[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would never be on board with the legalization of harder drugs beyond grass, especially the more devastating drugs like heroin and oxy and crack and coke. I would prefer that we just take people arrested for manufacturing and selling them and throw them off of a cliff over a pit of rusty rebar, society doesn't need those type of parasites (The sellers).

I'm not picking on you specifically, Captain, because you're not the only one who feels this way, but I find this to be a highly irrational line of thinking. Your argument appears to have two different components to it, so I'll try to do deal with each separately.

I would never be on board with the legalization of harder drugs beyond grass, especially the more devastating drugs like heroin and oxy and crack and coke.

This argument itself has a couple of different parts to it, but at it's foundation, the argument appears to be that coke, heroin, oxy (which is legal so not sure why it's included), etc. are more harmful than weed. Substances that are more harmful than weed should be illegal.

The problem with your stance, however, is you do need to put forward what exactly you are considering as the harmful properties of these substances. If we're talking about the development of physical addictions then, yes, heroin and oxy likely fall into that category, but cocaine is much more of a mental addiction and is closer to the habit-forming category that marijuana finds itself in. It actually scores lower on addiction charts than both alcohol and nicotine.

Your stance considers opioids and stimulants but fails to account for a whole host of other recreational drugs, such as hallucinogens, dissociatives, and club drugs, many of which when taken responsibly pose health risks that are no more severe than those associated with a night of heavy drinking. It seems to me that if the risks are equal, it seems a little absolutist to demand that people get their rocks off in ways that only we deem to be acceptable. What if someone hates boozing but loves rolling? Are those people criminals?

I'm assuming you're also alluding to the potential for overdosing when referring to the "hard drugs." Again we find issues when we start breaking these drugs down into their appropriate categories. Overdoses are very rare in most of these drugs. With the exception of opioids, overdoses most generally tend to occur when people mix these drugs with alcohol. Sure, someone could take a whole gram of MDMA to themselves and have a really bad time, but that's like saying someone who drinks 60 oz of rye is going to have a bad time. It's pretty self-evident.

Okay you say, but what about the people who do overdose on these drugs by themselves, or start tweaking like crazy? Well this actually has as much to do with the criminalization of these drugs as it does the drugs themselves. You see, since something like cocaine isn't regulated, the cartels tend to put a whole bunch of nasty stuff in with it in order to maximize profit. Then, during the transportation of cocaine, the product is "stepped on" (has more nasty cutting agents added it to it) at pretty much every stop. By the time it arrives to the average consumer most "cocaine" actually only contains about 20% cocaine. The rest is usually a combination of laxatives, baking powder, caffeine, and levamisole (which is some really nasty stuff). The ironic part is, these cutting agents are usually 100% legal.

The same can be said for MDMA. Pure MDMA powder is not generally known for causing cardiac arrests, dehydration, etc. However, when mixed with a whole a bunch of stimulants and pressed into "ecstasy" pills, bad #### tends to happen.

This doesn't even begin to take into account the number of people who avoid seeking medical attention when on these drugs due to their legal status. Unless you have a real hard-on for seeing junkies in the pen instead of addiction treatment, it seems odd to me how anyone can fathom that criminalized substances are better for society.

I would prefer that we just take people arrested for manufacturing and selling them and throw them off of a cliff over a pit of rusty rebar, society doesn't need those type of parasites (The sellers).

That's great but it's pretty naive and also ignores much of the social context surrounding who sells, why, etc. The people who get arrested for dealing are usually the low level types, and there are thousands of poverty-stricken individuals for the mid-level types to recruit. Even if you catch a mid-level guy, odds are he's a just a runner, and the cartels have enough money to recruit 10x as many of those as the police can catch. If you actually want to stop the flow of drugs into the country, you basically have 3 options:

1. Convince the various governments of South and Central America, various parts of Asia, etc., to let you wage all-out war on the cartels and hope they run out of bodies and money faster than you do.

2. Implement better social programs so that the lower and mid-level guys aren't forced to turn to criminal pursuits to feed themselves, etc., although this likely involves tax increases and I know how you right-wingers are big fans of those.

3. Legalize and regulate the production of drugs within our own borders. Tax the revenue and spend it on number 2.

4. Continue with the status quo, bury your head in the sand and convince yourself that we're not wasting piles of resources fighting for temperance principles from nearly 90 years ago.