Drugs: [il]legal

Explain 'Prohibition' to me yourself if it is so important.

Secondly, I did read up on the essay, Muffin. I said 'Vidal's essay sucked, not the member who posted this thread.

So, why don't you read up on my post, hm?

One more thing: whoever told me I cannot call a published source 'idiotic', please explain why. I would like to know.

 

True. But it wouldn't be anything new to the government, as the CIA has been trafficking drugs through the country for years.

In fact would probably make their job easier. >.>;

 

Why the would you address someone in the first person who isn't present, and who wrote the article 30 years ago? You say "the statement you made" and "your essay" as if the guy was present, that's complete confusing.

And secondly, how do you not even know about Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s? The United States passed the "Dry Law" stating that any substance containing more then .5% alcohol was an unlawful substance, Alcoholic beverages became illegal, and subsequently the largest crime rings in the history of the modern world was birthed.

Alcohol smuggling, organized crime, illegal speak-easy clubs, unhealthy homebrew booze was cooked up all over the country, causing mass poisonings and illnesses. The United States experienced the largest crime explosion it's ever seen, and the Prohibition of Alcohol was repealed a decade later, and oh boy, all of those things stopped

What do some of those things sound like in terms of modern times? Border smugglings, street dealers, raves, cooked up alleyway batches. When legalized, there would be no reason to smuggle over the borders, there'd be no reason to deal on the street, raves would be common social events instead of underground warehouse meetings, etc.

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."

The same thing should be realized about the "War on Drugs".

 

You are correct. People want something more if they can't have it.

But, just because of that fact, there are still too many risks of legalizing these drugs.

Also, I don't know of 'Prohibition' because I have never read about it.

 

...have you entered the 7th grade yet?

 

Of course I have.

What is that supposed to mean, btw?

 

It's not a shot at your intelligence, it's just that is around when I recall learning about early 1900's American History, and Prohibition is an important element of that time period.

 

Oh, okay.

I have never learned of Prohibition in any grade I have been in.

 

meh i never heard of Prohibition until 11th grade. i agree with what you say tho, it's pretty much the same thing.

 

Maybe not distributed by the government, but I do believe that was along the lines I was thinking...

I think that if drugs were legalized, death rates by the drug will soar upwards. Because people wouldnt have to hide the fact that they would have drugs, that means more people doing it when they want, with whoever they want and whatever amount they want. Kids would be endangered the most because eve if the drug would become "the next alchohol" it would be easy for kids to get their hands on to. My parents keep beer and wine in my house and if I wanted I could just go and drink it...(I DONT DO THAT!) but I imagine thats what drugs would be like if they were legalized.

 

This is the exact way I feel.

 

The sad thing is that parents already do this and drugs are illegal. I've seen first hand parents use drugs and kids get a hold of them or that kids -know- their parents do them. A lot of this would actually stop after a while because the drugs would be gotten legally and parents who sell drugs would not be able to anymore so their habit in many cases would slow down. In some cases you may be right that parents would be more open about it but I doubt it as parents know what they are doing is still harming themselves and do they want that for their kids? Some don't care already and kids keep quiet about it because they don't want to turn parents in.

 

Soem drugs are needed. Reason? Medical reasons. Example, morphine is needed for pain killers. Sometimes doctors tell you to start smoking marijuana. I really don't know but drugs are needed. If there wasn't any, how are we to kill the pains without pain killers? What about medicine?

 

Ahh, I was not able to post something earlier, but I'll do so now. 8D


I think that Vidal has made a very good point, assumption, prediction, and deduction when he advocated in favor of legalizing drugs, and I personally believe that it is/would be effective. At first glance, it does sound like a shocking, or too much of a radical thought, but, it is in fact a great idea, in which it could help reduce the drug addiction in the United State, as well as the violence involved in it.

Vidal proposes to decrease and stop most drug addiction [within a very short amount of time] by legalizing them; label them with the effects and possible reactions they'll have on the taker [both good and bad], and sell them at a reasonable and cheap price. The question that arises is, what good does that do?

Well, first of all, lets talk human psychology for a moment. We, as humans, it is in our nature to desire the things forbidden. Drugs are forbidden—er—illegal . . . We want them. We go through anything and everything to get them. Violent means, illegal activities, murder, etc., we do it all. The sole idea of it being a reach product makes us want it more. If drugs were to be legalized, the distribution of it is free, it will be everywhere and it will be in use for everyone, [Not to children of course. Nowhere in his article has Vidal proposed that the legalized drug should be distributed to children. He merely states that the drugs will be in casual use for those who want it, those who will use it even when knowing the facts of it and the effects it will have on them. It will be their decision, and no one else. As Vidal says, if it's their pursuit of happiness, then what can another have to say about that?]. Once drugs are within the reach of the consumer, [as many of you put it] it will seem less COOL. People will want it less and less, as it is accepted and becomes a part of our daily life. Soon they'll be just as casual as a bottle of Gatorade or something. Well, you all get the idea, and that's how psychology works, and by every mean, we will want what is forbidden and deny what is already there.

Second, according to Vidal, it is the economy and the public who are to be blamed for this particular problem, drug abuse, in the U.S. in the first place. Let's see how credible that is. Well, it is a fact that the production and the marketing of drugs are among one of the biggest black-market businesses in the country, unfortunately. The economy is run by money and obviously, so are these businesses. Vidal's centering point in this argument was the money involved in the sale of drugs. Money is indeed a factor in this matter. It's a factor in –every– matter. Drugs are illegal, and activities centering around them leads you only into trouble and that happy, cheery place called prison. The outcomes of such illegal activities are so great, and therefore, drugs are sold in high prices. If according to Vidal's proposal, drugs are legalized, then the price would also drop with it. Lots of money is spent after the drugs in order to secure them, to hide them from the locals and, plainly, it's just a pain in the ass. Drugs, in first place, were made to be sold, but instead, money is being spent on them, and the latter result is the sky soaring prices. To pay such prices people go nuts and go kill and hurt others, and there's your violence. The legalization of drugs would stop this painful charade of hide and seek, and the lesser amount of money is spent for the production of drugs, the lesser the marketing price, and lesser the violence from the consumers. You all can see where Vidal/I'm going with this. What Vidal provides us with here, is a scenario . . . where whence the price is dropped, the business of drug production will be cheaper and the drugs will also be cheaper, ceasing the violence and, the statistics of falling numbers of drug abuse would come rolling.

After proposing his radical ideas and solutions, Vidal also shows why this will not work. He states that both the Bureau of Narcotics and the Mafia want strong laws against the sale and use of drugs. Why? Because otherwise, it only results in the end of their business and there goes their way of making a buck. Well, his last three paragraphs say it better than I can . . .

 

i don't think they will legalize drugs tho, i don't think the government wants drugs to be readily avialable.

 

​

Pryo... Sorry... but I must respectfully disagree...

Drug related crimes will drop dramatically... but drug addiction will remain the same, possibly even arise.

Drug addiction is a chemical reaction, not just a phycological. People will try it because it is available, same way people try alcohol, and cigarettes.

Now... certain drugs, such as crystal meth, and heroine, are extraordinarily addictive.

Its bad enough having drunks on the road, now immagine a meth heads road rage, or a heroine addict falling asleep at the wheel.

I predict making illegal drugs legal, will have major adverse econimical effects, and would in the long run, lead to more crime... effectivly defeating the purpose of legalizing them...
EDIT:

I've engaged Repliku again...

 

hmm, actually i've never thot of that, tho if this does happen, i would think that the SUPER dangerous ones will stay illegal

 

But ICSP, this time you have me. (First time for everything!)

I disagree. Legalizing drugs will not change the balance of power. The Mafia will be able to come out and sell it on the streets. It will be cheaper, but easier to make.

All legalizing drugs will do is make a second, more addictive tobacco industry. We all know, cigarettes are addictive and unhealthy. This would be them, but magnified. More of an effect on your brain and body, more of the addictive nature and a bigger high.

How can this help? Legalizing will cut the price, add availibility and add the market. This is not detracting from the industry in the slightest.

Make no mistake, people will still kill for their fix. It will still be expensive, and it is far more addictive that tobacco. I can see a fair few crimes happening over this.

 

Quoted for truth... need I add to the above statement to further the case?

However, I shall...

Imagine the addictiveness and hazardness of the Tabacco, combine that with the loss of control of alcohol, and we have a new monster all together, even more dangerous and deadly than before. Would you want to comute to work with someone like that going down the road next to you? Would you want to work in the public with people like that? I think they are illegal for a reason. You can critizize the way our govenment handles the "War on drugs" however, making them readily available for the public would be much worse...

 

You aren't getting the point that already people do crystal meth, heroin etc easily and can get it through various people simply by knowing who to go to. Crystal meth is not that hard to make and people create it in their houses and it was mostly made in the first place because of the length it takes to grow pot since that was made illegal. The point in the end is that if people want drugs, they are going to get them no matter how many laws you make.

The drug war is an absolute joke as it supports the mafia, the police to get things off drug busts and the government but bones people. Drugs aren't 'really' being taken off the streets. People still get them and that's just how it is.

This is why I said that in the end they should be legalized so that people who are in there for possession and cminor stuff can be out. Make it so that it is an age thing of 21, like alcohol and treat it as such for driving etc. Already people are busted for driving while inebriated no matter what the substance is. So why not stop the stupid drug war and instead open up better rehabilitation centers, help people to get off addiction without having to go to jail and pay for stupid crimes when sex offenders, rapists and murderers can get out of jail sooner because the jails are crammed full of people? It makes no sense at all.

Drugs aren't good for people, so rehab and telling the -truth- about what drugs do, having some companies make them instead of street crap, so that people aren't getting Drano and other 'additives' that can be more poisonous than the drugs themselves, etc...in the end, the advantages seriously outweigh the disadvantages. If it is marketed by companies, mafias will not be so able to use it as a reason to kill people either and lose money. They could also legally be dealt with better because the law wouldn't be so controlled by them in some areas. Gang activities where teens are forced into the lifeway of selling drugs would also drop and competitors would be out of business because people would rather buy from a source where they know the drugs are cleaner than to buy the crap they often sell on the street. Also, going to rehabilitation when ready or if someone is a kid...families can be assured that the person's life won't be screwed by adding a criminal record to their job resumes because of drugs and needing assistance to get off them. There could also be much better research to helping people kick the habits if they want to and if someone was caught doing drugs or alcohol in situations where there is domestic abuse, driving while intoxicated etc, the laws could actually be stricter on these violators because they would be held more responsible.

In the end, even if for a while things rise to a state of unrest, sooner or later it will die down. Seriously, look at what prohibition caused because alcohol was illegal. The mafias were selling alcohol, people were making it with car greasy motors, old boots and nasty stuff, some people even made wood chip alcohol etc and people died from bad alcohol poisoning and it was just a disaster. There were corrupt cops and people that let alcohol ship to places and turned a deaf ear to it all. This is what happens with drugs now. With it going back to normal and prohibition lifted, the mafias and gangs lost money and alcohol went back to being sold by companies, there is a fixed standard to alcohol being sold and it no longer is 'allowed' to have harmful stuff in it if it is marketed. It is all scanned through the FDA for approval before it can just be sold. So tight laws could be instilled on drug distribution but in the end people would get better care, more punishments for doing stupid things and not having an excuse since it's THEIR FAULT for taking the drugs etc, and people who take them and don't do harm could live their lives doing whatever. When they get sick of it, they can be healed and we show more humanity essentially in understanding that some people do reckless things but may one day want to be responsible and clean up.

In the end, alcohol especially, but tobacco too if you count in cancers and such, have caused more deaths than all of the other types of drugs out there. Most people probably if drugs were legalized would be just going to smoke pot since it's something that doesn't have a potential of killing someone anymore than smoking does, or if driving, more than alcohol does. Tons of people do it already. Meth would probably be something that would die out because making it would be more costly for someone on the streets than it would be for a company to do, and all the nasty crap in it would be removed. Heroin will be a problem but I doubt more people would flock to it than already do. The biggest rush would be marijuana. That's easy to see. I could walk down the street now if I wanted and get a bag. It's that easy and it's illegal. Think about it.