What do you think about preventing drug overdoses by legalizing drugs?

What kid of effect do you think legalizing all drugs would have?

  • Total voters
    28
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Do you think legalizing all drugs would increase the amount of overdose deaths that would occur or decrease the amount of overdose deaths that would occur? Why?
 
Interesting.

My position is that I see overdose deaths as acceptable loss. I don't know (or even care) if legalizing all narcotics will increase or decrease drug abuse deaths. I do, however, think that all drugs should be legalized.

I would even take things further than legalization. Controversially, I would make all drugs available to all adults completely freely, at government's cost. I don't think government should interfere with the freedom of choice I have when it comes to putting something into my body. I feel the only thing government should be concerned with is my activities 'under the influence' of narcotics. If I'm not involved in any criminal or antisocial activities other than simply taking drugs, what business is it of anyone what I'm doing in the privacy of my own home?

I feel most drug-related crime is tied to money - either committing crimes in order to fund a drug habit, or committing crimes in order to protect your drug-selling business. By making all drugs completely free to all users, you completely eradicate the need to steal in order to buy drugs, and drug barons instantly lose all their customers to free drug centers.

I feel much more money is wasted on drug wars and fighting drug-related crime than it would cost to produce drugs in a laboratory environment. Drug users would have to sign wavers stating that government is not responsible for any side-effects or deaths caused by the drugs they are handing out, and that all users should be aware of and are solely responsible for any outcome.

I don't see that there should be an issue with taking drugs or being an addict, but I have a massive problem with the crime surrounding the narcotics industry. If you remove money from the equation, you squeeze drug lords out of the trade, and you reduce the need for addicts to commit crimes to fund their habit. Any crimes committed while intoxicated should be met with the most strict punishments we can muster. As long as it's victimless, what's the problem with being a junkie? Freedom of choice and all that..

Maybe I'm being too naive.

The message should be clear: Take these drugs we offer for free if you wish (don't buy them from dealers on the corner), but if you die or suffer crippling side-effects, it isn't our fault. If you commit crimes before, during, or after you've taken these drugs, we're going to lock you up for a very long time. Intoxication will never be an excuse for crime. We have free drug treatment centers for addicts wishing to kick the habit.

The money saved from fighting drug wars could be redistributed to improve drug education and to fund treatment centers.
 
SunnyJim said:
Interesting.

My position is that I see overdose deaths as acceptable loss. I don't know (or even care) if legalizing all narcotics will increase or decrease drug abuse deaths. I do, however, think that all drugs should be legalized.

I would even take things further than legalization. Controversially, I would make all drugs available to all adults completely freely, at government's cost. I don't think government should interfere with the freedom of choice I have when it comes to putting something into my body. I feel the only thing government should be concerned with is my activities 'under the influence' of narcotics. If I'm not involved in any criminal or antisocial activities other than simply taking drugs, what business is it of anyone what I'm doing in the privacy of my own home?

I feel most drug-related crime is tied to money - either committing crimes in order to fund a drug habit, or committing crimes in order to protect your drug-selling business. By making all drugs completely free to all users, you completely eradicate the need to steal in order to buy drugs, and drug barons instantly lose all their customers to free drug centers.

I feel much more money is wasted on drug wars and fighting drug-related crime than it would cost to produce drugs in a laboratory environment. Drug users would have to sign wavers stating that government is not responsible for any side-effects or deaths caused by the drugs they are handing out, and that all users should be aware of and are solely responsible for any outcome.

I don't see that there should be an issue with taking drugs or being an addict, but I have a massive problem with the crime surrounding the narcotics industry. If you remove money from the equation, you squeeze drug lords out of the trade, and you reduce the need for addicts to commit crimes to fund their habit. Any crimes committed while intoxicated should be met with the most strict punishments we can muster. As long as it's victimless, what's the problem with being a junkie? Freedom of choice and all that..

Maybe I'm being too naive.

The message should be clear: Take these drugs we offer for free if you wish (don't buy them from dealers on the corner), but if you die or suffer crippling side-effects, it isn't our fault. If you commit crimes before, during, or after you've taken these drugs, we're going to lock you up for a very long time. Intoxication will never be an excuse for crime. We have free drug treatment centers for addicts wishing to kick the habit.

The money saved from fighting drug wars could be redistributed to improve drug education and to fund treatment centers.
Click to expand...

To the first point, I think it would be my business if my tax dollars went to supplying you with drugs. I think if the war on drugs was ended, and all of a sudden the DEA's budget was freely available to allocate any which way the government decided, people would still feel very against that money going towards a drug users high. If you want to get high, go for it, do what you want, but using my money to do it is not OK, imo, what makes it even less OK is if I don't let you do it I go to jail or face fines, i.e. government coercion.

It's an interesting point because I agree with you about the profit motive fueling the black market, but I just don't see how our society could offer such a thing to its citizens via taxpayers dollars without it being coerced by the government, and that's something I'm much more personally morally against than keeping drugs illegal, as much as I detest the war on drugs...
 
Padawanbater2 said:
To the first point, I think it would be my business if my tax dollars went to supplying you with drugs. I think if the war on drugs was ended, and all of a sudden the DEA's budget was freely available to allocate any which way the government decided, people would still feel very against that money going towards a drug users high. If you want to get high, go for it, do what you want, but using my money to do it is not OK, imo, what makes it even less OK is if I don't let you do it I go to jail or face fines, i.e. government coercion.

It's an interesting point because I agree with you about the profit motive fueling the black market, but I just don't see how our society could offer such a thing to its citizens via taxpayers dollars without it being coerced by the government, and that's something I'm much more personally morally against than keeping drugs illegal, as much as I detest the war on drugs...
Click to expand...
but you are ok with the government spying on you with tax dollars??
 
Padawanbater2 said:
To the first point, I think it would be my business if my tax dollars went to supplying you with drugs. I think if the war on drugs was ended, and all of a sudden the DEA's budget was freely available to allocate any which way the government decided, people would still feel very against that money going towards a drug users high. If you want to get high, go for it, do what you want, but using my money to do it is not OK, imo, what makes it even less OK is if I don't let you do it I go to jail or face fines, i.e. government coercion.

It's an interesting point because I agree with you about the profit motive fueling the black market, but I just don't see how our society could offer such a thing to its citizens via taxpayers dollars without it being coerced by the government, and that's something I'm much more personally morally against than keeping drugs illegal, as much as I detest the war on drugs...
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. It isn't an easy sell, but it has to be acknowledged that what we've been doing hasn't worked. Therefore, I think we need to be adopting more progressive tactics. Would people prefer having their house burgled by a meth-head, or allowing that meth-head to go pick up his crystal from a medical center and walk home? Or even to fund that meth-head's rehabilitation so that he/she can reintegrate themselves into society? Tax payers are currently contributing more than they should to law enforcement. Fewer crimes because drugs are free means less money spent on law enforcement.
 
wait until the folks in charge see the 4 vote landslide for legalizing......shit is gonna happen now!!!









someone owes me some likes, god damn it
 
I dont know but maybe there is data around about alcohol poisening before and after prohibition.

I would think the numbers would go up then dive sharply once the overdosers
died. But along will come one to replace that one.
 
It depends manner they are legalized personally I think they should be prescribed and dispensed for free for people who are proven drug addicts.


I think personally eliminating cartel financing is more important than drug overdoses.
 
trick question...hahaha... if you ever did dope you would know the answer. the gov. will supply a standard percent of purity so the high will be dull n short in little time, therefor the black market will supply stronger and people will run for the more potent bags once they hear people are od'ing.
 
I support nature, evolution and everyone's right to remove themselves from the gene pool. We need to stop 'saving' 'special snowflakes' from evolution. God knows our parents didn't with us. If they lost a few of us they considered that the cost of building a better kid.
 
curious2garden said:
I support nature, evolution and everyone's right to remove themselves from the gene pool. We need to stop 'saving' 'special snowflakes' from evolution. God knows our parents didn't with us. If they lost a few of us they considered that the cost of building a better kid.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Let Darwinism sort it out. People are allowed to jump out of planes, swim with sharks and all other kinds of life threatening thrill seeking, why stop someone from putting something into their body if they want.
 
Who wants to turn the US into Sodom and Gomorrah ? Are we suggesting that junkies have some kind of redeeming qualities ? Should we let narcotics be legal so junkies can continue to be junkies ? Who the F` wants to tolerate and live with junkies ? Should we legalize it and make 70% of the fixes lethal poison and let them take their chances ? Who said junkies have any kind of value ?

Can the people who don`t tolerate them and despise them get free shots at will to rid us of them ? You gotta give the other half something !i

I`ve lived around junkies all my life and there`s not much else worse than those phony F`s
 
Yeah, I'm for freedoms but being one of the addict types I can tell you that if me and the good people I have been associated with had unlimited access the world would be a scary place.

Not to worry it will never happen here in the states.
 
OddBall1st said:
Who wants to turn the US into Sodom and Gomorrah ? Are we suggesting that junkies have some kind of redeeming qualities ? Should we let narcotics be legal so junkies can continue to be junkies ? Who the F` wants to tolerate and live with junkies ? Should we legalize it and make 70% of the fixes lethal poison and let them take their chances ? Who said junkies have any kind of value ?

Can the people who don`t tolerate them and despise them get free shots at will to rid us of them ? You gotta give the other half something !i

I`ve lived around junkies all my life and there`s not much else worse than those phony F`s
Click to expand...

Because we have all witnessed how successful the concept of prohibition has been. The US is already Sodom and Gomorrah. We need to knock all the political shit off and deal with the public health issue dispassionately and logically.
 
OddBall1st said:
Who wants to turn the US into Sodom and Gomorrah ? Are we suggesting that junkies have some kind of redeeming qualities ? Should we let narcotics be legal so junkies can continue to be junkies ? Who the F` wants to tolerate and live with junkies ? Should we legalize it and make 70% of the fixes lethal poison and let them take their chances ? Who said junkies have any kind of value ?

Can the people who don`t tolerate them and despise them get free shots at will to rid us of them ? You gotta give the other half something !i

I`ve lived around junkies all my life and there`s not much else worse than those phony F`s
Click to expand...

To the bolded: do you think for one hot second that legal or moral disapproval will dissuade a junkie?
I suggest that a big problem you've seen with the junkies you've claimed to know comes from their criminal and pariah status.
If junkies were present in society, minus BS laws and BS noses turned up on apparently religious grounds (inconsistent ones considering how you deny their humanity), they'd do a pretty good job all on their own of negatively campaigning for their lifestyles. Like drunks today, say.
 
curious2garden said:
Because we have all witnessed how successful the concept of prohibition has been. The US is already Sodom and Gomorrah. We need to knock all the political shit off and deal with the public health issue dispassionately and logically.
Click to expand...

Murder is prohibited, How`s that failing ? I`d like to off some.

I use prohibition t keep my kids in line, am I a failure ?

Drunk driving is prohibited can we at least agree on that one ?

Are you or do you favor Anarchy ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Biden's lame duck presidency, what does the old guy have in his tank?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
5K
Offmymeds
Offmymeds
MIMan231
What do you all think?
Replies
1
Views
383
daddyogrow
D
R
Iowa still with Reefer Madness
Replies
7
Views
858
unclejoebob
U
ElmerS
Any advice for AUTO seed supply or on my general approach?
Replies
5
Views
225
Fladawg01
Fladawg01
emepher
Ohio legal cannabis - discussion of laws and everything else
Replies
2
Views
1K
decrepit digits
D
Back
Top