He who angers you conquers you. - cutencuddly
Captain Cynic Guides
Administrative Contact
Talk Talk
Philosophy Forum
Religion Forum
Psychology Forum
Science & Technology Forum
Politics & Current Events Forum
Health & Wellness Forum
Sexuality & Intimacy Forum
Product Reviews
Stories & Poetry Forum
Art Forum
Movie/TV Reviews
Jokes & Games
Photos, Videos & Music Forum

Arguments for the prohibition of drugs

User Thread
 42yrs • M •
Grockel is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Can anyone provide me with good arguments supporting the prohibition of drugs? Here are my arguments against the prohibition:

1. Prohibiting drugs increases violence. Murder rates dropped significantly when the USA ended it's prohibition of alcohol in the 1930's.

2. The prohibition of drugs is counter productive, it results in the funding of organized crime, terrorists and corrupt politicians.

3. The prohibition of drugs is hypocrisy, alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than most drugs yet they are legal. The danger posed by drugs has been grossly exaggerated.

4. Many drug users are otherwise law abiding people, criminalizing them is unfair and a waste of police resources.

5. The war on drugs shows no sign of ending and appears to be unwinnable.

| Permalink
 65yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that thx1137 is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
The 'War on Drugs' provides a significant amount of income to the police, prison and court systems. It provides a good speech stump for politicians. It allows us to feel good, Christian, and morally superior. It allows us to repress the poor and the minorities (even though statistics show that the white middle class consume the highest percentage of illicit drugs). It gives us something other than economic injustice on which to concentrate.

Why would we ever want to end it?

| Permalink
[  Edited by thx1137 at   ]
 42yrs • M •
Grockel is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
Good point thx, it also allows us to fight proxy wars with the soviet union

| Permalink
 65yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that littlejohn is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Hi,
I think marijuana is already making its way in to some form of legality. Did you have other specific drugs in mind or is the question whether the gov/society needs to have any opinion on it at all ?
Good thread.

| Permalink
 65yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that thx1137 is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Yes, some propositions such as Oregon's 2012 prop 80 went to the direction of legalizing marijuana. However, this seems to be mostly in the western states. Try being a young black man in Brooklyn where the “stop and frisk” policy has incarcerated 6% of those stopped for simple possession. Thousands of lives in Brooklyn ruined just for the sake of an easy arrest.

| Permalink
 65yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that thx1137 is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
I wonder if we legalized marijuana, how many innocent lives would be spared in Mexico because this contraband product that is causing a good deal of the violence would now be expensive compared to the legal RJR Tobacco Company product available at 7-Eleven?

| Permalink
 65yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that littlejohn is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
I hear you. I need to think about this a bit. No love lost between me and the enforcers for sure. I want to get back to this when I have more time, but quickly ... I think you may be on the right track. I may want to discuss a couple of points before wholesale agreement.... all cool !! Have a good weekend . try not to get frisked
--John--

| Permalink
 59yrs • M
A CTL of 1 means that Hobbes Choice is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Governments do have a role.
That role in a western democracy is to do the will of the people.
Argument 1.
If the people wish it, it ought to be so.
Argument 2. I think you will agree that some degree of regulation such as quality guarantees need to accompany any legalisation? Where the government is unwilling to back up that regulation with enforcement, as I think we have in overstressed civil services, a blanket ban is cheaper that the necessary extra enforcement required.

| Permalink
 65yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that thx1137 is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Hobbes Choice, I am not so sure that I can agree with you. In argument 2 you suggest that it is fiscally efficient to use a blanket enforcement. I do not think that the billions of dollars we have spent on the 'war on drugs' supports that claim. In argument 1, you say that the will of the people should be enforced. What about what one does in private?

If 51% of the people think that everyone must publicly profess a certain religion, would you then profess it? Do you think that the sodomy laws that many states still have on the books should be enforced? What if 51% of the people think that minorities should not be permitted the vote? All of these were once the rule of the people and were overturned without majority agreement.

| Permalink
 28yrs • M •
Inmate 0001 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
I think that drugs should be legalized. For me, it mostly boils down to having autonomy over one's body. I don't think the government should have the authority to lock somebody in a cage because of the choice of chemicals they ingest. However I do think there are some exceptions. PCP and other drugs of this nature have extremely high rates of people going into psychotic states and harming others around them. For this reason, there is definitely an argument for the prohibition of certain drugs. Though I guess you could just have certain areas where people can buy drugs like PCP but must remain in a padded room until the effects have passed to ensure the safety of others........or some system like that.

| Permalink
 59yrs • M
A CTL of 1 means that Hobbes Choice is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
THX:" I am not so sure that I can agree with you. In argument 2 you suggest that it is fiscally efficient to use a blanket enforcement. I do not think that the billions of dollars we have spent on the 'war on drugs' supports that claim. In argument 1, you say that the will of the people should be enforced."

So the government legalise drugs tomorrow. Then what? Any punk kid can cobble together any concoction he likes and peddles it on the streets, sells it on ebay?
Drugs used to be legal like that, but 100s of years of overdosing, addiction and the poverty of getting the next hit led to a wide ranging prohibition.
To avoid this the government would have to legislate for quality and safety, as it does with any other pharmaceutical. The problem would be, that in doing so they would implicitly have to endorse potentially harmful drug use. This would fly against their continuing restriction on tobacco, and alcohol.
There is no doubt that there is something of a contradiction here. But extending the use of queludes, crystal meth, heroine and cocaine would undermine the growing efforts against smoking and drinking.



If 51% of the people think that everyone must publicly profess a certain religion, would you then profess it? Do you think that the sodomy laws that many states still have on the books should be enforced? What if 51% of the people think that minorities should not be permitted the vote? All of these were once the rule of the people and were overturned without majority agreement."

No, but then I don't think taking drugs, sodomy and praying are the same, or should have the same rules.
And there is a difference between making someone do something or think a certain way, and forbidding the sale of dangerous substances.

I tend to argue FOR the legalisation of some drugs, but that is not what the thread is about.
The top of the thread asks what are arguments FOR the prohibition.

| Permalink
 59yrs • M
A CTL of 1 means that Hobbes Choice is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
To Inmate0001,

You say; "I think that drugs should be legalized. For me, it mostly boils down to having autonomy over one's body."

When you buy an aspirin, I assume that you expect the government to have legislated, and enforced a set of rules incumbent on the seller that guarantees to content and quality of that aspirin.
So do you accept that were the government to legalise heroin, that similar enforcement would have to be done on that and any other drug that you were able to buy?
And thus can you not see a problem that the government would implicitly have to condone a list of drugs that they knew to be harmful?
How do you see the legalisation panning out?

| Permalink
 65yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that thx1137 is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Hobbes, following your arguments, we should prohibit both alcohol and tobacco. Both are harmful. Both are misused. One has no known positive aspects and is highly addictive. The other has been statistically linked as causal to numerous crimes including violent behavior and vehicular homicide. Would you favor prohibition of these?

Careful, we already tried one.

| Permalink
 59yrs • M
A CTL of 1 means that Hobbes Choice is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
THX1137.
Do not get me wrong, I am not advocating the prohibition of drugs, as such.
But you are right to point to tobacco and alcohol.
I have to say that if no one had heard of them and tried to introduce them today, they would be laughed at.
Any sane person would ban tobacco, and I'm glad to say that this poison's use in now severely restricted.
For both there would be big problems due to historical factors; they are just too common.
However there are plenty of places that have successfully prohibited alcohol.

| Permalink
 33yrs • F •
A CTL of 1 means that SomeKindaCyan is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Personally I believe that Marijuana should be legalized, why? One it can't be fatal, doesn't cause anger (Not that I've seen...I have seen it cause paranoia, but I've seen the same with alcohol.) The money we are wasting on putting people away in jail because of a naturally growing plant is just...are you kidding? If people want to smoke, market that stuff and bring money in instead of throwing it out.

However the legalization of drugs that can be fatal is something I do not stand behind. I can't. I've seen people do meth, I've seen people do coke and heroin. Having those substances on the street isn't something I think will enhance society.

I also think it would be nice for people who are diabetic, have pancreantitis or liver failure- to have a way to unwind and take the edge off- all three of those conditions recommend that you do not drink alcohol. I know alcohol has a huge financial strong hold in our economy and advertizing, but marijuana could do the same thing.

If I was a parent...I would have an honest talk with my kid about pot. If I found out my kid was on crack, they'd be going to rehab. That's the difference in my mind.

Although my inner person doesn't believe the government should control what I do with my body. I guess I'm torn on the harder drugs.

The war on pot is a waste of time.

| Permalink
""Dying's easy; living's hard." -Wilson"
Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
  1    2  
About Captain Cynic
Common FAQ's
Captain Cynic Guides
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
General Forum Rules
Cynic Trust Levels
Administrative Contact Forum
Registration
Lost Password
General Discussion
Philosophy Forums
Psychology Forums
Health Forums
Quote Submissions
Promotions & Links
 Captain Cynic on Facebook
 Captain Cynic on Twitter
 Captain Cynic RSS Feed
 Daily Tasker
Copyright © 2011 Captain Cynic All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy