Opponents of drug legalization, what are your reasons?

Please vote and comment on your reasons for opposing drug legalization!

If legal, more people will do them!	7
It will become acceptable behavior!	10
People will be doing drugs at work!	1
People will be driving under the influence more!	2
A combination of 2 or more of these choices!	4
All of the above ^ and then some!	18
None of these, I'll leave my reason(s) in a comment!	6
I run an organized crime ring and my business would suffer!!	5
I'm a street level dealer and I don't want my business taken away!!	7
I'm a drug lord and I don't want to pay taxes on my product!!	10

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!

[ Report Post ]

Comments ( 28 )

dappled

13 years ago

Governments should be investing large sums in researching cheap, safe, non-addictive versions of drugs with the various narcotic effects people desire. The government-regulated supply of these with "antidote" drugs which immediately reverse or minimise the effect would easily pay for that research.

People have the right to take drugs if they want to, but also the right not to be damaged by them. Most importantly, people who don't take drugs shouldn't be endangered, threatened, or robbed by those who do.

Comment Hidden ( show )

4

4
- wreckd
  
  13 years ago
  
  I wish I had your brain. Gahh.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  3
  
  3
  - dappled
    
    13 years ago
    
    Ironically, I often wish I hadn't. :)
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  13 years ago
  
  I'm quite sure these things you mention in your first paragraph already have been undertaken.
  
  Every drug, or chemical compound that might have purpose as a drug, is heavily researched and constantly updated, improved, studied further and so on.
  
  Opiates are widely used as legal, prescription painkillers. Some are more synthetic while others are quite natural (Morphine, for example). These prescription drugs are a pharmaceutical herion, although they are more powerful than heroin as they are engineered to be more effective. There is tons of research on these drugs-how to make them effective using their narcotic properties while reducing their addictiveness. There's a furious race to find the answer to this problem. Methadone is a substance used to keep a person off heroin or other opiates (it's also a painkiller itself), but it blocks the effects of herion so the user gets no pleasure if they tried to use an opiate.
  
  MDMA (Extasy) was created for a medical purpose, it was taken from Germany as a spoil of war and studied (still) extensively. It is thought to have significant medical potential in the psychology field but the problem encountered is how to harness it and use it in a more safe way.
  
  Cocaine has medical purpose as an anesthetic, it is used in eye surgery as there is no superior drug in existance to use. They have made progress on a cocaine "vaccine" which blocks it from giving the user a pleasurable feeling.
  
  There is a prescription drug called Marinol, I'm not sure if it is totally synthetic or not, but it is supposed to mimic the effects of marijuana.
  
  Any common drug typically already has an "antidote" (of sorts, at least), hospitals deal with overdoses every day!!
  
  Didn't mean to write an essay there!! Point is, drugs, antidotes and substitues or safer, less addictive forms of them are studied extensively.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - dappled
    
    13 years ago
    
    You kind of backed up my argument there. Many recreational drugs are drugs initially designed for a medical purpose, whose side effects are desirable. They are drugs that were synthesised, engineered, and brought to market for their primary purpose (often pain relief) and abused for secondary effects.
    
    What I'm suggesting is research on new drugs whose primary effect is not to kill pain, or have any medical benefit whatsover necessarily, but are created solely for a chosen narcotic effect on the brain.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    2
    
    2
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      13 years ago
      
      Yes, I completely understand what you are saying.....what I am saying is that the drugs that are desirable for their "high" are most certainly being tested in every which way possible for every reason possible for every use possible. The pharma industry is a billions upon billions of dollars industry and they get that way by making new drugs. They make new drugs for every reason you can imagine-to treat a disease ultimately, and to make profits. If they could make synthetic, non-addictive drugs to replace natural street drugs, they either have or they're working on it as we speak.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - dappled
        
        13 years ago
        
        I'm going to be as delicate as I can about what I say next because it could get me in a lot of trouble. My first "proper" job was for a pharmaceuticals company. The second job, and the one I still have, still involves pharmacists but isn't directly in pharmaceutical manufacture.
        
        Pharmaceutical companies, like any other, exist to make profit. The most profit that can be had is with a patient who requires expensive drugs and doesn't get better. Where a cheap drug will cure, research is supressed until as much money as possible has been wrung out of the expensive drugs which merely treat the symptoms. Patients die because of this.
        
        It's for this very reason that I'm amazed pharmaceuticals companies aren't working on custom narcotics like those I originally described. It's a pharmaco CEO's wet dream. I can only assume there are regulations in place because it's seen as a rather seedy business to be manufacturing recreational drugs.
        
        And this, for me, is the problem. I would relax those regulations immediately, before I would slacken drug laws. For reasons I can only guess at, the current status quo is obviously attractive enough to someone in power that they won't mess with it.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        4
        
        4
      - howaminotmyself
        
        13 years ago
        
        What gets me is the billions they spend to test synthetic drugs. A few natural substances have received the attention (st. Johns Wort, garlic, cranberry) but no one will put up the money to test the healing properties of things they can't get a patent for.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
- howaminotmyself
  
  13 years ago
  
  Did you hear about the "fake pot" that was recently banned by the DEA? Scientists are trying to synthetically mimic pot. And oops, turns out the chemicals can cause seizures. Ironically, real pot can help them. Sounds like a waste of money to me. And government regulation has it's pros and cons. The motives of such regulations can be fueled by greed. (i.e. drug companies that profit off of quick fix treatments- they don't actually want to cure people, just keep them alive)
  
  I think a good course of action is to decriminalize drugs. Marijuana is mostly legal where I live and the cops can focus on more violent criminals(in theory). But at least my tax dollars aren't wasted on enforcing the punishment of a pot head when the focus should be on meth makers. And throwing an addict in jail does not solve the problem. They need psychological help.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - dappled
    
    13 years ago
    
    I did, yes. I almost mentioned it in the post (and methadone being a really poor substitute for opiates) but my posts are often overlong as it is, so I didn't bother.
    
    I was imagining research on a much wider scale, though (a ten year or twenty year study with funding of billions of euros/pounds/dollars, and extensive clinical trials). If after all that, it's not possible, then so be it. But at least we tried to solve one of the world's many problems.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
- Legion
  
  13 years ago
  
  I wouldent think so. Granted, they will be much safer and more controlled, but the corporations that handle the drugs could actually make them more addictive. (They could make them less addictive, but they want to amke more money!!!! Why do you think tobacco companies make so much?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
wreckd

13 years ago

Most drugs are bad for your health. Marijuana, I can't find anything wrong with except for the fact that it is illegal. I'm a Christian and in the bible it says to abide by the laws of your land. The laws of my land say its illegal.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  13 years ago
  
  Well being bad for your health isn't really a valid reason to oppose legalization, as people do the drugs already anyway-
  
  I don't understand your second statement, the poll is asking why you oppose legalization, not if you do drugs or not. A proponent of legalization does not necessarily do drugs-I don't!! Legalization would mean that the laws would be overturned.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
derpyderp

12 years ago

One thing that gets me is the people who say that legalising marijuana (for instance)
will rid the world of drug dealers, etc.
As an ex dealer I don't believe this to be true.
IF pot were legalised it would be heavily regulated & would be illegal to grow at home same as tobacco is (here in Australia anyway)
Therefore users still have to buy it.
The government is likely to charge HUGE amounts for it, partly for profit, partly because they can & partly to discourage people as much as possible.
Therefore dealers will undercut the legal supply... There won't be quite as much profit in it as there is right now but they will still exist.

Also i don't believe in legalising drugs as I have been around them ( & sometimes used them) a lot & I know firsthand the damage they can cause

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
theinsecurekiwi

12 years ago

Heroin and meth shouldn't be made legal.To damn addicting.

But everything else I truelly believe should be legal.There are onlt a few drugs I'm actually interested in myself,but I think grown adults should be able to do with their bodies what they like.

I'm not aggainst the legalization of drugs,however I have more important things to deal with then worry about whether or not it's legal for to smoke pot.If the government had any sense they'd realise this too.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
Zesty

12 years ago

Drugs should be legalized. Not for the sake people should be able to do them freely, it's that they can anyway. Do you know how easy it is to find on the street? It would be a lot easier to regulate in a way the same as our legal drug Alcohol is. Put an age limit, and allow the persons choice whether they want to or not. With proper education on drugs and negative effects with addiction and so forth. Telling kids not to do it is what makes them do it in the first place..

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
swordfish

12 years ago

some drugs should be legalized for medicinal purposes, but never EVER EVER for recreational use. for example, marijuanna is a miracle drug for cancer patients and people with long term illnesses. Heroin can be given to terminally ill patients in extreme pain without the side effects of morphine. i believe terminally ill patients in extreme pain shouldn't be denied anything at all.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
Derpledore

13 years ago

Well, pot is a gateway drug. As you can see in Holland, when you make a drug like pot legal, other drugs creep their way into your nation. People get curious. It happens. If you legalize one drug, you should probably legalize them all because a) people will push for it and b) you'll still be wasting money on a drug war.
SO, I'm not against legalization, but only against our tax dollars being spent on people going to the hospital for drugs and rehab. If we, as a nation could support Social Darwinism, then I would feel differently. But politicians will always gain votes by making policies to give people free rides

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- lola27
  
  13 years ago
  
  Pot is illegal in countries where people get whacked out on crystal meth and heroin.
  
  The definition of 'gateway' drug isn't that the drug is legal or not. It's that it encourages further experimentation or use of other drugs.
  
  As for pot being a gateway drug, this is debatable. In youth, when experimentation is quite high, if that youth has access to the other drugs and motivation they may well find pot (the cheaper) drug to act like a 'gateway'.
  
  On the other hand, they might not, just as an older person (or anyone armed with the appropriate knowledge and behavioural control) might go, "oh! well duh, crystal meth completely stuffs someone up - not going there!" and just stick to pot.
  
  Or booze. The damage booze inflicts is probably more extensive than heroin and tobacco. Or even pot. It may even be the case that people turn to pot because of the damage caused by other people's boozing? Just a thought I don't think the booze-funded and fueled drug war pollies have considered.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
ipeeintheshower

13 years ago

why the hell is it that every were i go on this site dappled has commented on it???

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
mattdb826

13 years ago

If drugs were legal they would be waaaaaay too expensive!

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
[Old Memory]

13 years ago

One of the options should have been: "people apparently aren't intelligent enough to avoid drugs on their own, thus drugs must remain outlawed for the people's own protection."

Of course, I couldn't care less whether drugs, or anything, were legal or not. If the rest of humanity wants to destroy themselves, let them.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
wreckd

13 years ago

I guess I agree with this. But crack? Cocaine? Thats just letting people kill themselves legally.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  13 years ago
  
  The thing is, legalizing drugs would not make for more users!! Look at it this way, cigarettes are legal and avalable for purchase in every corner store, always have been, but smoking rates are extremely low (roughly 15% of the US population smokes). Not only is the smoking rate pretty low, it's also steadily decreased. With alcohol, when Prohibition ended MANY, MANY great things happened-violent gangs and bootleggers were essentially snuffed out overnight, and guess what?? The drinking habits of the people did NOT increase when Prohibition ended!! Drinking rates were basically steady throughout history, still are.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
- Shadyx8
  
  13 years ago
  
  Well fuck dont you know suicide already is legal. People can also pretty easily kill themselves with guns, alcohol, painkillers ect
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
wreckd

13 years ago

Yes, it is! I oppose it because if it were illegal, more people would do it/get their hands on it. Why do you want the laws to be overturned if you don't do drugs? YOU, my friend, don't make sense.

I have a feeling we've argued before. YOU LOSE!

Comment Hidden ( show )

-2

-2
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  13 years ago
  
  I support legalization for many reasons, it's ignorant to believe that only people who do drugs want them legalized.
  
  A short list of my reasons: stop spending billions in taxpayer dollars on an unwinnable "war" that has made zero progress
  
  use the freed up jail and prison space to keep violent offenders in for their full terms and to save money
  
  regulate the drug trade, even if just loosely, to reduce violence and dismantle street gangs
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
- wreckd
  
  13 years ago
  
  And I do agree I got a little off subject there. Off in my own worldd.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  -1
  
  -1

Are You Normal?

Opponents of drug legalization, what are your reasons?