" you have it in the form of shoal and Copenhagen in the US. I am severely hooked and it will need something big for me to amass the willpower to even attempt to break that addiction. Thankfully it is not nearly as damaging as smoking but it is by no means good for me and being addicted to something is bad enough in itself.

My point is that you see what kind of damage these socially acceptable and legal drugs are causing to our society, why add a third one to the list? You can not "un-accept" a drug when it is in it is in as you saw during the US attempt at probation. Nicotine should never have been legal, it is a poison and one of the most addictive substances known to man but seeing as it's use was already widespread when the dangers became known it is going to be neigh on impossible to get rid of it. I do think that the fact that cannabis is not socially accepted is the main thing that keeps it's use down. Do we want to have a large percentage of our population being potheads just like we now have a large percentage of our population being alcoholics?

Oh and in reply to BTA seeing as cannabis is very often smoked mixed with tobacco you get the same problems from cannabis smoking as you get from pure tobacco smoking.

 

@ BTA,

If you're talking fresh-from-the-ground, dried whole-leaf tobacco, then yes - it's relatively similar. Smoke is smoke, and our lungs aren't built for that. But cigarette manufacturers add so many additives and extra chemicals to their product that they increase the negative impact significantly. They also artificially enhance the nicotine levels to increase dependency. So yes, smoking anything is bad for you, but comparably speaking, smoking MJ is far less harmful than cigarettes. Smoking excessive amounts of MJ will certainly be harmful to you, but the same can be said for most enjoyable (though slightly harmful) things, like ice cream or video games. It becomes a question of moderation and responsibility.

 

I started smoking about 11 years ago mainly because I wasn't allowed to. If my mother had said to me at the age of 14 'Here's some fags Rach, off you go' the chances are I would never have started smoking.
A lot of people are so contrary that will do something stupid just because it's not allowed. I think that if pot became legal, a lot of kids wouldn;t see it as a way to rebel and therefore not bother with it.
Now, in my experience, pot can start people on the road to harder drugs so maybe it would work in a few cases.

However, I'm fully aware that some people take drugs as an escape from a situation. I ended up with a drug and alcohol problem because of an abusive relationship. In cases like this, when people are desperate to escape reality, legalising drugs will make no difference.

There are good arguments for both sides of the debate on this thread, it certainly makes you think!

 

Tal's got a point.
If you see somebody driving like a loon then you keep away from them. If you are at the mercy of a stoned doctor then you don't really have a chance.

Nobody is important enough to kill you!

 

That's not true. For instance my wife is a heavy smoker and she has to leave company property before she can smoke. Any employee, including my wife, as a senior manager, is not permitted to smoke even in her own car in the parking lot. And very few places allow you to drink on the job. A lot companies do drug screening to make sure employees don't come to work on either on alcohol or drugs. And I know numerous people who have been terminated for drinking at home on their lunch hour and then coming back to work. Just because something is legal doesn't make it company policy.

Edit - I saw this morning that the request made by our governor for American soldiers to police the Texas border was turned down by Obama.

In Texas it would be an unusual occurance if someone was NOT driving like a loon.

That's just plain hysteria. Really, how many people who drink are actual "alcholics?" You make it sound like eveyone would be like Cheech & Chong, driving down the freeway with a ton of smoke trailing from their hippie vans.

Silvery - Imagine if you had gone to prison for your drug problem, how much worse it would be. It would no longer be just a personal problem. You would also have a criminal record. For a decent job, that would be the kiss of death. Prisons are "criminal factories." Convicted felons don't get much of a second chance. So yes it does make a difference if it is legal or not.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

A very important reason why complete banning of drugs from research is a very, very bad idea.

 

@ BTA,

Yes, they can. But consumers can choose who to buy from. For the longest time, there was no choice in cigarettes - the industry was dominated by a few giant companies (commonly referred to as "big tobacco"), so consumers had no choice but to buy the bad kind (nor did they know any better, since tobacco companies went to great lengths to hide/minimize the health risks). Today, there are companies like American Spirit who exclusively market and sell additive-free natural cigarettes. They are a little more expensive and much harder to come by than more common brands, but they are gaining significant market share. They are also still not good for you - smoke, lungs, not friendly - but a far healthier option. A "better bad choice" if you will.

If the consumer chooses the more unhealthy version of a product, that is their (IMO, bad) decision. But most people who buy unhealthy cigarettes do so because they are the cheapest and they are already hooked. I think it would be different with a legal and regulated Marijuana industry, as safeguards would be taken against repeating the same bad practices the tobacco industry has over the years. But your point is certainly noted.

 

It's the quanity of smoke that would be the difference here. For instance, my wife smokes between 20 and 30 smokes a day. I can't imagine her smoking that many joints, although it is funny to imagine that.

... And another point, I don't know why people black market smokes. My wife buys them from the Indians at a much cheaper price than she would at a regular store. At least that's what she claims. I'll have to remember to ask her for more details.

 

Well, as am ex-smoker, I can tell you that not everyone has easy access to Indians. (Although, I do buy one pack of cigarettes per year - when I go to vacation in North Carolina - and I always buy the natural cigarettes marketed by the Indian tribes.)

 

Ok, Chandos, I did a quick google search of "percentage of alcoholics" and the results I got was in line with what I was about to say without the search but I thought I would actually do a tiny bit of research first. Around 10% of Americans and I am certain a similar percentage in all of the western and formet Soviet world (there probably higher) are alcoholics. 10%, one in every ten people and if you look around you among your friends and family I am quite sure that you can see the truth of that. Alcohol is legal, most of us use it in one shape or another. 10% can't handle it, do you really think cannabis would be any different? Now, many of the same people who are alcoholics would just combine it with cannabis but I am sure that if cannabis gains the same status as alcohol has we will have at least 15% of the population who are abusing alcohol, cannabis or both so yeah, 10% of the population would probably turn into Cheech and Chongs.

As for the crime, alcohol is a huge inhibition relaxer which is why it is one of the main reasons we use. But just as it may help you work up the courage to ask that pretty lady for a dance it can also make you work up the courage to confront that guy who spilled your beer or slap around your wife when she has really pissed you off. Things many of us at times would like to do but due to our inhibitions we don't because we know they are wrong but with alcohol in your system act before you think so alcohol does cause immense amounts of crime.

 

Wikipedia says 7% of men and 2.5% of women, and at the very least Wikipedia cites some references.

 

Yeah, Indian smokes are WAAAY cheap. My friends usually buy theirs in Idaho because we live right on the border and Washington has a huge tax on tobacco products. But then, if we ever make our way to a casino (in Coeur D'Alene) they stock up since they are so cheap.

 

There are several smoke stores here in Houston owned by the Indians.

Joac - What do you think is the percentage of those who are "Cheech and Chongs," atm? My whole point is that making it illegal has not made much of a difference in how many people actually use MJ. So from my point of view, the percentage would remain "about" the same, since I don't believe that the Cheech & Chongs really care about the law anyway (as evidenced by how much Tommy Chong has been in and out of jail).

Edit:

No alcoholics here. None on either side. Everyone drinks fairly moderately. And those who use MJ, use it very moderately as well (including the police and military members in my family). Of course, my 70+ year old parents have never partaken of the weed. That would surprise even me.