Opinions - Morality of Illegality

[fluro2829]

I'm writing this thread because I am wondering whether illegal drugs as a whole should remain illegal just to prove a point on so-called moral grounds by the government.
Year after year, the problem of drugs gets worse and worse and yet the government still remains adamant that the best way to combat the problem of people using and selling drugs is to make it against the law.

I believe that this is a lack of common-sense.

It is apparent to me that people who use illegal drugs are not influenced by the legal status of them, but by their peers and what they believe to be an acceptable lifestyle.
It is also apparent to me that while drugs are illegal, they will remain recklessly unsafe to use as no regulative measures are in place to keep the substances to an acceptable standard; ie. they are "cut" with other sometimes harmful ingredients to reduce or increase profit margins accordingly in line with business.
I have also noted that many untrue statements have been made by the government in the past, stating that using certain drugs only once or twice will result in immediate dependancy and that death will result very quickly through using them. This is clearly not the case as it is evident that many people can (and do) lead an ordinary life and perform an ordinary job even though drugs form a part of their lives. This in turn further gives reason to disrespect the law and go against advice offered by certain authorities in order to prove their own point that using drugs is acceptable and in some cases the way forward.

If the government is trying to establish the non-use of drugs as a matter of personal responsibility, then it needs to be noted that responsiblity is an onus of the individual concerned and it is their own personal option as to whether they wish to take heed of the educational literature available concerning the dangers, risks and facts of drugs when it comes to making a decision about using them.

After weighing up the advantages of legalising drugs, I have come to the following positive conclusions that making drugs legal will impact:

1. Safety: If drugs are legal, they will be regulated in accordance with set standards. Users will be aware of exactly what they are ingesting and they will have clear, informed knowledge of where it has originated from.
2. Drug Dealing: If drugs are legal, the black market potential will significantly be reduced as there will be nowhere near the incentive or profit margin to illegally distribute drugs. The government could also incur a tax levy that would pay for any rehabilitation costs or other health issues caused by using drugs.
3. Age Restriction: If drugs are legal, an age limit could be imposed which would at least go some way towards filtering out under-age drug users. Much in the same way as with alcohol and cigarettes.
4. Policing: Every year, the government wastes huge sums of money policing against drug use because it is illegal; if drugs are legal, then priorities can be re-adjusted, focusing on other important matters, rather than continuing to exercise futility which appears to be the case as it is now.

This only briefly touches the advantages of legalising drugs but the point is that I believe that my opinions should be branded as constructive rather than immoral and I would appreciate any comments for or against my views.

Thanks.

Reputation Comments on this post:

agreed

[cganon]

Fluro,

I used to believe that because I see an individual who chooses to take a particular controlled substance as not being immoral (I think the double negative works better here), that it was thus ok for any individual to take a particular controlled substance that they chose. Additionally and more importantly, I believed that it was not the governments place to decide what an individual could or couldn’t do to themselves.

But, what the government has to determine is not about morality, it is about the security of the society as a whole (and protection of the individuals). As an 'individual' you really always play a part of the society in which you live. The American government took such a tough stance on cocaine when it saw whole societies being ripped apart during the Crack "epidemic" (crime waves). The government believes that legalisation would cause more problems in terms of widespread use than it would help (e.g. The 4 points you mention).

As an example, SWIM sees many cocaine users only limiting their intake based on their lack of funds. If it were suddenly made legal, the major supermarkets could have the price driven down to that of alcohol. In my opinion it would not be immoral for individuals to be taking it but the effect on society could be disastrous. These drugs do have a huge a huge impact on productivity, motivation and health etc.

I now believe the ‘alcohol is legal and dangerous’ argument should be spun to reflect the argument that it should also be abolished; this has been tried and has failed.

E.g. I do not think that it is immoral to decide not to wear your seat-belt because you know the risks. The laws have been brought in to protect you because it is clear that people have a tendency to make choices that might not be in their best interest.

Regards,

CG

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well thought out counter argument, a voice thats not regularly heard.

[cganon]

Afterthought :

I believe that the governments thoughts behind the drug laws and classification is somewhat misguided at tims due to the fact that all recreational drugs are seen as almost equal (with slight clasificational differences).

E.g. Magic mushrooms have only recently been made illegal in the UK and could be bought openly in shops until last year. There were no incidents that I ever heard of to make a case for banning them except that they powerfully altered peoples perception (no health issues, non-addictive and no problems in society despite being legal)

[sknkv2]

The thing is, it is not effective. They need to find another way to get people to stop abusing drugs, illegalizing it is not the answer - it just creates more problems than it solves.

[fluro2829]

To cganon,

You mention the government's priority as having an obligation to maintain the security of society as a whole. Let me ask you a question: Do you believe that by keeping drugs illegal, the government is fulfilling it's duty? I for one, do not.
From my own observations, year after year, the drug culture becomes more deep rooted and integrated into modern society, drugs that were once regarded as 'dangerous' are becoming downgraded from Class B to Class C, simply because it is impossible to control the use of it today. Newer and harder drugs are also being introduced into the market complete with readily available suppliers from the street. These drugs are being used by people from all walks of life, from the unskilled to professionals and these same people live an otherwise ordinary, successful life. From the perspective of stopping people from using drugs, there is no other single law system that could be more counter-productive than what it is at the moment.
You also have to bear in mind that we live in a democratic society. People vote for who they want in power, not the other way round, so if you want a government that protects people from themselves, then making drug use illegal is certainly not the way forward. After all, how is it constructive in any fashion when street dealers and other unscrupulous people are controlling and regulating narcotic substances? This, to me, is totally irresponsible and unacceptable.
If drugs were made legally available to buy in this country (UK), then further research would have to be made into the characteristics and long term effects of each drug and this would be reflected in the pricing of the drug concerned, i.e. seriously harmful drugs would carry a higher taxation levy, to cover re-habilitation and other health issues that would inevitably ensue.
I do believe that the price of drugs should be kept reasonably high, so as to discourage people from using them (much as they do with alcohol and cigarettes, which I might add-are legal) and even though there may still be a black market and opportunity for illegal trading, I do not believe that it would be anywhere near as severe as it is at the moment, simply because most individuals would prefer to buy their products from a reputable company as opposed to a street dealer.

Let me know your thoughts,

Fluro.

[Nature Boy]

There comes a huge problem with legalisation and that is the stupidity of the common man.

When drug prohibition began in the first half on the twentieth century the goal was to eliminate what was a problem albeit not a major one. This action produced an unforeseen rise of a powerful international black market that saw an opportunity to capitalise on a bureaucratic error. Drug use soared to the point where it became nigh on impossible to turn back the tables. This is because people are birdbrains essentially. If drug laws were repealed, many individuals would take this as an indication that using all drugs is thereafter perfectly safe.

Put it in this context. Laws exist concerning incest. Incest is something which is generally frowned upon and unlikely to take place regardless of any laws but that being said, theoretically there really is nothing that prevents two family members mutually committing incest besides moral taboo and the scientific argument against it. Do laws need to exist about incest? Probably not but unfortunately, people are so dumb that if these laws were repealed tomorrow some would actually regard this as the all-clear to go and hump their cousins.

It seems people have become such sheep that they are incapable of understanding that governments can make mistakes and that these mistakes need to be amended or completely removed in order to reduce complicated bureaucratic measures that essentially hold no purpose but to appease the moral background of our largely Judeo-Christian western society.

So therefore widespread legalisation of all substances is virtually impossible right now. Pragmatic measures have to be taken in order to make the transition from black market monopoly to taxed regulation as smoothly as possible. Cannabis plays a major role, being one of the few relatively benign substances that can be unleashed upon the sheep without any major repercussions. Yes, there would be scare articles from media outlets with sensationalist agendas but in reality, cannabis with its incredibly low toxicity and its safety when combined with other drugs, does not present anywhere near the threat of other popular psychoactives such as ecstasy or cocaine. Plus legalised cannabis, having been the most commonly-used illegal psychoactive, would create a huge dent in profit margins of the criminal underworld. There would be room for the legalisation of naturally-occurring hallucinogens such as magic mushrooms and peyote also, seeing as their use is infrequent, physically safe under the right conditions and do not attract the same widespread demand.

Reputation Comments on this post:

disagree

[fluro2829]

This is for Nature Boy,
I do not personally believe that legalising drugs would create any further detriment on a social scale simply because the use of drugs in society is already an accepted way of life and no government figure of authority or educational body is going to influence otherwise what the majority of people wish to perceive as an acceptable way of living.
Wherever there is business, there is supply and there is demand, and drugs, while illegal, are big business for the wrong type of people. This cannot be understated and this is where the government needs to come to the consumers aid. Legalising drugs is not a negative idea, it is an entirely constructive one that corresponds to the requirements of a modern society.
For some reason, many people get the impression, that if drugs were to become legal, total anarchy and social collapse would ensue overnight. Such would not be the case, you only have to observe the mentality and habits of people who use both hard and soft drugs to know that this isn't true.
There are credible, professional, honest, hard-working and otherwise law-abiding people who choose to go out and buy drugs for one reason or another and these same people, quite often lead a successful life. They are able to control their habit and it does not affect or detract from their day to day living commitments or performance.
Of course, there are others who become hopeless addicts and damage themselves beyond repair through using drugs, but compared with the majority, these people are few and far between. So in the vast majority of cases, the government's message about drugs is simply false.
Ask yourself for what reason would a sane, happy and contended person who has never used hard drugs before suddenly go out and deem it necessary to ingest or inject a cocktail of narcotics simply because legislation has changed? It would not happen that way, certain types of people are led into using drugs because they have that nature, not because the government decides to make drugs legal.
The government would not be approving the use of drugs any more than it does with regards to tobacco and alcohol. Infact, it would be far more discreet because the age limit would be higher and no advertising would be permitted.
Ironically, the drugs tobacco and alcohol (that are currently legal) are statistically proven to cause the most social upset and pose the worst mortality rate than any other drug that is currently illegal in this country.
These points considered, I think it absurd to argue against, what I believe will be an inevitable outcome.
Fluro.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by fluro2829

This is for Nature Boy,
I do not personally believe that legalising drugs would create any further detriment on a social scale simply because the use of drugs in society is already an accepted way of life and no government figure of authority or educational body is going to influence otherwise what the majority of people wish to perceive as an acceptable way of living.
Wherever there is business, there is supply and there is demand, and drugs, while illegal, are big business for the wrong type of people. This cannot be understated and this is where the government needs to come to the consumers aid. Legalising drugs is not a negative idea, it is an entirely constructive one that corresponds to the requirements of a modern society.
For some reason, many people get the impression, that if drugs were to become legal, total anarchy and social collapse would ensue overnight. Such would not be the case, you only have to observe the mentality and habits of people who use both hard and soft drugs to know that this isn't true.
There are credible, professional, honest, hard-working and otherwise law-abiding people who choose to go out and buy drugs for one reason or another and these same people, quite often lead a successful life. They are able to control their habit and it does not affect or detract from their day to day living commitments or performance.
Of course, there are others who become hopeless addicts and damage themselves beyond repair through using drugs, but compared with the majority, these people are few and far between. So in the vast majority of cases, the government's message about drugs is simply false.
Ask yourself for what reason would a sane, happy and contended person who has never used hard drugs before suddenly go out and deem it necessary to ingest or inject a cocktail of narcotics simply because legislation has changed? It would not happen that way, certain types of people are led into using drugs because they have that nature, not because the government decides to make drugs legal.
The government would not be approving the use of drugs any more than it does with regards to tobacco and alcohol. Infact, it would be far more discreet because the age limit would be higher and no advertising would be permitted.
Ironically, the drugs tobacco and alcohol (that are currently legal) are statistically proven to cause the most social upset and pose the worst mortality rate than any other drug that is currently illegal in this country.
These points considered, I think it absurd to argue against, what I believe will be an inevitable outcome.
Fluro.

Alcohol and tobacco being the most damaging drugs purely correlates with their legal, available status. Banning both would actually reduce use and demand. Not in the same way that banning say marijuana or cocaine increases use and demand, it's just that when you have two allowed recreational substances out of hundreds, they become so popular that restricting them could only lead to reduction.

You seem to have a very optimistic view on the nature of people. If cocaine became legally available tomorrow, I could see plenty of idiots lining up ready to use, definitely in this country anyway. That's why I don't think harder drugs can suddenly be made available. Plug-eared morons lining up outside a pharmacy with their €50 notes, chuckling their meagre brains off ready for their hit of whatever will get them "fucked up". I witnessed it first-hand with magic mushrooms over here. Once word broke out of their availability in headshops, the hippie and intellectual customer base were snowed under by the huge influx of common schmucks. They flocked in their droves, low and behold, an idiot jumps off a building and suddenly they're banned.

Now I know that was an isolated incident which is nothing compared to how many people the old booze and cigarettes kill off, but governments don't think that way. At least with legalising cannabis, the extremely low risk of physical effects wouldn't be as profound as the relatively high risk that goes with many other drugs. The morons would smoke until their lungs heaved, get fed up and move onto the next bandwagon leaving cannabis for those who actually know how to enjoy it. With cocaine or heroin, that transition would be impossible without a few deaths, which I'm sure the media would have a field day with.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Yes, there would be scare articles from media outlets with sensationalist agendas but in reality, cannabis with its incredibly low toxicity and its safety when combined with other drugs, does not present anywhere near the threat of other popular psychoactives such as ecstasy or cocaine. Plus legalised cannabis, having been the most commonly-used illegal psychoactive, would create a huge dent in profit margins of the criminal underworld. There would be room for the legalisation of naturally-occurring hallucinogens such as magic mushrooms and peyote also, seeing as their use is infrequent, physically safe under the right conditions and do not attract the same widespread demand.

Agree with most of what you have to say NB except this paragraph. The potential dangers from unadulterated MDMA (which it would be if legal and under control) are certainly no more than those from cannabis (or peyote or mushrooms for that matter).

The argument over alcohol and tobacco being more of a threat to the nation than many currently illegal drugs is no longer a viable argument in SWILL's view (if it ever was). Prohibitionists will now happily tell you that this is probably true and then turn the argument on its head and throw it back at you. So, for example in this country, the likes of Gráinne Kenny can be heard stating that we have a huge problem with alcohol and that is largely due to its availability and legality. It's too late to go back to prohibition on these substances, but how many more problems would be caused by making all drugs legal? Availability and legality would increase consumption and therefore increase problems. Now whilst you may not agree with this it is a compelling argument for Joe Public and one that we need to able counter.

Unfortunately, NB is correct in what he states. There are one hell of a lot of idiots out there who would go completely overboard if legality and availability were different. Do you legislate for the majority based on the actions of the few?

[fluro2829]

*overstated. Line 3.

[Evil GIR]

I think the church thinks its immoral to feel good whether its drugs, drink or sex and they would like you to believe that you only salvation to heavenly bliss is to believe in the church god and Jesus.

I thinks its all about power and control and that in this life you must live like a sheep not having any fun, if ya notice its always the heavily religious places of the world that has the harsh laws against drugs.

I hate religion.

[I<3Salvia]

Making drugs illegal is only going to let the problem keep getting worse. Granted the difficulty with making all drugs legal is the problem of harder substances such as crack, and heroin. However if the price of a nice crack rock was comparable to the cost of a 24oz beer, and you could just drive down to cvs to get it, then people addictions would be affordable, and the crime rate of people robbing, stealing, and killing to support their drug addictions would go way down. By the way swim has not done harder drugs.

[fluro2829]

Nature Boy.

In order to combat a problem, one needs to first accept and establish that there is one. The problem in this case is the widespread use of drugs (regardless of classification) in society.
There is a law system currently in place that attempts to deter people from using these drugs by making their use and distribution illegal.

This system does not work, it fails.

If a person is going to be so headstrong and stubborn that they cannot see past this first hurdle, then there is no chance of making any constructive progress.

Is there?

Fluro.

[Mmats]

Since governments are simply extensions of ourselves, we should apply the same expectations. Consider the thought of no government for a moment; If your neighbor is smoking pot or popping some oxy in his home, what do you do? Do you go and detain him? I think not. Now if your neighbor is killing or raping people in his home, would you take action? I would. We should expect from our government no more than what we expect from ourselves.

Reputation Comments on this post:

interesting comments- well stated and to the point

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by fluro2829

The problem in this case is the widespread use of drugs (regardless of classification) in society.

One could argue that there is a bigger problem than that. Yes, drug use is widespread but drug finance is unregulated for most recreational substances. From a governmental point of view, that is a MUCH bigger problem.

[Def]

Umm, I don't believe the government listens to the people, or even is ran by the people anymore.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will know peace."

[moda00]

Swim and her friends often laughed at the irony, when back in the day, as minors, it was easier for them to purchase the actual marijuana they smoked than the rolling papers or blunts from which to smoke it. Even if one believes the government's job is to protect us from ourselves, or to protect society in general from negative impacts of others' choices, it is clear to me that the current policy is not fulfilling these objectives either.

[quote=Nature Boy;353430]Alcohol and tobacco being the most damaging drugs purely correlates with their legal, available status. Banning both would actually reduce use and demand. Not in the same way that banning say marijuana or cocaine increases use and demand, it's just that when you have two allowed recreational substances out of hundreds, they become so popular that restricting them could only lead to reduction.[quote]

Well, alcohol has been banned- it failed miserably. I agree with your point that since people have always, and will probably always continue, to alter their minds, the substances that are legal will become hugely popular- simply because they are easy to access, socially accepted, and relatively inexpensive. And of course, with any potentially harmful substances, the harm done (quantitatively/# of persons harmed) will be greater for the substances which are used the most. But I'd be interested to see a study or some calculations done on both the actual, concrete, and measurable harms (deaths, disease, etc.) caused proportionally (ie. out of the total number of users) as well as the subjective harms (those who feel they have been harmed)..

If we can calculate the number of people who use a given substance and THEN compare the harm proportionally it may be more useful. My own opinion is that alcohol is one of the more harmful substances.. but since there are soooo many users of alcohol, it only makes sense that the statistics would show huge numbers of deaths and ills from the substance.

Granted, this would be difficult to do in an entirely accurate fashion- as a "quasi-experiment" experimenters cannot choose groups or actively manipulate the variables, and in terms of surveys or interviews, social pressures and legal status could skew the results, as not everyone would likely admit to using illegal substances (this would have to be minimized, perhaps by computerized surveys rather than face to face interviews) but it would be interesting to compare.

Of course I'm sure there are already figures and numbers floating around the net stating how many people use any given substance, and how many complications there are, etc. But these are not always reliable- again, people may not admit to doing something that is legally or socially "wrong," we have no way of knowing the procedures behind the gathering of this data, experimenter bias could have skewed the results, or those presenting the data could interpret it based on their own views.. And of course, as has been stated in other threads, those with the most to lose may not come forward as "drug users" (I believe it was here on DF somewhere, a thread about for example protests or rallies for legalization, or "coming out" as a functional drug user- certain "types" are represented, because those with something to lose- a productive job, healthy family, social life, etc.- fear repurcussions.)

So there are many biases getting in the way of a valid, reliable, and large scale study of proportional harms from different mind-altering substances.. but there is some data to go on, and some is better than none. Nonetheless, one could say alcohol only seems more harmful because its use is more widespread, or that alcohol is the most harmful drug of all but people are blind to it because it is so accepted.. either way, opinions abound, and I think we need more research. But of te research that has been done, it seems that some comparisons of harm can be done- for example, it does seem pretty clear that certain illegal drugs are safer than certain legal drugs- ie. marijuana's risks seem significantly lower than either alcohol or tobacco from both personal observations and the studies I've read (see the other discusions here on DF, or ask me for links if you like- I won't go off on this specific tangent here lol) But it is clear to me that legal status and harm are complex issues.

Aside from harm caused by a substances specific chemical properties, I do feel that to outlaw certain substances causes harm in a more general sense. There is always going to be a demand for mind-altering substances, and the morality argument is ridiculous because morals and social norms vary by time, culture, law, and religion. That said, I know plenty of people who don't even think in those terms, who automatically equate "illegal" with "morally wrong." I think that is of course a part of society and overall culture, and also very specifically attributable to certain oversimplified portrayals- for example, in childrens' books and movies, things are often portrayed in terms of "good" and "bad," or "good guys" and "bad guys." And associated with the bad part, are people who break the law and hurt others- thiefs and "robbers," for example. So while the drug issue is obviously not pulled in until later, children are taught from a very young age that "criminals" are "bad" people who hurt and scare "good/nice" people. The world is presented falsely as simple black and white, on this and many other issues. And many people never see past that. But it seems reasonable that if morals are to be involved, rather than moralize "in theory," which is useless, let's moralize in practice- it is "immoral" to cause unnecessary pain and suffering, and it is "moral" to create the safest possible environment/world for our children to grow up in. When we look at the drug policy as it stands and how it has affected our society, it seems clear that it is not working. I don't have the answer, but I'm reasonably sure prohibition isn't it.

[fluro2829]

Nature Boy,

If drug finance is unregulated for 'recreational substances', then the answer is simple from the governments point of view:

Legalise drugs and regulate them accordingly by putting in place a tax levy and endeavour to give the consumer a safer, quality product from start to finish. Remove the lies from politicians speeches and take pleasure in watching street dealers go out of business.

Only in that way can the government's efforts go towards saving the people from themselves.

Fluro.

[Mmats]

Any attempt to save people from themselves will be for naught. You take away someones right to do stupid things to themself, and you essentially take away their freedom. Ask yourself, should someone have more authority over your body than yourself?

As far as legalization, I disagree with discriminately putting a tax levy on drugs, all this does is increase prices for the consumer. If you want to make sure the consumer is getting a quality product, simply make sure businesses uphold their contracts. Currently many businesses offer products and services, and if they dont meet their obligations they can be sued or imprisoned. I see no reason to treat drug companies any different in a legalized drug industry.

[fluro2829]

Mmats,

The whole point of legalising drugs in the first place is to allow the consumer to have complete freedom of choice over his/her own actions. Making drug use illegal takes away this right, which is why the system fails as a whole and this is why the argument began in the first place.

If no tax levy was placed on drugs, then how would the government have any market control over the legislation that they have just created? How could health issues be treated through drug use? Who would pay for it all? How could they control the price of drugs? It would be economic suicide, not to mention social chaos.

As for a quality obligation, please explain how this corresponds in any way with taxation on consumer goods?

Fluro.

[cra$h]

when it comes to laws based on morals, the best example is alcohol prohibition in the 1920's. enough said but i'll go deeper. primerily women wanted a ban on all alcohol becaues their husbands would get drunk and hit them, and so the laws were passed, and the greatest crime wave in america happend as a result. a little off topic but isnt it ironic how prosperus our economy was when the mob was at its hights?

[x cynic x]

Merge with Legalization of all drugs

[cra$h]

"4. Policing: Every year, the government wastes huge sums of money policing against drug use because it is illegal; if drugs are legal, then priorities can be re-adjusted, focusing on other important matters, rather than continuing to exercise futility which appears to be the case as it is now."

swim can almost guarantee that most murders are drug based, so the need for police will probably drop by half.

[jaffacake]

As C.S Lewis said ""Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies".

And as Jimmy Carter said (can you believe that an american president said this just 30 years ago?!!)


Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use. We can, and should, continue to discourage the use of marijuana, but this can be done without defining the smoker as a criminal.

Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. This decriminalization is not legalization. It means only that the Federal penalty for possession would be reduced and a person would received a fine rather than a criminal penalty.
No wonder Carter is so demonised today - common sense like this in an age of Reagan, Clinton and Bush is astonishing.

Reputation Comments on this post:

great contribution, thanks

[x cynic x]

Originally Posted by jaffacake

And as Jimmy Carter said (can you believe that an american president said this just 30 years ago?!!)
Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use. We can, and should, continue to discourage the use of marijuana, but this can be done without defining the smoker as a criminal.

Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. This decriminalization is not legalization. It means only that the Federal penalty for possession would be reduced and a person would received a fine rather than a criminal penalty.

Where is there any room for denial/rejection? This policy seems too reasonable if anything.