Two summers ago, Alexis Werth Mason was 12 years old and weighed 133 pounds.

Not huge, but at 4-

foot-11, she was heavier than she wanted to be.

Shopping was painful. Classmates teased her. A neighbor told her that she was too big to pull on his
sled. After desperately trying -- and failing -- at diets, her mother, Bonnie Werth, asked if she wanted to
go to a weight-loss camp.

"She said, 'I can't go to a fat camp, Mommy, all the kids will make fun of me,"' Ms. Werth, the president
of Team Services, a marketing firm in Woodbury, N.Y., recalled. "But I convinced her to go."

"It wasn't so much the weight loss," Ms. Werth said, "but I wanted her to be around other kids with the
same problems. She felt very isolated and alone in her issues."

Alexis, who is known as Lexi, spent eight weeks at Camp Shane, in Ferndale, N.Y., and lost 25 pounds.
She has kept off every ounce since.

Continue reading the main story

This is a big deal.

It is easy, after all, to lose weight in a controlled environment, but it is a different story when you are
back home and faced with temptations like pizza and ice cream and get little to no exercise. So it's not
surprising that many children who attend weight-loss camps regain the weight.

"Coming home from camp was hard," Lexi, now 14, said. "I knew what I had to do, but I saw everyone
eating at school. When you see all your friends pigging out and watching old movies and crying and
stuff, you want to join in. It's peer pressure. So I ate in moderation."

Thousands of young people will be spending this summer at weight-loss camps, a popular option for
parents who have no idea how to inspire their children to shed pounds. It is a slowly growing industry.
Nationwide, there are about a dozen camps devoted strictly to weight loss, four of them opened in the
last year. But whether they work remains unclear.

Statistics about weight-loss camps are hard to come by. Campers often do not keep in touch with camp
directors, nor do they always respond honestly to questionnaires.

But of the 1,000 campers who will weave their way this summer in and out of Tony Sparber's three New
Image camps in Florida, California and the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania, more than half are repeat
customers. The figure is about the same for the 800 campers heading to Camp Shane in the Catskills.

"Maybe they're not losing the weight specifically, but instead they're learning something that they can
use 20 years down the road and put into use when they're ready," said Marla Coleman, a former
president of the American Camping Association.

Ms. Coleman added: "It's education. Knowledge. It goes to everything camp does, which is experiential
learning."
Perhaps more important, Ms. Coleman said, camp gives children a reprieve from weight gain and the
torment they often experience back in the real world. Many play sports for the first time, and have
social lives.

But that is not always the case. Danielle Rothman, now 17, spent three summers at Camp Shane.
"Everyone at Shane was overweight, yet people were still being made fun of about their weight," said
Ms. Rothman, who lives in Dix Hills, N.Y.. "The more overweight kids are still made fun of. I was one of
the thinner kids, and people would say, 'Why are you here?' It made me feel good, but after a while I
wanted to hit them."

Weight-loss camps usually run for three weeks, six weeks or eight week sessions, and they cost about
$7,500 for the entire summer -- about $1,500 more than nonspecialized camps. Campers get about
1,500 calories a day, and campers generally spend three to four hours a day doing some kind of physical
activity, as well other activities like drama or arts and crafts. There are weekly weigh-ins and regular
classes in nutrition and cooking.

Most camps offer sessions for campers to explore their feelings about food and weight. But critics worry
that the camps are not run by people who have the necessary credentials to handle children with
serious emotional baggage, and that the sessions are too short to change a lifetime of bad habits.

Teresa Guerrero worked at a camp in Southern California in 2003 and 2004, where she was a guidance
counselor.

"There were a lot of very messed-up kids," said Ms. Guerrero, 26, who is a doctoral candidate in clinical
and school psychology at Hofstra. "The majority of them were compulsive overeaters."

"A lot were medicated, or ate out of boredom, or cut themselves," she said. "A lot had experienced
divorce or the death of a parent. They could trace the weight gain back to that. It was a big responsibility
for the counselors, none of whom was really equipped to deal with it."

One of the more promising programs is offered by the two-year-old Wellspring Camps, which operates
Camp Wellspring, near Lake Placid, N.Y., for young women ages 14 to 22; Wellspring Adventure Camp
near Asheville, N.C., for boys and girls 11 to 16; and Western Wellspring Adventure Camp in California,
for boys and girls 13 to 18.

Unlike traditional weight-loss camps, Wellspring uses a cognitive behavioral approach. Campers set
goals and monitor themselves, techniques that are components of behavior modification, one of the
most widely accepted approaches to long-term weight-loss success.

Each camper is responsible for her own eating and exercise habits. At meals, for example, campers get
"controlled" foods, like measured entrees and dessert, and "uncontrolled" foods: berries, melons or fat-
free soups. They can eat as much of the uncontrolled foods as they want, but they have to jot down the
calories and fat grams in a journal, with the goal of staying under 20 grams of fat and about 1,200
calories a day.

They use pedometers and are told to aim for a minimum of 10,000 steps a day. The overall goal is to
change eating habits and make new ones.
"Self-control is a process in behavioral terms -- keeping track of target behaviors and systematically
evaluating these behaviors and goal setting," said Dr. Daniel Kirschenbaum, a professor of psychiatry
and behavioral sciences at Northwestern who helped design the program, but has no financial
involvement in the camps.

Dr. Kirschenbaum said self-control could be taught like any other skill through instruction, modeling and
encouragement.

So far, the camps have had encouraging success. A recent study by Wellspring found that 91 percent of
all its campers had maintained the weight or continued to lose six months after camp ended; the weight
loss afterward averaged 7.4 pounds. The camps plan to continue tracking campers' long-term weight
loss to try to persuade health insurers to cover the programs.

Still, those involved agree that the most significant factor for success is the level of parental involvement
once camp ends. It is not enough for the child to return home from 30 pounds lighter if the household
does not change as well -- whether that means eliminating junk foods or encouraging exercise.

"The people who are successful are the parents who go the extra mile and are observant and watch
their kids," said Tony Sparber, 48, who has been in the industry for 25 years.

Although all camps offer lectures for parents on visiting day, only a few show up, organizers say.

After camp ends, a New Image nutritionist calls families each month. Every two months they receive a
newsletter with recipes. But Mr. Sparber acknowledges that most people do not follow through. "It
starts out strong, and as time goes on it fades," he said. This year, in an effort to reach more people, he
is adding an online counseling program with a nutritionist, as well as a weight management and fitness
program at the Jewish Community Center in Tenafly, N.J.

Only about one-third of the campers at Camp Wellspring and Wellspring Adventure Camp adhered to its
after-care program, which includes keeping a daily online journal for self-monitoring and setting goals,
and chatting with a behavioral coach by phone or e-mail.

All of those who followed that regimen, sustained or continued their weight loss at the three-month
mark, said Ryan Craig, president of Wellspring camps, who is also director of the Academy of the Sierras,
a boarding school for obese adolescents in Reedley, Calif.

Lexi Werth Mason attributes her weight-loss success to two things: her goal of fitting into a two-piece
bathing suit, and her mother. When she first returned home from camp, her mother had snack bags full
of pre-cut vegetables waiting for her. Every night they discuss what Lexi can eat. The two shop together,
read labels, prepare menus and cook.

"People don't have time to sit down to home-cooked meals, and they're so busy they get Big Macs," said
Lexi. "At camp I learned that there's 590 calories in one, so we don't do that anymore. Now we cook
dinners because I'm conscious of what I'm eating. We substitute light or fat-free for sour cream. Even if
you do have a cookie every once in a while, it's not that big of a deal. You work it off."

Lexi's mother said, "My fear was that when she lost all this weight that she would get so obsessive about
it that it would develop into an eating disorder."
Ms. Werth continued: "From the day she came home, I said, 'It's not about leaving all this stuff behind.'
The minute you deprive yourself of everything you've loved and enjoyed, you will end up compulsively
overeating. I was trying to create a balance for her and proving to her that you could have your cookies
every day but in moderation."

She added, "I signed her right up for Curves, and she got on her bicycle and rode to the gym and
watched everything she's eating."

Ms. Werth also locks up junk food in a kitchen cabinet, and only she has the key. Lexi said she found that
helpful.

Most important for Lexi, nothing tastes as great as thin feels. And that kind of motivation is something
that no diet or weight-loss camp can instill in a person.

"Last winter my friend couldn't pull me on the sled because I was too heavy, and I was really upset about
it," Lexi said. "This year, I went to his house and he pulled me, and that was one of the happiest days of
my life."
FAT CAMP NO MORE
A few years ago, the Undersecretary of Agriculture shocked Americans in testimony before Congress when he said,
"In the past 20 years, the percentage of children who are overweight has doubled and the percentage of
adolescents who are overweight has more than tripled. If we do not stem this tide, many children in this
generation of children will not outlive their parents."

There's no way around it, our children are too fat. For many decades, the percentage of overweight Americans
remained about the same; however, since 1970, that percentage has doubled to about 62 percent. About 34
percent of American children are overweight, and half of those are obese. Many doctors believe that the current
childhood obesity epidemic will someday cost society more than AIDS in terms of dollars and lost lives.
Doctors are seeing children as young as 7 who weigh over 200 pounds. They worry as they treat youngsters for Type
2 diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, orthopedic and joint complaints, and even gallstones.
These problems are connected to being overweight, and they didn't used to show up until people were middle-
aged.

Experts in the new science of weight control now believe that staying slim is about changing a few lifestyle habits.
Small changes such as walking more, eating less fat, eating at regular intervals, getting more sleep, limiting
television viewing, participating in sports, eating slightly smaller portions of foods, and consuming fewer processed
foods can make a difference as to whether your child stays fat or slim.

Today's parents are concerned when their child is overweight, not because they worry about their child's popularity
and beauty, but because they want them to be healthy. We now know that most heavy children will not "outgrow"
the problem but will become fat or obese adults, putting them at risk for serious diseases.

These concerned parents are creating a demand for new solutions to help their children. They want schools to
provide more physical education and less junk food. They are moving to neighborhoods that are "architecturally
friendly" to physical fitness, ones with bike trails, shaded walks, playgrounds, and ball fields. They are forming
"walk pools" with parents taking turns walking groups of children to school. They are giving up on old-style fat
camps because they know that these programs fail to produce lasting results.
Instead, these concerned parents are sending their children to weight loss camps like the programs offered by
Wellspring—including Wellspring Camps and boarding schools Wellspring Academies—where the emphasis is on
eating healthy foods, staying active, and making lifestyle changes that improve overall health.

At these weight loss camps, children learn about good nutrition and healthy food choices, without all of the
negativity of traditional fat camps. Campers may take up a sport for the first time, such as hiking or swimming,
which often will become a lifelong pursuit. Cognitive-behavioral therapists help these young campers learn goal-
setting, self-regulation, stress management, and frustration tolerance. Parents and family members participate in
workshops and aftercare programs designed to maintain the child's weight loss and lifestyle changes after camp
ends.

Because the new emphasis of these camps is on health and lifestyle habits, many insurance companies will pay for
part of the tuition for weight loss camp. Campers return home not only slimmer and more muscular, but with new
lifestyle habits that can keep them healthy and fit over their lifetimes.

REQUEST INFORMATION
Click here to request information.

Home | Fac

Importance of Drug Regulations Print

Drugs are substances specifically recognised by an official Pharmacopeia and Formulary that are
approved for use to treat, diagnose, cure or prevent a disease or disorder. A medical substance induces
change to the function or structure of the patient’s body.

The regulation of drugs and medicine is crucial to the health and safety of the public. Ensuring that a
medicine is high quality is achieved by checking the efficacy, quality and safety of the drug. The
medicines are prepared, stored, manufactured and shipped according to health and safety guidelines of
professional and experienced chemists and pharmacists. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and
other health governing authorities prohibit illegal and unethical production of drugs.

Regulation is important and followed continuously in every step and process that the drug material
passes through. These steps include: raw material handling, formula applications, lot number
maintenance, humidity, light and temperature control, storage, special packs for sensitive drugs, SOPs
for drug movement, refrigerator usage, legal documents and records, shipping and handling, all of which
are necessary for proper drug maintenance and for the safety and health of the consumer.

Regulations for drugs should be under the control of the authorities. The national government may be
responsible for activating the national medical regulatory board, which is represented by medical
regulatory authorities (MRAs). The regulatory bodies are responsible for the ensuring that all medicine
production complies with the rules and regulations and ethical behavior guidelines outlined by the local
and international bodies.

The governing body ensures that all staff, including technicians, pharmacists, chemists and labor, are
qualified. Checks are made on a regular basis to ensure that quality control is observed in production
departments, equipment, technical literature, and distributors, etc. For the compliance of all matters,
the regulatory body, the government and the people are held accountable. Decisions made by the
authorities should be clear and transparent; they should be made in compliance with the rules and
regulations to ensure the prosperity of the country.

The FDA ensures that pharmaceutical companies and organizations are practicing the CGMP (Current
Good Manufacturing Practices) regulations. Should the manufactured drugs not comply with the
conditions and standard operating procedures, there would be a possibility of contamination and
compromise to the drug’s quality, resulting in conditions that may be harmful, dangerous, or even life
threatening to the patients. Drugs, especially those that are sensitive, can readily change structure and
components at any stage when not maintained or handled properly.

It is for these reasons that strict regulatory plans, legal documentation and implementation must be
followed. This helps to ensure that accidents in the medical world are kept to an absolute minimum.

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
In business, if one of our companies is failing, we take steps to identify and solve the
problem. What we don't do is continue failing strategies that cost huge sums of money
and make the problem worse.
It's this kind of logic that underpins a new reportpublished Tuesday by the Global
Commission on Drug Policy, one that aims to take the debate on drug regulation to the
next level.
I'm a member of the commission, and I am pleased to note that since our initial report in
2011, international leaders and heads of state have increasingly echoed our calls for a
major shift in global drug policy. Colorado and Washington took the discussion from
theory to reality in 2012 by becoming the first political jurisdictions in the world to
approve the legal regulation of the production, distribution and sale of marijuana.
Uruguay took it a step further last December by becoming the first country in the world
to do so.
This latest report, "Taking Control: Pathways to Drug Policies that Work," reflects a new
evolution in our thinking. We not only reiterate the case for decriminalization,
alternatives to incarceration, and greater emphasis on public health approaches, but we
now also call for permitting the legal regulation of psychoactive substances.
Richard Branson
The reality is that the most effective way to advance the goals of public health and
safety is to get drugs under control through responsible legal regulation. Much can be
learned from the successes and failures in regulating alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical
drugs and other products and activities that pose health risks to individuals and
societies.
And drug regulation is not as radical as some might think. In fact, it doesn't even require
a fundamental reconsideration of established policy principles. There is a wide spectrum
of policy options to control various types of drugs. At one end of this spectrum are
illegal, criminally controlled markets subject to a full-scale war on drugs. At the other
end are legal, unfettered free markets controlled by commercial enterprises. Both of
these options are characterized by an absence of regulation, with governments
essentially forfeiting control of the drug trade. What's needed are appropriately
regulated legal drug markets.
True, the importance to public health of legally regulating drugs comes not because
they are safe, but precisely because they can be dangerous and pose serious risks. Yet
however dangerous a particular drug may be on its own, its risks increase dramatically
when it is produced, sold and consumed in an unregulated criminal environment.
Putting accountable governments and regulatory bodies in control of this market can
significantly reduce these risks.
When thinking about how to best reduce the harms of drugs, alcohol prohibition in
United States is a lesson in unintended, disastrous consequences, as I wrote in 2012 on
CNN on the anniversary of the end of alcohol prohibition, that policy prompted an
increase in consumption of hard liquor, organized crime taking over legal production
and distribution, and widespread anger with the federal government.

Life sentence for 7 pounds of marijuana 02:53

Since the war on drugs began in 1971, over $1 trillion has been wasted and the United
States has the highest prison population in the world. Some of these prisoners, from
Ironwood State Prison, shared the stage with mein May during California's first TEDX
talk at a prison: while it was encouraging to see their anti-recidivism efforts and
preparation for productive lives after prison, we should not be overcrowding prisons in
the first place with people who need treatment and people who are nonviolent
offenders.
Under prohibition, no product controls exist. Illegal drug markets are driven by economic
processes that encourage the production and supply of more potent -- and therefore
more profitable -- drug preparations. Effective regulation could help gradually reverse
this dynamic.

Medical marijuana changes young girl's life 01:44

In the United States and around the world, ending drug prohibition is being openly
discussed. Elected officials, businessmen, physicians, educators, civil society and
religious leaders are breaking the taboo and engaging in debate about common sense
alternatives including reducing the harm done by existing drug policies.
Law enforcement officials such as San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon
support the upcoming Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act, which Californians will vote
on this November. If a majority says "yes on 47," nonviolent drug crimes will be treated
as a misdemeanor, reducing prison overcrowding, focusing law enforcement to go after
violent criminals, and freeing up $1 billion over the next five years from prisons to
education and health care. Imagine the possibilities when drugs are treated like a health
issue, not a criminal issue.

New York Times endorses legal pot 00:45

The one thing we cannot afford to do is to go on pretending the war on drugs is working.
California has a chance to reverse the harm done to its communities and its fiscal health
by failed drug policies. More voters deserve opportunities to support alternative
approaches to public safety, health and education that go hand in hand with the
responsible regulation of legalized drugs.
If drug policy, which costs $100 billion annually, were my business, I would call it a
failure and shut it down before it ruins more lives. It's time to apply that sort of thinking
to our failed drug policies.

Politicians often say we must arrest, imprison or, in some countries, even
execute people who use or supply drugs to keep them off our streets, and young
people safe. But as a doctor, I know from long experience that whether young
people choose to take drugs or not comes down to a complicated mixture of
reasons.
 READ MORE
The average person expects over £600 in Christmas presents - but why?

Among others, these include peer pressure, state of mind, what’s currently
fashionable, whether they enjoy the experience - even a desire to take risks, or
rebel by sampling 'forbidden fruits'. But, perhaps counter-intuitively, harsh drug
laws don't reduce drug use. And the evidence for this - including research by the
UK Government - is clear. That, of course, strikes at the heart of our
punishment based approach to drugs. But worse still, here are 7 ways the Drug
War actually harms young people in the UK, and around the world:

Threatens young people's health by increasing drug dangers

Some young people will take drugs. And any resulting problems are made
worse by criminalising them. The drugs they take are of unknown strength,
often cut with even more dangerous substances. And anyone can buy them. Ever
hear of a drug dealer asking for ID? In some parts of the world, young people
can’t even get the treatments they need for drug problems.

Puts children in the line of fire by creating violent drug gangs

Are young people threatened by shoot outs between brewers, pub and off-
licence owners? No, but they were during alcohol prohibition in America. Until
alcohol was regulated. The same is true of illegal drugs now. Handing the
market to criminals means young people from Brixton to Bogota to Baltimore
get caught in their crossfire. Or are directly involved. 5000 children a year in
Mexico leave school to become foot-soldiers in the drug wars.
Leads to the trafficking and enslavement of children

It’s not just Afghanistan, Colombia and Burma where the illegal drug market
leads to forced child labour to smuggle or grow drug crops. According to the
NSPCC, of all the trafficked children in the UK, 58% were being exploited for
criminal activity, with Vietnamese children in particular being forced to grow
cannabis.

Ruins young people's lives with criminal records

Youth unemployment rates are terrible - now imagine trying to get a job if you
are one of the 80,000 people in England and Wales convicted or cautioned for
possession of drugs every year? A drugs conviction can be far more harmful to a
young person than the drugs. Repeatedly stop-searching young black kids in
particular for drugs is also alienating and harmful to communities young people
grow up in.

Destroys children's families by locking up parents

Mass imprisonment for drug offences, or treating every drug user as an unfit
parent, means countless children grow up without the love of their mother or
father, often scarring them for life. In the UK, a child in government care is 7
times more likely to misuse alcohol or drugs; 50 times more likely to end up in
prison; and 60 times more likely to end up homeless.
Makes youngsters who take drugs scared to seek help

Young people are frightened to ask for help for themselves or others, because
criminalising them means they fear arrest, shame or even the wrath of their
families. So every year young people die or damage their mental or physical
health unnecessarily.

Prevents effective drug education, putting all children at risk

Ideological “just say no” drugs education doesn’t work, nor does criminalising
young people to “send them a message”. Research shows honest, broad-based
campaigns to teach children to resist impulsive behaviour in general are needed.
And to keep young people who do take drugs alive? They need practical ‘harm
reduction’ advice to minimise the risks - like the crush, dab, wait campaign -
something Anne-Marie Cockburn wishes had been around before her daughter
died.

And perhaps the most important reason of all? Because it doesn't have to be this
way.
 READ MORE
Why is Marvel still obsessed with aggressive hyper-masculinity?
Ireland is now planning to follow Portugal, which decriminalised all drug users
15 years ago, and put the money into health care. Use didn’t go up, far fewer
people now die of overdoses, HIV infections from sharing needles fell from
over 1000 a year, to double digits. Similarly, in a growing number of countries
supply of cannabis - and even heroin through doctors' medical prescription - are
now legally regulated, with positive results. By contrast, in the UK, young
people's ecstasy use is the highest in years, their cocaine use is sharply up, and
overall, we now have the highest levels of drug deaths on record.

According to modern scientific studies, it is clear that alcohol and tobacco, currently legal
all over the western world, are at least as harmful as many "hard" illegal drugs are.

It is essentially impossible to overdose on marijuana or LSD, but you can buy a lethal dose
of liquor in any store for a few hours-worth of wages.

Here is a neat chart showing the harm caused by drugs, with information from a study by
David J. Nutt et al. The study results were then also confirmed by the University of
Amsterdam.

3.3 million deaths every year are caused by alcohol - a frightening number. Yet it is legal and
most people in the USA don't have any doubts that the 1920s prohibition completely
failed, with alcohol use rates soaring and money going directly to the rich gangsters,
causing high levels of street violence.

Until the late 1919s, most currently illegal drugs could be considered completely legal to
manufacture, use and sell.

The only one that was illegal? Opium. The same opium that is currently happily put into
pills, killing hundreds of people every day just in the US.

Another major problem that stems from prohibition are the numbers of people who have
been jailed just for being caught with a small amount of a drug deemed illegal by the state.

I am of the opinion that the imprisonment of people for possessing and using illegal drugs is
going to be something students in the future will read about in their
schoolboooks next to lobotomies and racial segregation.

I have read quite a few studies that said most people who try an illegal drug don't
automatically become an addict. After talking to psychologists about the nature of drug
addiction while working on some of my past projects, I am of the opinion that any sort of
drug addiction is above all a symptom of a mental illness or an escapist remedy for a bad
financial and social situation.

Most people who drink alcohol don't become addicted to it, however many alcoholics,
reportedly 63%(!) tend to either use illegal drugs or they have a history of
illegal drug use. Alcohol has always been used disproportionately by the people in poor
and neglected communities and families, and it is statistically proven that people with
depression or other mental illness have a higher tendency to drink and use drugs.

I am of the opinion that a mentally stable and healthy person, who is generally satisfied with
his life, would have to actively try to become addicted to the majority of illegal drugs,
and would be able to notice and stop any growing dependence before it was too late.

I have talked to a few people who have used an illegal drug in the past out of curiosity, and
most of them just haven’t ever felt like doing it again.

Those people who get addicted to an illegal drug need help, definitely not a free tuition
for the crime college (paid from the wallet of the tax payer). Prison is not going to cure a
mental illness, it will make it way worse. As a bonus, they are in the environment full of
thugs and gang members, a lot of them legitimately sociopathic people, that might even help
them become a true, professional criminal.

Some drugs can cause you to become violent and dangerous to those around you, but
the textbook example of that is alcohol. People don't consider drinking or smoking to
be as bad as doing cocaine just because the society just got used to it.

The legalization of marijuana showed that the amount of people who bought and used it did
not significantly change. In the Netherlands, the number of marijuana smokers even went
down after legalization.

I doubt anyone who doesn't already use illegal drugs would go buy and use heroin, crack or
meth if it was legal tomorrow. People should recognize the dangers that drugs can bring,
however after they reach adulthood they should be able to decide what they put into their
bodies, as it already is with alcohol nowadays.

Many people in their teenage years try illegal drugs as something that is "cool", as a part of
"rebellion" against the societal rules. If drugs were not as stigmatized by the law and the
general public, it is quite likely it would discourage some people from trying them in the
first place.
I think the full-scale legalization of all drugs could be disastrous if done recklessly. If a
country just decides to stop prosecuting people for any drug-related crime, drug dealers are
going to have a really wonderful time and the criminal industry will boom.

In order to work, however I think it could have massively positive effects on the
society if done correctly, but the change would need to be gradual and the industry
would need to be intensely regulated. If someone wants to buy a drug, they don't have
to make a lot of effort.

As technology and the internet becomes more widespread, buying illegal drugs is going
to only become easier and safer in the coming years. Even though we routinely do full-
body pat-downs and have full body scanners at airports, the vast majority of smuggled drugs
don't have any trouble getting in.

Even if we instituted a 1984-like totalitarian rule, people are going to find and use any weak
points. Even when it comes to North Korea, the "hermit kingdom", where you can be killed
just for leaving your town, people seem to have no trouble smuggling in illegal drugs.

Every year, a larger fraction of drugs is also being sold through the internet. It is quite easy
to make your online activities almost impossible to trace, and you can then pay someone a
bitcoin or two to have any drugs you desire sent to your address via express mail.

Unless the post office starts opening and examining all packages, this problem cannot
be solved and people will be able to get any drug safely and without hassle.

Eventually, online mail-order drugs are going to engulf such a share in the global illegal
drug market that the countries will be forced to either regulate the marketor abolish all
privacy.

Those who want drugs are going to get drugs

Additionally, there is currently a ±$450 billion global market of illegal drugs, and most of
that money goes to gangs, thugs, and also such nice people as ISIS and Taliban. All of those
organizations would be the ones who would be hurt the most if drugs were legalized and
regulated in any major or even mid-sized country.

Government of that country could instead get that money in the form of a "sin tax", as it is
currently done with alcohol and tobacco, and use it to treat those who need it.

If the recreational drug market was legalized and regulated, all drugs in the market would
be manufactured and sold by regulated, certified and taxed corporations, either private or
government-owned.
Additionally, any recreational drugs that would get to the market would have to be certified
by the government, and would only contain what they claim to contain.

Majority of drugs currently in the market are of a very questionable purity, often containing
dangerous chemicals of unknown composition and origin. Even those who use "soft drugs",
such as marijuana or psychedelics, risk accidentally purchasing something laced with a
much more dangerous drug, such as meth, heroin or PCP. In a well-regulated market, that
would not happen. Same issue appeared in the Prohibition, when gangs often mixed their
liquor with toxic methanol, occassionally causing blindness and death.

To sum it all up, here are the main reasons why I think that the manufacture, possession
and selling of drugs ought to be legalized and regulated:

1.People who want drugs are going to get drugs anyway

2.Prohibition does not help to decrease drug abuse rates

3.Prohibition will encourage gangs to sell drugs in an unregulated market,

increasing crime rates and financing violent gangs

4.Imprisoning people for abusing drugs does not work, does not try to solve
their drug problem, and can make them much more dangerous for society

5.Many already legal substances such as alcohol are at least as dangerous as

the majority of illegal drugs, yet they are legal

6.Most people won't take any dangerous drugs even if they were legal, it could
even decrease the drug abuse rates

7.People with a drug problem will not be discouraged anymore from getting the
help they need,

8.Government will be able to regulate the quality and origin of any recreational
drug, providing all neccessary information and listing the potential dangers
(cigarettes already have to contain warnings, recreational drugs could have
them as well). This could only work to minimize the harm to society

9.Governments would get the money that would have otherwise gone to
criminals, and could then use it for the benefit of society

I believe it is in the best interest of our society that we legalize and regulate
all drugs
 10.3k Views · View Upvoters · View Sharers
Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

 What would the pros and cons be of legalizing all drugs for recreational use in the U.S.?
 Why aren't drugs legal?
 What's your opinion on drugs? Should they be legalized, stay illegal, or be decriminalized?
(All drugs, not just marijuana).
 Which government department controls all drugs for legal use?
 Are drugs legal in Spain?
Ask New Question

Jonathan Phillpotts, Prohibition has failed, let's try something else.

Updated Apr 23, 2018 · Author has 176 answers and 153.6k answer views
Originally Answered: Why should drugs be legalized?
Why should drugs be legalized?

There are plenty of reasons why drugs should be legalized, here are a few…

 The money.
The drug business is huge. Worth an estimated $400 billion annually* that money is
directly funding criminal organisations that project their power with violence, fear and
murder. In certain countries criminal organisations rival their governments for control of
their country, such is their wealth, power and influence.

The reason they have this power is simple. People like getting high. For as long as there is
record there are cases of people taking various compounds that change there state of mind.
People will (and do) take drugs regardless of their illegality, hence the $400 billion a year
market.

On top of that, globally, we spend over $100 billion dollars+ in fighting the war on drugs.
We arrest and prosecute people for taking drugs regardless if they are otherwise law
abiding, respectable citizens. What do we get for our money? Overflowing prisons with non-
violent inmates, many prisoners in America are locked up just for smoking weed. Yet the
drugs still flow, bullets still fly and nothing changes.

Surely it would be better to legalise and create jobs in the supply, distribution and
manufacture of drugs. Tens of millions of jobs created, businesses created and all of those
businesses and employees paying tax into the system. Tax that can fund schools, hospitals,
infrastructure etc.

Instantly all those profitable criminal enterprises vanish and with them the criminals power
and influence. Shootings, murders and violence may spike in the short term but would soon
plummet and in the long term they would level out at a substantially reduced rate.

 The safety.
Detractors from legalization will always state that drugs are dangerous and deadly and they
have a point. But that is actually a reason to legalize not keep them illegal.

A user who has overdosed and needs medical attention is more likely to do so if they know
that they wont be arrested for it or if they have seriously overdosed then it’s more likely that
their friends will take them to the hospital/call an ambulance if they wont be prosecuted.

Drugs that are legal would have to be manufactured in sterile lab conditions and adhere to
regulations significantly lessening the chances of an overdose occurring because a user will
know the strength of the drug by checking the label. It also frees them of the worry of what a
drug has been cut with, further reducing the risk of taking the drug.

If drugs were legal then companies could come up with products to help negate the side
effects of drugs; For example an alkaline spray to counteract the damage done by snorting
cocaine. Which offers further business and employment opportunity.

 Freedom and Rights.

The history behind the prohibition of drugs is full of racism, scaremongering and business
owners protecting their interests. It’s about time we took a more enlightened view and not
deny people their pleasure or their relief, nor should we arrest and scupper the future
prospects of a person because they took drugs and got caught. That is the best case. Let’s not
forget about the government sanctioned murder of drug users in the Philippines or the
thousands who are killed in countries around the world.

Then there are the farmers and villages who’s only viable livelihood is growing crops for
drug production. They face countless threats from drug eradication policies including loss of
income, torture and death.

"The current international system of drug control has focused on creating a

drug free world, almost exclusively through use of law enforcement policies
and criminal sanctions. Mounting evidence, however, suggests this approach
has failed ... While drugs may have a pernicious effect on individual lives and
society, this excessively punitive regime has not achieved its stated public
health goals, and has resulted in countless human rights violations."

– Anand Grover, UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, 2010

In conclusion drug legalization would be a good thing. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be
problems but I feel that the positives out weigh the negatives.

tl/dr; It benefits countries and citizens with jobs, business opportunity and tax revenue. It
greatly reduces crime especially violent crime and strips hundreds of billions of dollars from
criminals and provides people the dignity and rights to earn a living.

*Drug Statistics - Worldometers

+Wasting billions on drug law enforcement

3.4k Views · View Upvoters

Adrian Fitzpatrick, All positions at B-Juice, Made in Buckfastleigh. (2014-present)
Answered Feb 13, 2017 · Upvoted by Bob Killam, working 40+ years to legalize marijuana and finally
winning. · Author has 120 answers and 77.8k answer views
Originally Answered: Should we oppose the legalization of drugs?
Quoted from Adrian Fitzpatrick's answer to How would society change if every single drug
was made legal and available over the counter?

“This is a huge,far reaching question, my answer briefly outlines a few of the main benefits
this action would almost certainly bring.

There would be a huge reduction in prison population, a huge reduction in the numbers of
otherwise completely law abiding and productive citizens being processed by the legal
system, from police officers through the court and penal system.

There would be fewer deaths from drugs, and problematic users would find it easier to seek
appropriate help if they required it, with less social stigma.

Prohibition of drugs arguably ruins more lives than the drugs themselves. Imagine a
teacher, for example, caught going through an Underground station by a random check after
a night out. Police find a tablet of ecstacy, and a couple of grams of weed in is pocket, traces
of cocaine in his wallet. Its doubtful this would be processed through the criminal law
system, but there would be a caution, he would be required to inform the school where he
teaches, he will almost certainly lose his job, the caution stays on his record and will affect
his future employment prospects. A productive member of society , out of work, and
criminalised, for choosing to use certain substances . This person has committed a ‘crime ‘
with no victim, his choices affect only himself.

Statistically he would be far more likely to die, injure himself, commit a public order
offence, commit an act of domestic violence, crash a motor vehicle, or urinate in a public
place , if he had been out drinking alcohol, and nothing would stop him if he went on to
drink so much he required emergency intervention, ambulance, hospital time, etc. Which he
is, again , more likely to require than a recreational drug user.

It’s fair to say in this case the application of the law, even at its most lenient, will have
caused this person far more damage , with far greater long lasting consequences, then the
recreational use of the substances ever caused him. Binge drinkers are not punished for
using alcohol, but when other laws are broken, they are then processed through the legal
system. We don’t automatically treat every drinker as a criminal, because some of them may
go on to become perpetrators of domestic violence. As a society we trust that the majority of
drinkers will in fact manage not to commit crimes after using alcohol. This trust should be
extended to users of all drugs, the majority of whom will use whatever drug they choose,
without starting a fight with a taxidriver/their partner/best friend/sister/best man* (delete
as applicable) or urinating up the side of a police car.

In the case of heroin, and in the UK, GPs could prescribe diamorphone to addicts , just as
they did until the 1970’s*, taking the pharma companies preferred, but far less effective
option, methadone, out of the equation.
With no need to ‘recruit’ other users into a heroin habit in order to fund their own habits,
these users could go on living a perfectly productive life, integrated into society, employed in
full time work, with drastically reduced health risk compared to their current daily routines
( get up , find cash for heroin, find dealer,find ‘heroin’ of uncertain potency or containing
possibly dangerous and completely unknown compounds (cutting with fentanyl seems to be
becoming more prolific, with far more potential for overdoses than already exists) take
heroin).

Its already been proven to work in Switzerland, where providing long term addict s with a
clean pharm-grade supply of known purity has been rolled out since 1994. The amount of
heroin the heaviest users use has decreased, associated criminal activity has reduced
drastically, to nothing in the case of those on the Zurich programme, with the heaviest users
no longer buying large amounts, the black market is a lot less viable for the unscrupulous
dealers, and so it’s harder for casual or new users to find heroin easily, and very tellingly ,
the average age of a heroin addict in Switzerland has been rising since the start of the
programme. The younger generations aren’t being drawn into the scene by older addicts
wanting to subsidise their usage, and the addicts are not dying.

There are so many benefits to legalising all drugs it’s not possible to list each one, but
inherently, harm reduction, the key point is that prohibition is the antithesis of harm
reduction.

The Misuse of Drugs Act and the drug classification system is laughable in it’s failure to
achieve anything positive with its flawed statement of intent and refusal to acknowledge
empirical fact . There may once have been a time when the majority of the populace believed
what they were told……

“drug use is very bad, the users are naughty people, they shouldn’t be allowed to take drugs,
We are doing this for their own benefit, we don’t want them to take drugs and die, if we put
them in prisons they will stop wanting to take drugs, and so will everyone else when we use
custodial sentences as a deterrent [but they can continue to take the two most dangerous
ones , which kill despite the controls implied by legal production, supply and controlled
points of sale, we’ve got to stop too many people reaching pensionable ages somehow and
there hasn’t been a decent war for too long]”

I doubt there are many people in the UK (other than the most blinkered Daily Mail fanatics)
who at the very least don’t question part of, or all of this hypocrisy. And the main intended
effect of prohibition, to stop people from using prohibited drugs, does not succeed , ever. If
somebody wants to use a drug, they will obtain it. Drug users do not pull themselves up and
change their mind when they realise their substance of choice is a scheduled drug. It doesn’t
stop users from using, it just puts those users in greater danger.

Oh and taxes too, from the controlled sale of all manner of substances .It might even win
round the Mail reading lot that one, the freeing up of more police officers ,and more tax
generated so future governments can carry on with their obsessive reduction in income tax
and other taxes taking Middle England’s wealth.

*until the 1970’s heroin use was not a huge cause of death by overdose and the number of
users was pretty stable, the diamorphine scripts didn’t lead to increased usage, there was no
real issue with associated criminal activity as addicts didn’t have to fund their habits, and it
was only when the governments changed the approach, (with, incidentally, a lot of input
from the pharmaceutical companies) and introduced the methadone “wondercure” that
heroin use drastically increased, and death by overdose became a daily fact of life in the
heroin users’ world.”

tl,dr

No, we should welcome it.

1k Views · View Upvoters

Bruce McKinney, A student of the constitution.

Answered Jun 30, 2016 · Author has 1.7k answers and 947.9k answer views
Originally Answered: Why shouldn't the US legalize all drugs?
The United States should regulate and tax all drugs. The word “legalize” is vague, but
implies that a legalized drug should not be taxed or regulated. It should simply be available
in whatever way the market chooses. This is sometimes called the “tomato model” on the
assumption that tomatoes aren’t specifically regulated or taxed. But of course tomatoes are
indirectly regulated and taxed, as are all products.

Potentially dangerous drugs should be specifically regulated and taxed with specific
regulations based on the nature of the drug. This doesn’t mean you should be able to buy
heroin at a convenience store. There are various regulatory models for drugs: the alcohol
model, the tobacco model, the caffeine model, the herbal model, and the prescription model.
You have to look at each drug to see how to regulate it.

Many people say that’s OK for marijuana, but what about heroin? So let’s look at heroin.

This drug is apparently used by around one percent of the population, yet it accounts for a
huge part of the drug war expense and corruption. A heroin addict who gets heroin is among
the least dangerous members of society. A heroin addict who has trouble getting heroin is
among the most dangerous members of society. So our prohibition system is directed to
making heroin addicts as dangerous as possible. We would do better with a regulatory
model that discourages heroin use, but allows people who really want to be addicts to obtain
it in a controlled way.

There is always room to debate different systems of regulation, and as we know from some
of the peculiarities of alcohol regulation in different states, no regulatory system is perfect.
But prohibition has proved its failure far beyond the point at which you would expect a
rational society to tolerate it.

2.9k Views · View Upvoters

Drew Henry, Drug Legalization Proponent

Updated Nov 29, 2016 · Author has 924 answers and 1.7m answer views
Shouldn’t
Some drugs are highly addictive, can have serious long term consequences, or pose serious
short term risks. As such, it might be desirable to keep their non-medicinal use to a
minimum.

Should

Banning drugs is (somewhat) arrogant. If you are attempting to have a drug banned, that
should imply that you have already chosen not to use that drug yourself. Hence, you aren’t
trying to prevent yourself from using that drug but rather you are trying to prevent other
people from doing so. In other words, despite the fact that you and a drug user that you do
not know are completely arbitrary people, you presume to be in a better position than they
are to decide what is best for them and what they should be doing with their body.

Banning drugs results in otherwise peaceful people being punished. This is the case with all
preemptive laws and becomes worse as the laws become more detached from the actual
crimes (theft, murder, etc.) that they are trying to prevent. By banning a drug in an attempt
to prevent addicts from, say, stealing from people, then you will inevitably end up punishing
people who choose to use that drug but most likely will never commit theft because of it.

People want to do drugs. Banning drugs, then, tends to create more problems than it to
solve. What happens when you ban drugs? Prices go up (and as a corollary, so does the
temptation to steal). Quality control goes down and overdose potential goes up. Criminal
records make it more difficult for users to become productive. Courts of law are inaccessible
and so drug disputes end up being resolved with violence. The lives of scientists, people with
colds, and doctors are inconvenienced.

Expanding on that last sentence, making drugs illegal makes it difficult for scientists to
research those drugs. It also makes it difficult for doctors to treat patients (heroin, for
instance, is banned even medicinally in the United States despite being a more efficient pain
reliever than morphine).

Alcohol is never going to be banned again (at least not in the foreseeable future). Give
people safer alternatives and expect alcohol consumption, and all the negative consequences
that often follow from it, to go down.

Banning drugs is a political issue. As such, if you attempt to ban drugs via government,
there is a good chance that the laws you end up with aren’t going to mirror your intentions
very well. See, for instance, the Controlled Substances Act.

2.6k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Sandy Wilkins and Scott Bruno

Jeremy Schoenhaar, It Technician (2009-present)

Answered May 22, 2017 · Author has 1.6k answers and 540.2k answer views
This is a really tricky question that powered by a lot of emotional involvement on both sides
so lets look at what prohibition is SUPPOSED to accomplish before its answered.

 reduction of the number of drug users and abusers

 reduction in drug related crime
  reduction in drug related death
Now we need to ask ourselves, “have any of these goals been realized by prohibition?”

 according to Statistics on Drug Addiction heroin addiction in people between 18

and 25 has doubled over the last 10 years
 according to Nationwide Trends the abuse of marijuanna and other popular illicit
drugs has risen in the last 10 years while the abuse of prescription drugs and
psychedelics has stayed stable
 I couldn’t find any statistics on this. Considering that possession and smuggle are
drug related crimes, caused solely by the prohibition itself, it is safe to assume
drug related crime has risen. Drug price is largely related to the risk of sale and has
a huge influence on crime considering addicts will commit crimes to get money for
drugs. according to Heroin Prices - Havocscope the price of a gram of heroin was
$2,40 in afgahnístan but $110 in the United States. The price increase is largely
risk based. At $110 per gram, since general use has gone up, its safe to assume that
drug related property and/or violent crime has also increased
 according to Overdose Death Rates drug overdose deaths have more then doubled
since 2002.
it’s safe now to say that prohibition has NOT reached its goal.

Now lets look at what other countries have done differently. Since Portugal was the first
country to decriminalize all drugs and treat addiction as a health problem instead of a
criminal justice problem (decriminalized year 2001 after the advice of medical doctors was
followed)

 according to Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in

Portugal drug use has gone down by half between 2002 and 2011
 according to 14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's What Portugal Looks
Like drug crime has also decreased significantly
 Why hardly anyone dies from a drug overdose in Portugal shows that overdose
deaths have decreased since decriminalization.
If the goals of prohibition have failed to been reached by prohibition then why hang on to a
system that has failed? There are numerous potential answers to this question, here are a
few that may help you decide if it makes sense

 a failed ideology is more important then human life

 your more interested in feeding private prison corporations tax dollars then
treating addicts.
 you really don’t care how many young people are dying from drug use, change is
always bad
 you don’t like using your own brain and would rather have Jeff Sessions think for
you.
 if your own child became addicted to drugs you would rather see him die then
receive treatment.
 you would rather that drug money finances Criminal gangs and cartels then
schools, education and treatment.
Personally I don’t see anything in the US constitution that would prohibit the the
Government from prohibiting substances (contrary to the German constitution but thats a
different topic), I do however question the wisdom of doing so.
Now, you get to decide

382 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Trey DiCarlo

Chris Joosse, you kids get off my lawn

Updated Mar 28, 2014 · Author has 2.4k answers and 4m answer views
Originally Answered: Should all currently illegal drugs be legalized?
In my view, the question boils down to whether or not prohibition is more harmful than not
doing it would be.

I take the view that banning anything that people want merely drives commerce in that
thing into black markets, and makes criminals out of people engaged in that
commerce. Said criminals face obstacles to obtaining the sorts of medical care that drug
users so often need.

To focus on the harms of prohibition:

1) It enriches organized crime, who are willing to compete for market share in terrifying
ways. This makes addicts, users, and dealers even more vulnerable- what, are they going to
call the police?
2) It hasn't worked, despite consuming enormous resources. Gigantic waste of time and
money.
3) It's resulted in expansive and sometimes abusive practices by law enforcement. For
example, police can now seize property from people without due process or recourse, on
mere suspicion that it's related to drug trade. For another example, minorities are arrested
and incarcerated at much higher rates than other groups, despite more or less even usage
rates in comparable populations.
4) prohibition isolates addicts from seeking and obtaining the medical care they need. Cops
aren't trained to deal with health issues. Untreated health/mental health issues account for
a disproportionate amount of the sort of crime and violence we actually need cops for.

Prohibition seeks to discourage use/abuse of [whatever] by driving down availability and

driving up price and risk. Unfortunately, this approach has proven not to work. At
all. Under prohibition, the #1 cash crop in the US has been weed, for years.
Typically, folks who endorse prohibition claim that it's good for people because it keeps
[that stuff] out of peoples' hands. ...except that it sometimes doesn't. Where I grew up, it
was harder for teenagers to get beer (which was legal, but regulated) than it was for them to
get weed (which was illegal, but dealers don't card, man.)

I'd argue that drug prohibition is more harmful than non-prohibition. The downsides of
drug abuse (addiction, people being crazy and stupid) are with us regardless, but the
downsides of prohibition only come with doing it.
1.1k Views · View Upvoters

Ankit Kumar, studied Aerospace and Aeronautical Engineering & Fluid Dynamics at Indian Institute
of Technology, Kanpur (...
Answered Sep 8, 2016 · Author has 221 answers and 226.2k answer views
Drugs should be legalized absolutely and completely. It would save lots of efforts on people’s
part and on government’s part. Firstly it is again the whim of few to be imposed on other.
No one has no right to tell anyone what they should do with their own body. It is much more
evident that cigarettes and alcoholism kills more people in world than drugs but still it does
not lead to all those crimes and killing of innocents. Once legalized drugs would be like any
other commodity and would be safe to you. Legalization would also make sure that drugs
available in market are of highest purity and quality not the ones with toxic products. People
won’t be spending too much of money on drugs and further lesser money would be spent on
the judicial process. The only reason drugs are not legal in every country is because they
provide huge incomes to top bureaucrats and politicians. Once taken out of the hands it
would rob them of their big source of income. Lesser number of drug offenses mean that
lawyers also would have lesser incomes i.e. why most of the lawyers are in favor of drug
control.

More than health or other concerns. The banning of drugs is like living in dark ages where
they used to hang people who went against the authority of church. It is a fundamental right
of human being to decide what they want to do of themselves.

It is not just about drugs but about other things like prostitution gambling or other things
which pose no harm to other person in society and are done with consent.

A small read about the country which legalized the drugs and their crime rates.

14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's What Portugal Looks Like

793 Views · View Upvoters

Mike Peattie, Amateur

Answered Dec 11, 2012 · Author has 1.9k answers and 2.5m answer views
Originally Answered: Should the federal government legalize drugs?
Yes. There are three main issues with making drugs illegal.
1. Declaring something illegal makes it impossible to regulate.
2. Criminalization of drug users make the problem worse, not better. People are
afraid to seek treatment, because of the legal troubles they might get into. Others
are funneled into the criminal justice system, which makes it more difficult for
them to be contributing members of society, and more likely to commit more
crimes.
3. Saying something is illegal does not stop people from wanting it, so the drug trade
is run by organized crime. You legalize drugs, you almost completely eliminate the
need for regular people that want to use drugs to interact with criminal
syndicates.

The downside is that by making drugs illegal, it's inevitable that more people would try
them. If we merely just made all drugs legal and sat back, there's no doubt there would be
some bad outcomes, although it's not at all clear this would outweigh the current bad
outcomes due to criminalization. But if we put even a fraction of the billions of dollars we
spend on currently on drug treatment and education, I feel strongly that the situation would
get significantly better very quickly.
1.6k Views · View Upvoters

Balaji Viswanathan, CEO of Invento Robotics.

Answered Dec 16, 2013 · Author has 4.5k answers and 280.4m answer views
Originally Answered: Why don't we legalize drugs? If cigarettes and alcohol can be made legal, why not
drugs?
In modern societies there is a constant tradeoff between individual liberties and public
safety. Governments assume the role of protecting innocent people from themselves. It is
not quite clear on where to draw the line.

The prohibition of drugs is fairly recent, but the drug problem is fairly ancient. Even a
century ago, Bayer was selling heroin over the counter as a cough medicine (more images at
the bottom).

The central part of this story is China. Initially, the European powers were "for drugs".
Britain fought China over Opium Wars in the early 19th century when China banned the
import of opium. China lost the war and Britain was successful in legalizing opium.

By the end of the 19th century, China was in complete disarray as millions got addicted to
Opium. There were Opium dens where Chinese peasants gathered and smoked all day. It
was brutal.

As the Chinese workers started migrating to Europe and America, so did the opium habits.
San Francisco, New York and London now had a number of these opium dens. The US
government didn't bother with this initially. By 1906, world opium production was about
41000 tons (7x of today and about 30 times percapita).

Initially it was limited to the Chinese migrants and thus, the authorities didn't bother much.
However, the local population slowly started getting addicted. Rumor was that plenty of
white women were frequenting these opium dens and getting into slavery. Pharmacies sold
these drugs for women in pain during their menstrual cycle.

The growing nature of addiction, prevailing Victorian era mores and the racism against
Chinese immigrants together forced a change in laws. Initially, there was a ban on smoking
these drugs (as the Chinese were primarily smoking, instead of taking it in liquid form like
the Europeans did). By the early 20th century, smoking in opium dens got completely
banned.

Drug laws are extremely severe in East Asia (far more than it is in the US) primarily due to
the Chinese experience. When the drugs were legal, about a century ago, things were not
really rosy. Although, we are more aware of the illeffects, the 19th century China offers a
cautionary tale of what happens when the society as a whole go into an addiction mode.

15.9k Views · View Upvoters

Kat Jezekov, works at Dishwashers

Answered Jul 18, 2016 · Author has 225 answers and 273.4k answer views
Originally Answered: Assuming that we can agree that cannabis should be regulated and legal
recreationally, what age should it be allowed for someone to have it and why?
Personally, I think all usage under 18 should not be illegal, but rather a parenting and family
matter. If a parent let’s their 17-year-old daughter have a beer at home or smoke a joint in
the backyard, she’ll feel much less inclined to keep other illicit behaviors secret. Teenagers
are going to experiment with soft drugs and alcohol. If I had a child, I’d much rather they
experiment at home, in a safe and controlled environment around the two people in the
world who care the most about them. If my child were to have a bad reaction to LSD, or
molly, or whatever they are experimenting with, I want to have the ability to know and
address the problem. If your child knows that drugs are something to keep secret, they will
do exactly that. Then when they pass out drunk at a random acquaintances house and their
friends freak out and bail, they wake up the next morning in a pool of vomit instead of with
me, in bed, with a puke bowl, or in the hospital getting the treatment they need

688 Views · View Upvoters

Christopher Pollock, LA resident | UCSD Grad | Cinephile | Stoic

Answered May 28, 2014 · Author has 225 answers and 837.5k answer views
Originally Answered: Do you think they should legalize drugs?
Every form of argument imaginable comes to the same logical conclusion that recreational
drugs should be legalized for adults.

From a liberties angle, adults have the right to do what they wish so long as they are not
harming others.

From an economic angle, legalizing drugs will save our federal government a trillion dollars
a year by lowering the costs of police and prisons and boost the free market economy
tremendously.

From the violence angle, ending prohibition will completely strip the underworld economy
of its most driving cash flow.

From a health perspective, MDMA, LSD, and marijuana have all proven to have health
benefits when used spatially. If we are to justify their illegalization due to the damage they
cause in excess, then we should outlaw everything that is bad in excess. And that is pretty
much everything that can possibly be consumed.

From a community angle, recreational drugs have the power to connect people on a very
personal level and bring individuals to thought processes they might never normally come
to.

From a historical measurement, outlawing drugs has only proven to keep ethnicities down
in status.

Anyone who believes drugs should be illegal needs to watch The House I Live In, How to
Make Money Selling Drugs, and The Wire.
1.4k Views · View Upvoters

Anonymous
Answered Aug 21, 2010
Yes: Prohibition causes more problems than it solves: it hurts families, the economy, causes
organized crime problems, makes us all spend absurd amounts of money locking people up,
and forces people to hide their addictions/dependencies. Decriminalization has been a huge
success where it has been tried. Obviously, dangerous drugs should be more tightly
controlled, but how do you measure harm? Tobacco results in far more preventable deaths
than any of the opiates did when they were legal and easily available. Only very dangerous
poisonous drugs such as PCP are likely to justify prohibition; the others should simply be
taxed to just under the price of a profitable black market (so that the black market is
undercut.) For more information:
http://www.scientificamerican.co...
http://www.time.com/time/health/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inc...
3k Views · View Upvoters

Shashwat Keshri, Medical students @AIIMS Bhopal

Answered Aug 5, 2017
My views on the legalisation of drugs have raised many an eyebrows among my peers.

I think, all drugs should be made legal. Hear me out, before you judge me. Already, alcohol
and tobacco are the leading cause of death caused by avoidable habits. Alcohol alone causes
more deaths per year than all other recreational drugs combined. So, we are not doing the
world a big favor, by criminalizing drugs.

What criminalizing drugs actually does is, it causes the creation of a black market. A place
without law, ruled by force. The fact is, you can not stop the world from using drugs, so why
not regulate it?

Take tobacco for example, right now, it is legal and regulated by the government. The
government ensures that the tobacco that is sold is free of adulteration, it mandates the use
of filters in most cigarettes, and through public awareness programs, it is raising awareness
against smoking. The government, while doing this, get a lot of income from the tax levied
upon it.

Think for a moment, what would happen, if suddenly, tobacco is made illegal. Would people
stop smoking? No. All it would do is, create a black market. There would be no check on the
quality of tobacco being sold. Health risks that could be prevented with better regulation,
would prevail. There would be no way to check that it is not being sold to children. And the
jails would fill up with people who were involved in the “drug trade”, costing the
government billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration.

The same is happening with all other drugs. Nobody gains anything. What we need is a
proper channel for drugs, proper education, and proper counseling of the addicts. We need
rehabilitation instead of imprisonment. Would you rather have your son buy pot, from a
chemist, where you know that there is no adulteration, and there's strict quality control. Or
would you have him buy pot, from a guy in the alley, which could be treated with chemicals,
and also risk him spending 10 years in jail?

We destroy the “drug mafia”, we create awareness, we help the ones who are addicted to
drugs, we see to it that drugs are not mixed with chemicals, and we stop children from
getting hold of drugs! What's there to lose? It's really weird that we destroy more lives by
imprisoning people for using drugs, than the lives destroyed by using drugs.

213 Views · View Upvoters

Barb Kueber, Engaged in the War on Drugs.......

Updated Sep 6, 2017 · Author has 727 answers and 785.3k answer views
I will answer on the assumption that your question relates to drugs not currently regulated,
drugs often sold on the street or even medical dispensaries.

I think most people consider the topic in 2 parts cannabis and all the other drugs, especially
those "hard drugs" and I'll presume you are not asking about the devastating drug, alcohol.

Ah yes, alcohol, so it's is very harmful and yet, it is legal. Let's cut it, it is the single most
destructive drug out there but that's not why it's legal.

Why is it legal? Because prohibition doesn't work and it didn't work.

How do we know this? From Cops.....no way?!

And from Judge James P. Gray

and it costs a lot of money.....

Thanks to Wikipedia for the following excerpt -

Arrests and incarceration
Operation Mallorca, US Drug Enforcement Administration, 2005[52]
Graph demonstrating increases in United States incarceration rate
According to Human Rights Watch, the War on Drugs caused soaring arrest rates which
deliberately disproportionately targeted African Americans.[53]
The present state of incarceration in the U.S. as a result of the war on drugs arrived in
several stages. By 1971, different stops on drugs had been implemented for more than 50
years (for e.g. since 1914, 1937 etc.) with only a very small increase of inmates per 100,000
citizens. During the first 9 years after Nixon coined the expression "War on Drugs",
statistics showed only a minor increase in the total number of imprisoned.
After 1980, the situation began to change. In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all
crimes had risen by 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%.[54] The US
Department of Justice, reporting on the effects of state initiatives, has stated that, from
1990 through 2000, "the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total
growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of
the growth among white inmates." In addition to prison or jail, the United States provides
for the deportation of many non-citizens convicted of drug offenses.[55]
In 1994, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that the "War on Drugs" resulted in
the incarceration of one million Americans each year.[56]
In 2008, the Washington Post reported that of 1.5 million Americans arrested each year for
drug offenses, half a million would be incarcerated. In addition, one in five black Americans
would spend time behind bars due to drug laws.[57]
Federal and state policies also impose collateral consequences on those convicted of drug
offenses, such as denial of public benefits or licenses, that are not applicable to those
convicted of other types of crime.[58]
Sentencing disparities
In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed laws that created a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for the
possession or trafficking of crack when compared to penalties for trafficking of powder
cocaine,[59][60][61][62] which had been widely criticized as discriminatory against
minorities, mostly blacks, who were more likely to use crack than powder cocaine.[63] This
100:1 ratio had been required under federal law since 1986.[64] Persons convicted in federal
court of possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine received a minimum mandatory sentence of
5 years in federal prison. On the other hand, possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine
carries the same sentence.[60][61] In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act cut the sentencing
disparity to 18:1.[63]

Deleted video replaced ++

“Retired Police Captain demolishes the War on Drugs”

Cops say....
Why Legalize Drugs?
« Previous Page

We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal
damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these
drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge
profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and
children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control.
History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is
arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply
nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for
an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the
enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of
dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more
potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.
We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing
appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus
more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder,
making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-
violent personal drug use destroys families. We believe that in a regulated and controlled
environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. And we
believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the
criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths

1.9k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Sandy Wilkins, Trey DiCarlo, and 2 more

Emi Swymn, USDA (2016-present)

Answered Mar 10, 2018 · Author has 152 answers and 87.4k answer views
This is a difficult question to answer. On one hand, I live in Eastern Kentucky, and I have
seen the effects of debilitating opioid addiction. I have also used many drugs, for varying
amounts of time. On the other hand, however, I am a liberatian (of sorts), and I’ve also seen
the effects of jailing non-violent drug users.

To legalize all drugs would make jobs. It would generate revenue, and taxes, and there
would be much stricter laws on drug use. However, look at how well that’s worked. If you
talk to a well-read drug user, or advocate, you will know how[1] the DEA and the federal
government assigns certain drugs (scheduling). Marijuana is in the same schedule as heroin,
LSD, and ecsatsy. It’s in a higher schedule than opioids, methamphetamine, and cocaine.
Anyone with first hand knowledge about drugs knows that this is silly. Marijuana has a
higher potential for abuse than meth?! Why do we think the government won’t mismanage
legalised drugs?

Legalizing drugs could lessen cartel’s monopoly on illegal substances, but again, look at the
opioid epidemic. Pain pills (oxycodone, methadone, hydromorphone) are legal, but there is
still a black market for these drugs. So, it’s not prudent to say that legalizing all drugs would
result in the disbanding of all cartels. You could also talk about how to CIA helped with
certain cartels in Colombia in the 1980’s[2] . Government intervention isn’t always the best
solution.

Let’s talk about some other things that are prohibited. Murder, for one. (I’m not comparing
casual marijuana users to murderers, merely using the term ‘prohibition’ as a likeness.)
Murder is illegal. I have no doubt that by the very fact that it is not legal, there are people
who will not kill others. Obviously, most people have a moral code that restricts harm
placed on others, and that’s a good thing. All I’m saying, is that prohibition, in some cases,
does work, and in a lot of others, does not.

I also find it interesting that a lot of the people who advocate for legalization of all drugs, are
also a lot of the same who call for more gun laws. (Obviously, this is not a gun control
discussion, but worth mentioning, nonetheless.) “Prohibition doesn’t work (in reference to
drug legalization)”, but “we need to prohibit gun access.” See how that works?

Anyhow-

There are people who wouldn’t use drugs even if they were legal. Bully for them. These are
the same people who don’t smoke, and don’t use alcohol, even though both are legal.
Conversely, there are people who use tobacco and alcohol long before it is legal for them to
use, and would continue to, whether they’re legal, or not.

Also, moral issues could be an issue. I am a Christian, and a conservative. I am also a former
addict and alcoholic. I was a stoner. I sold it, I smoked it, I made friends because of it, I
smoked when I woke up, I smoked before I went to bed. It was my life. For me to use
marijuana was wrong. I have a very addictive personality, and most things that are just
casual or fun for other people are very dangerous for me.

On The Greek word “pharmakia”- this is an interesting take on the Biblical definition of
witchcraft/drug use. Not exactly my take on it, but interesting, nonetheless.

*Sorry, I rambled a bit, and will likely come back to edit this.*

Footnotes
[1] DEA / Drug Scheduling
[2] The CIA Drug connection under Reagan

212 Views · View Upvoters

Derek Lutz, Self taught through hours of reading and research

Answered Mar 2, 2018
It's been quite clear for many years now that the war on drugs is a utter failure. Spain,
Portagul, and Italy have both passed Drug Liberalization. Drug Liberalization is where all
drugs under a certain weight are legal. Users go to a clinic get their fix and be on your way.
An idea like this sounds Ludacris, right? Well drug Addiction and overdoses fell by a
astronomical amount where drug Liberalization was legal. Like it all makes sense Make
drugs legal- Smaller Black market which means less lives lost, There is no question on what
the drug is cut with because it comes from a reputable source. Not some super lab who
knows where. The 9 billion dollar industry of black market drugs will take a huge hit. And
instead of fighting them we just legalize it and save 40.3 billion dollars (drugwarfacts.com)
That 40.3 billion is more than enough to put clinics all around the US and put nurses,
Counselors etc in them Instead of wasting Money on raids where there is just someone else
to step up Everytime the U.S should Pass drug Liberalization. They will make money off of
it. Arresting addicts does nothing. They get right back out and use again. It's a never ending
cycle. With Drug Liberalization, addicts will be given the chance to get help with a Alcohol
and substance abuse counselor and doctor at the clinic to see if they want help and actually
care for them and treat them like a human being. Did I mention it will bring HIV and other
diseases spread by sharing needles? The main argument against it is if we make drugs legal
people are gonna do them. The simple argument to that is What stopped people from doing
it when they were illigal? If there is a will there is a way. Not to mention Portagul did not
have many become addicts after Drug Liberalization. Sure people tried them but most didn't
turn into Addiction.

So, In conclusion Drug Liberalization works because it saves money, saves lives and is the
wise thing to do money wise, and caring about Americans and treating addicts like humans.
No one woke up one morning and said “hmmm Let me try ____ and get addicted so I can
slowly watch my life crash before my eyes” It's about time the Government does something
because way to many people are dying over the Black market drug industry or because of
overdosing. 64,070 people overdosed in 2016… That's more than the Vietnam war… How
many more people have to die until the government gets rid of the failed war on drugs?

110 Views

Scott Bruno, I am the antithesis of social engineering.

Answered Dec 23, 2015 · Author has 338 answers and 163k answer views
Originally Answered: Should all drugs be legalized worldwide?
YES! And we now have the evidence in the world to prove it. But before offering that
evidence I would like to share a few things on point.

The legalization and regulation of all drugs would empty the completely toxic and over
flowing prison and jail system, end the police state, disintegrate ALL cartels, and cut off a
massive amount of funding to the corrupt three letter agencies who in large part are the
TRUE cartels. This is not just about securing your individual right to own the domain of
your personhood, but it is about securing up every individuals right to person freedom of
and with themselves.

Each year the U.S. spends $100 BILLION USD on illicit drugs. Does this not suggest that
there is a rightful market for illicit drugs? IS IT NOT OBVIOUS that this is clearly a supply
and demand challenge that is based upon a persons freedom to choose to put whatever they
want into their bodies. Should such a choice not be a constitutional right? By the way, the
US Gov. Spends between $40 and $50 BILLION USD per year to "supposedly" fight drugs.
What a crock of shit.

Or perhaps you would like for a government run by the nations' best liars (lawyers) to
dictate and control what you can and cannot place into your body, eat, drink, or play. Well?

Look at Portugal, they were the first country on the planet to legalize all drugs beginning in
2001, now 14 years later look at the results. 14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's
What Portugal Looks Like.

Lastly take a look at the statistics, they are very clear. Juast have a look at the Drug Policy
organization headed up by Richard Branson, Founder and CEO of Virgin, who has brought
along a plethora of former presidents of countries, including top leadership from the
U.N. Drug War Statistics

1.2k Views · View Upvoters

Sean Campbell, I came. I saw. I scratched my head.
Answered Jul 2, 2015 · Author has 270 answers and 61.2k answer views
Originally Answered: Why don't we legalize drugs? If cigarettes and alcohol can be made legal, why not
drugs?
We don't legalize drugs because use of them can ruin families. Well, so can adultery, I guess,
which is a civil matter and gambling which is state-sponsored.

Drugs are illegal because of public health cost. Wait, I guess the ACA has gotten rid of THAT
concern.

If we let people do drugs, they might get addicted! Sure, people are addicted to tobacco (to
which we have options for cessation) and alcohol, but drug addiction is...Different.

Yeah, I got nothing. Unless, of course, you consider that keeping drugs illegal keeps
thousands of government employees employed, I see no reason to not allow freedom of
choice as it applies to personal consumption.
1.1k Views · View Upvoters

Nat Boddington, Preacher of happiness and well-being.

Answered Feb 4, 2017
They all should be legalized.

To put it rather bluntly only dumb people die on drugs, that’s only one stand point but think
about it like this; you wouldn’t go out and buy 4 1.5 leter bottle’s of vodka in one night
because you would die, you wouldn’t hang out by a cliff side and have three beers.

Further more if drugs were legalized there would be highly paid scientists studying drugs
and how to make them safer to consume. Not only that but drug related crime rates would
go down by at least 80% and we wouldnt have to worry about not knowing what it is that
people are taking. For example, a dealer has absolutely no legal obligation to sell you what
you are asking for really do they? You could be getting MDMA, but they could be sellimg you
a nasty research chemical that is likely to kill you. That would for the most part stop if they
were legalised. Too many people are dying from being sold fake MDMA, more people die
from drinking every year then taking real MDMA.

At the end of the day just like every bottle of booze has “drink responsibly ” written on it
tells you how many units a day are safe to drink, and the percentage written on the bottle - if
drugs were marketed this same way, less people would buy them and if they decided too
there would be a lot less risk involved due to knowing about it prior to taking it.

If it were up to me I’d legalise everything but krockadile. It makes so much more sense to
make drugs safer then trying to get people to stop doing them all together because the
people that don’t want to aren’t going to listen.

247 Views · View Upvoters

Paul Mulwitz, Veteran of military service and individual investor in common stocks.
Answered Dec 11, 2012 · Author has 3.7k answers and 3.8m answer views
Originally Answered: Should the federal government legalize drugs?
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to do anything about drugs. The "War on
Drugs" is unconstitutional. Drug regulation by the federal government is unconstitutional.

The 10th amendment to the Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

It doesn't get much more clear than that. There is no "Enumerated power" over drugs so the
feds are prohibited by the 10th amendment from doing so.

There are legal issues that have prevented the supreme court from ruling on this provision
of the constitution. The recent legalization of recreational marijuana use by Washington
and Colorado might be just the case where a ruling is made. If so, then a lot of the activities
of the federal government will come under scrutiny under this provision of the constitution.
817 Views · View Upvoters · View Sharers

Anonymous
Answered Mar 6, 2017
Originally Answered: Why should drugs be legalized?
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to
experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't
worth the hemp it was written on.” - Terence McKenna

190 Views · View Upvoters · Not for Reproduction

David Wright, works at Retirement

Answered Aug 11, 2017 · Author has 904 answers and 603.8k answer views
Up until the end of the Victorian age, you were free to put whatever you wanted into your
body, but during the first quarter of the twentieth century, all of that changed.

For a variety of reasons (most of which had little to do with individual health or safety) and
using a variety of methods (some decidedly dubious) governments began BANNING most
mind-altering substances. But it was not until Tricky Dick started the “War Against Drugs”
that things got SERIOUS.

Of course, he should have known better: history showed that Prohibition simply did not
WORK – in the 1920s, banning BOOZE had merely driven it underground and empowered
organised crime.
But disregarding the obvious, Nixon went ahead and began a “war” that, unlike Prohibition
– which only lasted a decade or so – has now raged for nearly FIVE decades. With no more
sign of a positive result than the FIRST time.

However, SOME sense is now (finally) being seen – although for political reasons, progress
is likely to happen with the speed of an arthritic snail.

It began with “medical marijuana” – and currently continues with a number of American
states (and a handful of countries) unilaterally LEGALISING hash - and in doing so, falling
foul of America’s FEDS.

And in much of Europe, possession of small amounts of “certain substances” is barely

bothered with, by their police.

So if the U.N., America and Europe DID suddenly acquire some gumption, what would be
the outcome? Well, this is where the title of this piece comes in. Perversely, I will begin
with…

CONS.

Anyone with a user friend, relative, or whose OWN life has been screwed up by drugs will
understandably wail like a banshee that Legalising And Regulating drugs is a road to HELL.
That drug use will increase exponentially and society will go straight down the dumper.

Except that eleven years ago, Portugal essentially decriminalised drugs – a half-way
measure – and the number of addicts plummeted. The “stolen sweets” dimension?

Still others claim our roads are dangerous enough as it is – and that stoners will make them
WORSE.

Except that drugs are covered by the same legislation as booze – and stoners drive WAY
SLOWER than drunks.

And that is really that. Which brings us to…

PROS.

Where to START?

Okay, how about MONEY? Pound, dollar or euro for pound, dollar or euro, the cash amount
required to deal with the fallout from Legalisation And Regulation is just a TINY percentage
of the VAST amount spent on Prohibition.

In chronological order – the DEA, Navy, Army, Customs, Police, courts, prisons (and that is
just in America) waste BILLIONS (short American or proper ones – take your pick) of
pounds, dollars or euros (again, take your pick – either way, it’s a shit-load of money) every
year on vain attempts to stem the tide – with NO significant effect.
Every time they bust a mule or dealer, they just create a job opportunity – which will be
filled immediately. And when they intercept a large haul, the suppliers simply treat it as
“shrinkage” and up the production – and if the supply On The Street DOES lessen, the price.

Then there is crime. World-wide, around half the people in jail are there for drug-related
offences. In America, that’s one person in 137 – a World Record (ironic, in “The Land Of
The Free”).

This has a number of adverse social effects that could be reversed by introducing L&R – and
a moratorium on inmates whose only crime was using.

First, you would free up cops, so they could go out and solve REAL crime.

Plus the American courts would have time to PROSECUTE real criminals, instead of
allowing them to plea-bargain their jail-time down – then see their sentences get reduced
again, as an expedient to reduce the pressure on their overcrowded prisons.

Is it not absurd that otherwise law-abiding citizens get sent to jail and acquire a criminal
record – for doing something that affects NO-ONE except themselves?

And in retarded countries, they face DEATH.

Finally in this section – the EFFECT of crime. How many people have returned to their
homes or cars to find someone has done THOUSANDS in damage, to grab a piece of tech
(TV, car-radio, computer) that they will only get a few quid, bucks or euros for, to finance
their habit for another day?

Which brings us to economics. Drugs that cost a few hundred quid, bucks or euros at source
cost hundreds of THOUSANDS by the time they reach The Street. And most of that money
goes to the barons. Legally-produced drugs would cost a TINY FRACTION of the illegal
ones, thus removing the need for the crimes that support it.

And while the illicit drugs’ CONSUMERS are mostly Westerners (44% American, 33%
European – 80% in total) the products come from some VERY dodgy places (in North
America: from Central and South America – and in Europe: mostly from Asia) which means
that much of the profit ends up supporting TERRORISM (forget about “fake” branded
goods).

Then what about the FARMERS? Yes – Westerners FORGET about THEM. Many are
FORCED into the trade and risk DEATH. But L&R would restore that trade to legitimacy
and their evil bosses would evaporate.

Finally in this section come the drug-producing countries themselves. Many assume they
are HAPPY to be a part of it, but the massive profits go straight to the drug barons – the
PEOPLE see little of it. All they see are thousands of their citizens gunned down by the
warring cartels, politicians blown up because they tried to STOP the carnage – and a total
absence of law, order or any effective government.

Then comes the environment. Environment? Yes – annually, the authorities crop-dust
umpteen TONS of assorted poisons onto illegal crops (which are often just washed and end
up on The Street, regardless – making users SICK). And as the farms are ruined, the
growers push into the forest to carve out new ones.

And of course, there are the drugs themselves. Following L&R, the situation would change
DRAMATICALLY.

First, there are a number of “nice” natural drugs which are far less harmful than the “hard”
drugs currently available – like coca leaves, which locals chew to combat altitude sickness in
the Andes and leaf marijuana, which can be smoked like herbal tobacco, rather than the
concentrate, which has to be mixed with highly ADDICTIVE “normal” tobacco – never mind
the “man-made” nasties like meth.

But the reason you rarely hear about them is that they take up lots of ROOM and are thus
less profitable to the criminals than their harder brothers.

Also, given that drugs like the afore-mentioned marijuana and others like MDMA
(“Ecstasy”) are less harmful than booze or nicotine, such substances would be available to
regular people without the necessity for them to come within the orbits of drug “pushers” –
who would like nothing more than to get them hooked on something stronger.

Furthermore, if drugs were L&R-ed, they would be manufactured and processed by

legitimate companies, ensuring purity, hygiene and known strength – qualities sadly lacking
in those knocked up in back-street “labs” and dirty huts in Third World countries.

Finally in this part comes IGNORANCE: it is inevitable that information about illegal drugs
comes from untrained friends of users – and pushers. But once L&R came in, there would
be a free flow of non-judgemental EDUCATED information, allowing everybody to KNOW
what they were getting INTO.

Now (again perversely) let us look at the LOSERS in L&R…

Drug barons, commercial companies running prisons, American criminals – who could now
be prosecuted PROPERLY, arms and military hardware manufacturers (the DEA, Navy,
Army, Customs and Police use a LOT of their wares) dodgy banks that “launder” drug
money, crooked politicians – the list is endless. But they all have one thing in common –
they are SCUM.

So who would be the winners? Well, obviously the drug USERS. But the PRINCIPAL
winners would be – OURSELVES.

Thousands of people would not DIE every year – some of whom just got caught in the
crossfire. Everyone could get STONED when they wanted, without FEAR. Petty crime might
not cease – but it would certainly REDUCE. As would our TAXES. And finance for terrorists
would be pinched – we would all be SAFER.

And for those in developing countries, their existence would be TRANSFORMED. Life in
many areas of Latin America resembles a war-zone, these days. No wonder those countries
are BEHIND reform.
In summation, if L&R were made law – internationally – everyone in this World would be
freer and RICHER. Now I’ll drink to THAT (or get stoned, whatever).

The time WILL eventually come – but for this writer, it will be too late. I’m SIXTY-FIVE
now. Statistically, my group are not even IN this fight. Most of us dabbled with hash in our
youth – and a few other things. But now we’re too OLD for that shit.

However, even WE are affected by the situation that now exists. We can be blown up by
terrorists. Robbed by desperate junkies. And we are ALL affected by the colossal amount of
MONEY that our idiot governments WASTE on this nonsense.

623 Views · View Upvoters

Teresa Temsi, Volunteer at a Suicide Hotline

Updated Jun 11, 2017 · Author has 67 answers and 788.5k answer views
Originally Answered: Should drugs be legalized?
It will never happen in America (we’re far too puritanical for that), but all drugs should
absolutely be legal.

There are so many arguments to make:

1. The libertarian argument. If consenting adults want to alter their

consciousness, why is that anyone else’s business? Why should we put people in
prison for decisions they make about their own minds, bodies, and lives?
2. The financial argument. We currently waste an absurd amount of money
tracking down recreational drug users, throwing them in jail, and destroying their
lives. When they get released, they find it difficult to get a job with a criminal
record—so they often go back to drugs. And why should I spend my tax money
locking these people up? Why has this become the problem of me, the taxpayer?
3. The moral argument. Drug use is a victimless crime. No one is hurt (other
than, possibly, the user himself). No violence is involved. I don’t think it’s right
that we steal people’s freedoms because of what’s in their bloodstream.
4. The pragmatic argument. Right now most drugs are illegal, but anyone who’s
so inclined can easily purchase whatever illicit substances they’d like. If we
actually want to combat drug use, we’d stop wasting money trying to punitively
dissuade people and instead we’d put that money toward proven treatments. It’s
just better for society that way. Also, people are going to use drugs anyway; better
they use them when they’re legal and regulated.
5. The gang argument. Right now when a person buys drugs, they’re funding
gangs and violence in other countries. Drugs are a multi-million dollar business,
and that money could be going back into our economy and creating jobs.
604 Views · View Upvoters

Joshua Engel, worked at The Rude Mechanicals

Answered Dec 11, 2012 · Author has 10.9k answers and 50.2m answer views
Originally Answered: Should the federal government legalize drugs?
I believe it's fairly obvious that the ban on marijuana is just plain stupid. The arguments for
continuing it are pitifully weak, especially when alcohol is still legal: it is at least as
dangerous. I don't even really consider it part of the argument; it's one of the few cases
where I can say absolutely that there's a right side and a stupid side and it's time to get past
that so that we can ask hard questions.

The ban on "hard" drugs is far more difficult to answer. I see it in breaking down along two
main lines:
 The point where your drug use becomes my economic harm (crime, treatment,
indigency; as compared to the costs of regulation).
 The degree to which it's worthwhile to have people protected against making some
of the stupider choices they can make.
By default, I tend to say that everything should be legal unless we've got a compelling reason
to make it illegal. The fact that some drugs are genuinely addictive gives us a compelling
reason, along both these lines. I'm all for allowing people to make bad choices, as long as
they are informed ones, but some things are hard to make informed choices about,
including how you're going to feel about something. Young people often make bad choices
that can't be fixed; addiction is one of those, and until you've been addicted it's hard to
believe just how awful it is.

That might not be compelling enough on its own, but addiction leads to more general
economic harm. We support the destitute, but we rarely believe it's right to support those
who choose to be destitute. A choice to disable yourself, as addiction often does, would be
treated as a mental problem that can have you institutionalized involuntarily.

It's hard to know how much economic damage would be done if addictive drugs were legal.
The prices would certainly drop, and so those who are addicted would not have to work so
hard to support their habits. But even today we have people who cannot afford food and
shelter, and since the drug habit makes work more difficult, it will certainly mean an
underclass who have to turn to crime. Crime is expensive out of proportion to the amount of
money taken: a car window broken to steal $10 in change is a $400 repair.

I don't know what the economic model there really is (and since we're talking about
economists, I'm sure I could dredge you up an economist to support either side). There are a
lot of known costs, including both the direct costs of the war on drugs and the indirect costs
of organized crime. It's much harder to know how many more addicts there would be if
obtaining drugs were easier.

I do know for certain that by putting marijuana in a class with these drugs we undermine
our own efforts to make them unattractive. Kids rapidly discover the lie and have no reason
to trust us on the genuine dangers associated with harder drugs.

In the absence of information, I would propose a phased-in experiment. Legalize marijuana,

and see what happens. If we continue to see an upside, legalize MDMA and LSD, and see
what happens. From that vantage point we'll have a lot more information to make an
informed choice. It's possible that with safe, legal alternatives, and more targeted drug
enforcement more effective and less costly, we may choose to keep the actual narcotics
illegal. Or we may find that the worries were so overblown we'd want to experiment with
legalizing them, too. But I wouldn't want to predict that when the next few steps will provide
us more information.
17k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Aman Anand

Leon Brennan, Recovering Drug Enthusiast.

Answered Aug 1, 2017 · Author has 569 answers and 2m answer views
I have and will give you what I feel is probably the most accurate answer this question will
ever receive. I wondered the answer to your question for so many years. I sat through jails,
rehabs, detox units, quarter houses, halfway houses, three quarter houses the 7th floor
Johnstown psychiatric ward and finally figured it out. It probably took me about 1000 hours
of dedication to come up with the answer. Why don't we legalize all drugs? Me and those
like me. I am so irresponsible and reckless while impaired. It doesn't matter that jail would
no longer be an expected outcome. If legalization of all drugs would happen in my lifetime,
the consequences would be suffered by so many. I endanger everyone while under the
influence. My immaturity and failure to consider anything other than the next hit ruins it for
everyone and for that I apologize…

Leon

306 Views · View Upvoters

River McDunne, former Nurse

Answered Jun 13, 2017 · Author has 510 answers and 638.6k answer views
I think drugs should be made legal with certain regulations attached .

They need to be heavily regulated. Drugs for illnesses I think still need a prescription. . I
think recreational drugs should have age limits and also amounts limited and I think
designating using areas- like bars.

Addicts of heroin should be able to get a certain amount every day. From their doctor.

I think meth should remain illegal and we should really crack down on it.

Weed should be the only drug not regulated ( except for age limits) like alcohol.

LSD, Mushrooms, should be legal- but only through a doctor and only within certain
guidelines again.

Cocaine is the one drug I have an issue with. I suppose if we had cocaine bars. And only a
certain amount was issued and the penalties for not using in these bars or using more was
extremely high.

Ironically drug use tends to go down when it's available … but I don't think that's what
would happen in the USA.
The reason why we are having a drug epidemic in America is because our quality of living is
so poor- poor compared to other countries who make as much money as we do.

In European countries for example. People never have to worry about being homeless or
going hungry- getting fired is almost illegal- unless you've broken the law. Those things are
subsidized just like healthcare - child care is free too. So is higher education. And even the
internet .

They get a MINIMUM of a month off for vacations … everyone. No matter how long or hard
they worked. They get vacations more like the school systems here..They work less hours
then we do and get an extra day off every week. Plus two hour lunches. In other countries
they value the quality of life much more than America- America has really gone down the
toilet as far as job and pay quality.

In America everyone is extremely stressed out, we have no money, we have nothing to show
for how miserable our lives are , and we have no real futures. If we get cancer or lose our
jobs- it could mean total and complete ruin. Not just for us but for our children. We accept
shitty jobs for shitty pay and have terrible bosses. We pay more than half our incomes to
rent or mortgage and have credit card debt up the ass.

In Europe “debt” is unheard of.

So we are using drugs because we are miserable and nothing is going to change the state of
our country till everything changes.

And what's funny is- is that half the country doesn't want “free stuff” hahahaha

They think we will be paying so much more in taxes- but the reality is, the tax rate in Europe
is only slightly higher - we end up paying triple the amount they do- and we get nothing …
just more money paid out. For nothing .

I mean they cant even give our kids healthy food anymore in the scchiol lunches!

83 Views · Answer requested by Trey DiCarlo

Stan Globo, freelance

Updated Oct 18, 2017 · Author has 582 answers and 785.1k answer views
I can get my ass off the chair, walk to the local shop, and exchange a bit of cash to enough
drug to get me totally wasted. The drug is called “alcohol”, and high concentration (37%) is
quite affordable. I can possibly handle one bottle, but anything over would get me
hospitalised. The cost of treating me should I overdose is collected in form of alcohol tax.
The Government makes sure say the bottle of Absolute doesn’t have Methanol in it which
would kill me or make me blind. They also make sure that if I buy a bottle of Johnnie
Walker, it is one came from the factory in Scotland, not mixed in the back room of the shop
from questionable ingredients.

The drug is highly addictive, yet I am trusted to make my own decision. Needless to say, if I
start using it too much, I will lose all my business contacts. If I use it and drive, I can be
taken to court, even jailed. If I try to buy a bottle while already heavily intoxicated, they will
not sell, and may call Police. If I was much-much younger, I would be asked to proof that I
am of legal age. Yet the choice of using it or not is mine.

I know a couple of alcoholics. Some function well, some not too well.

Through them I also know people who are on pot, cocaine or heroin. If I ever chose to go
that way, it would be just a couple of phone calls to buy stuff. Or if I chose not to get friends
involved, I can just go to the nearest public housing and ask - there would be someone
dealing.

The reason I am not on a needle, on crystals or snorting is because I choose not to, not
because I have any supply problem. The same is true of anyone.

I am also quite well educated, so it would not take me too much effort to figure out what to
say to a doctor to get prescription for painkillers, or how to make amphetamines. All that
just a Google search away.

Illicit drugs are easily available. However the quality control is non-existing, the chances of
overdose, poisoning or getting in hands of a minor are much higher, yet when someone
affected hits the hospital, the cost is not offset by taxes. Organised crime collects the tax, the
services they provide include killing those who are prepared to share information with
Police, corrupting the Police, but not health care.

So why not let the same bottleshops to sell packets of cocaine, syringes of heroin, tablets of
ecstasy?

When harmful substances are sold legally, you collect taxes that go towards treatment and
counter-advertising. You mandate stringent quality control. You mandate concentrations
scientifically found to minimise harm. You mandate who can purchase and who cannot.

You still can do mandatory random tests of Police and lorry drivers, pilots, politicians
strategic weapons crews etc.

97 Views · View Upvoters

Richard Dedor, works at Usta

Answered Dec 16, 2013
Originally Answered: Why don't we legalize drugs? If cigarettes and alcohol can be made legal, why not
drugs?
This is a complex answer and one with many parts. To begin, remember, that the United
States did ban the production and use of alcohol during Prohibition (1920-33).

As far as cigarettes are concerned, there is a lot of debate on this product, and remains a lot
of debate. For instance, rules are constantly changing on how tobacco companies can
advertise, what they can charge, and what they must pay to the federal government for anti-
smoking campaigns.
But here is the truth: nicotine (in cigarettes) is addictive. Other drugs you are referencing
are addictive and/or mind altering.

There is some legitimacy to the question because alcohol is like other drugs in the sense that
it impairs judgement and alters the mind.

I suppose my only point in my answer is to say, there no simple answer to this question.
638 Views · View Upvoters

David F. Prenatt Jr., lifelong libertarian and lifelong opponent of the counterproductive War on
Drugs
Answered Dec 5, 2016 · Author has 2.4k answers and 2.2m answer views
Originally Answered: Why shouldn't the US legalize all drugs?
Why shouldn't the US legalize all drugs?

As a lifelong libertarian and lifelong opponent to the War on Drugs, I see no reason why the
United States should not decriminalize and/or legalize all recreational drugs. However, the
Devil is in the details, and in the hopes of moving the ball forward toward a goal of a less
draconian system of drug law enforcement, I am prepared to play the Devil's Advocate with
regard to the prohibition of recreational alcohol.

Let us put aside the weighty arguments against alcohol prohibition, and try to consider
seriously for the moment the arguments in its favor.

Alcohol addiction is second only to nicotine addiction in incidence and prevalence in the
United States today. A conservative estimate is that five million Americans are alcoholics,
but figures of as high as seven to nine million alcoholics and "problem drinkers" are also
cited. 1 Alcohol addicts are unable to refrain from their drug even though they decide to,
want to, and try to quit drinking alcohol; those who succeed for a time remain in imminent
danger of relapse. To the millions of alcohol addicts must be added millions of "spree
drinkers" who are not addicted but who get roaring drunk from time to time. Alcohol
prohibition, if enacted and effectively enforced, would keep these addicts and drunks away
from their drug; and it would prevent new cohorts of young people from becoming
addicted–– or so it might be logically argued.

[...]

Alcohol is also by a wide margin the biggest law-enforcement problem in the United States
today. "In 1965, out of close to five million arrests in the United States for all offenses, over
1,535,000 were for public drunkenness (31 percent). In addition, there were over 250,000
arrests for driving while intoxicated. Another 490,000 individuals were charged with
disorderly conduct, which some communities use in lieu of the public drunkenness charge.
Thus at least 40 percent of all arrests are for being drunk in a public place or being tinder
the influence while driving. . . . Many persons arrested for public drunkenness are no more
intoxicated than countless other individuals who escape arrest because they are not exposed
and vulnerable to police detection as are skid row men. The public is more likely to insist on
the police removing the unshaven, toothless, poorly clothed men than an equally drunk
visiting business man."
Homicide is also an alcohol-related crime. A 1954 Ohio study revealed that 43 percent of
those who committed homicide had been drinking. A Texas study the following year
indicated that 28.5 percent of all homicides took place in bars, cocktail lounges, and other
public places where liquor was served. More remarkable still, drinking increases the
likelihood that a man or woman will be a victim of homicide. A 1951 Baltimore report
indicated that 69 percent of homicide victims had been drinking. Among 588 Philadelphia
homicides, according to a careful study by Dr. M. E. Wolfgang in 1958, alcohol was absent
from both killer and victim in only 36 percent of the cases. In 9 percent of the cases, alcohol
was found only in the corpse of the victim; in 11 percent it was found only in the
bloodstream of the killer–– and in 44 percent of the cases, both killer and victim had been
drinking.

[...]

This discussion hardly exhausts the arguments for alcohol prohibition, but it is perhaps
sufficient to demonstrate the inherent logic of such a proposal. From the humanitarian as
well as the societal point of view, for the benefit of drinkers and potential drinkers as well as
teetotalers, for the benefit of ex-heroin addicts and users of other drugs, and especially for
the benefit of young people, alcohol should be promptly prohibited except for one
consideration.

Quoted from The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs by Edward M. Brecher
and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine (1972) - Chapter 32. Should alcohol be
prohibited?

358 Views · View Upvoters

John Craft
Updated Jan 25, 2013 · Author has 473 answers and 850.8k answer views
Originally Answered: Should the federal government legalize drugs?
Well, I wouldn't want the Federal government to unilaterally declare heroin legal.

But Federal drug laws should keep step as society's views evolve, or new data becomes
available about specific drugs.

Take marijuana, for example. There is more and more empirical evidence that contradicts
government's official position on weed's effects, both harmful and medicinal. Enforcement
of possession and distribution laws have saddled thousands of Americans with criminal
records that now look out of proportion to the actual harm caused by marijuana. More and
more Americans see our marijuana laws as out of step with reality.

Now that states are beginning a national experiment of decriminalizing or legalizing

marijuana, in my opinion the federal government should participate in that experiment by
respecting the will of those states. We'll have more empirical data on the effects of
decriminalized weed - on crime rates, on individual criminal records, on health - to compare
to existing data.

As we have learned from watching same-sex marriage become legal in some states, quite
often the loudest voices predicting doom and calamity are simply wrong. Perhaps
marijuana decriminalization will be different - but my prediction is that it will play out
much as the temporary prohibition of alcohol did in the early 20th century.

(Oh, yeah . . . my only experience with marijuana is as second-hand smoke, and that one
time a dinner guest pretty obviously got baked before coming over.)
1.3k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Aman Anand

Simon Cooke, Polymath, Polyspecialist, Ubergeneralist

Answered Feb 8, 2014 · Author has 705 answers and 1.7m answer views
Originally Answered: Should all currently illegal drugs be legalized?
No. However, what we do to people using illegal substances should be changed.

Heroin, for example, shouldn't ever be legal. Crack shouldn't be (although it's too easy to
make from cocaine if that's ever legalized, so, yeah...). Methamphetamine? Probably not.
PCP? No. DMT? No.

Some hallucinogens, sure. Available from a pharmacy, after signing a form explaining what
you're getting yourself into - I'd be ok with that. (Heck, MDMA would do wonders for
violence worldwide - it almost completely neutralized soccer hooligan and gang violence in
the UK in the 80s for a short while - until it was made illegal and cracked down on).

Why should some drugs still be illegal?

Because it lets you do things to people without their consent being required - like put them
in state-funded rehab programs to help get them off the drugs. Heroin is notoriously hard to
get off of without the aid of things like Kratom, which must be provided under medical
supervision, and even then it's a long road to recovery.

Making some substances controlled, and others illegal makes it hard for your regular joe to
become addicted to them, or get in over their heads. Making the punishment for the crime
be a prison term doesn't really help anyone - rehab does.

People will still get a hold of horrible horrible substances - but we get a chance to help them
before they destroy their lives and die.

To be honest, this situation is a complex one. I put it in the category of "the advanced rules
version of the popular board-game" - that is, the answer's going to be different for
everyone, and they're going to be a lot grayer than the usual "snakes and ladders" level of
complexity that most of society prefers. Which means it's really hard to legislate, and hard
to come up with a good answer which allows happy weekend day-trippers their time away
from planet Earth, and yet at the same time, doesn't make it too easy to get a hold of drugs
with insta-addiction/life-ruining potential.
640 Views · View Upvoters

Veera Muthu
Answered May 2, 2015
Originally Answered: Should all currently illegal drugs be legalized?
I found this question when I was about to post another question..
Ok .. my argument is this ... Drugs can be legal ...
The other answer says it can be given to a person without his consent .. I guess the
mechanism is same for a poison too ..
In my understanding poison can be compared to drugs except for its slow action.. in this
context, a slow poison ! And this poison has capability to lure the victim again and again ..
Many brain parasites do that to a prey to pull to predator! ..
But as like a poison , it has its therapeutic use too. .
It is simply trusting a human evolution ... The question is 'are humans mature enuf to
handle this double edged sword ?' .. The moment this is made legal of course there is going
to be chaos ... Then everyone will understand ...
This pattern is not new in human civilization.. We have seen it is racism , sexual freedom ,
democracy ! .. And almost every way of life ...
Alan Turing and davinci lost their lives cos of their sexuality .. But I'm sure Tim cook is
doing well in today's world! .. We have to trust our civilization is capable of handling this
and put up with the chaos till then

But I cannot accept a day where all the resources are used and sun dies and.. earth and its
human civilization dies in dark ( assuming we stay till then without throwing bombs at each
other ) and till that date few gentlemen's in government decide that our race is still
immature to handle their own life choices ! ...
PS: I'm not an addict ... I have never tried it..given a chance I will surely try .. But I believe
in myself that will not get addicted ! ..
471 Views · View Upvoters

Earl Vance, B.S. Biology & Chemistry

Answered Jul 7, 2018 · Author has 495 answers and 55.6k answer views
Politically I don't want governments to nanny adults and legislate things to protect us from
ourselves.

On the flip side the legal intoxicants we currently have have major social and monetary
costs. I am loathe to add more substances to the list of what is legal without a law that
ensure the costs of personal choices also come with personal consequences.

A law I would want to see would be something like… Smokers can be denied private
healthcare and must be denied government healthcare for any diseases linked to smoking…
i.e. lung/throat/oral cancer, COPD, peripheral artery disease, etc

…and Yes even without any further legalization of substances I would pass this law.

30 Views

Mary Skolnik, works at Sold One Painting. Worked at a Bookstore Shortly.

Answered May 17, 2017 · Author has 254 answers and 105.9k answer views
All drugs should be legalized because it is against your human rights to not have access to
drugs. The idea that they are bad is a fairy tale. Drugs in human society all throughout the
world have three uses: for hanging out, medicine, or for prayer. The idea that drugs are bad,
therefore, isn’t very welcome. If you back it up with a militarized police force bent on taking
away your access to cars, jobs, and schools if you use drugs, it doesn’t all of a sudden give
credence to the validity of the moral claim, it shows how brutal and arrogant and evil the
government is. The most widely used of all the illegal drugs is marijuana, and that’s why it’s
being legalized I assume first. It has medicinal uses that have been ignored. It’s just that
they thought they could ignore an anticonvulsant, because epilepsy is incurable. The pills
they give me now, the keppra, the zonegran, they don’t stop my seizures and only work on a
percentage of people who are probably just lucky their seizures stopped for no reason.
People might also want hallucinogens and ecstasy to be legal, people also use those. But
most of all people are sick of being told they are a bad person because they use drugs. A drug
alters the senses to a certain degree. They don’t change who you are as a person. You don’t
all of a sudden go rob a bank and kill your neighbor because you used a drug. That requires
drugs to have some sort of telepathy over you. Why call someone who uses drugs crazy,
when you believe in telepathy.

Because of the fact that basically, the drug laws are police brutality against people and their
right to live and be a part of society, people if they don’t change will be changed forcibly.
People look at the police as the enemy. You made regular people who were causing no harm
to anyone a criminal. In society that has caused far more sympathy just to the character of a
criminal. Criminals can be heroes because criminals are regular people, put in jail, for no
reason, by thugs with guns. If the government doesn’t cater to the people’s needs then the
people will stop believing in the government. And many have.

The banning of drugs, even if you don’t want to use them, it is not your business to get
involved with the lives of others. People are tired of being forced to believe the fairy tale that
drugs are evil.

Even if you are arguing that drugs cause some illness to happen in a person, how come you
send them to jail? I honestly didn’t know that jail was a viable treatment option. Maybe
when I started having seizures, I should have walked to the police station, and said put me
in jail because I’m sick and I heard from you that’s a viable treatment option for the sick.
Your kid has the flu that’s 2 weeks sentence.

What I’m saying is that no drug will ever be as bad as putting people in jail for drugs is. They
keep trying to argue their justice but they have no moral leg to stand on to justify the
criminality of drugs, and in the end are only defending their right to be violent towards the
innocent.

Also, this idea that use of drugs is what causes car accidents, seriously, is annoying,
although obviously I’ve never driven, stop police brutality towards the public with these
unfair draconian laws.

100 Views

Ronald Kimmons, Digital marketing professional, linguist, and smartypants.

Answered Jul 12, 2016 · Author has 6.1k answers and 7.8m answer views
Originally Answered: Should drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine be legal? Why or why not?
Marijuana should be legal because (1) it has legitimate medicinal uses and (2) it is
demonstrably and objectively less harmful to the human body than recreational drugs that
are currently legal, such as alcohol and tobacco. Yes, it does have detrimental effects. Yes, it
is addictive, despite what the die-hard advocates say. Yes, it is bad for society. But last year
in the United States, alcohol killed 88,000 people, and everyone just shrugged and kept
feeding the monster.

Some will say that there will be more total substance abuse if marijuana is legal, but I don’t
think so. I think a lot of people would simply opt for marijuana over alcohol. That’s it.

433 Views · View Upvoters

Vernon Averill
Answered Nov 25, 2017 · Author has 4.1k answers and 3.2m answer views
Drugs are controlled by the governments of the world. Sometimes, in ways that are
not readily apparent to the casual observer. The prime current example; Afghanistan is a
war to control the opium fields. When the Taliban were in power, they had almost
eradicated opium production. (Taliban's Eradication of Poppies Is Convulsing Opium
Market). The United States re-entered the war, removed the Taliban, re-instituted opium
production.

Surreptitiously, the US government is far less hostile to methamphetamine than is is to

cocaine and heroin. Reason? Meth can be made in America, no ingredients need to be
imported.

122 Views · View Upvoters

Sonia Chauhan, I eat diamonds for breakfast.

Answered Sep 4, 2015 · Author has 762 answers and 2.1m answer views
Originally Answered: Should drugs be legal?
A2A.

India specific

Page on vakilno1.com ~ The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Many drugs, per se, are legally available and sold in India under the guidelines laid down by
law.

From a philosophical point of view, drugs should not be legalized. Espcially in a country like
India, where the general level of frustration and oppression (due to societal and religious
pressure) is high.

People are not educated enough to be able to see the difference between recreation and
addiction.

Basically, drugs denote escapism. I am against escapism.

1.2k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Vikram Gaur

Craig Hubley, policy analyst, risk assessor, systems integrator

Answered Dec 21, 2012 · Author has 455 answers and 315.7k answer views
Originally Answered: Should the federal government legalize drugs?
Yes. The alternative is a total devolution of this law to the states with no border controls
between them and accordingly arbitrage of different regulations. Maine and Washington
and Colorado have made it quite difficult to continue any federal ban on cannabis (we
should stop using William Randolph Heart's invented word marijuana except in celebration
heh) or hemp (a good source of rope and fabric and paper). That decision is made and will
not be rescinded. Federal funds can be wasted busting farmers' markets in Maine for hash
brownies, or they can be redirected towards actual problems like toxic illegal moonshine or
Wal-Mart AR-15s or fixing the deficit. Surely the feds can put all those DEA agents on EPA
payroll and start busting serious polluters and get serious fines instead - one way to balance
the budget.
388 Views

Nicholas Rebel
Answered Apr 3, 2015 · Author has 249 answers and 141k answer views
Originally Answered: Why don't we legalise all drugs and tax them?
Religious zealotry seems to still have a strong grip on many of the worlds most powerful
policy makers. Although many drugs can be problematic, there is absolutely nothing
immoral about consuming a substance.
The issue of the privitized prison industry is also a growing concern for activist looking for
drug prohibition repeal. Its become one of the top 10 employers in the United States, and
signs are pointing to increased industry growth.
487 Views · View Upvoters

Srinivas Kari, SAP SD Techno Functional Consultant at Infosys Limited (2018-present)

Answered Mar 27, 2017 · Author has 510 answers and 366.1k answer views
This is a complicated issue and there are no easy yes/no answers.

One argument in favor of legalizing drugs is that governments can regulate the production
and supply of drugs - right from the farms where they are produced, the wages and working
conditions of the labor who work on these farms, how much is produced, how it is taxed, at
what price it is sold, how much is sold, to whom it is sold(age limit, habitual offenders,
background checks etc can be systematized and be put in place), how it is sold (prescription
based/freely etc), where it is sold, what is sold (the specific drugs, strains that are sold etc),
who is allowed to produce it, who is allowed to sell it - a lot of things can be regulated and
the government can have visibility into the entire life cycle of drugs. This keeps the anti-
social elements’ grip on drugs very loose, exploitation of laborers who work on such farms to
a minimum, ensure that underage people don’t have access to it, only relatively safe strains
and drugs are sold, the unsafe ones remain banned, the taxes are steep to discourage the
casual user, is available as a medical treatment (in the case of Marijuana) when needed, etc.

However, the success and failure of such a system depends quite heavily on the people in
society - if they abuse the drugs accessible to them then they need parenting and the state
will have to step in and ban all drugs completely.

120 Views

Denis Rubin, Have sold two screenplays, had others optioned.

Answered May 28, 2014 · Author has 1.9k answers and 4.3m answer views
Originally Answered: Do you think they should legalize drugs?
Here is an absolutely true story about our war on drugs.

Many years ago, I had a friend named Jerry who would occasionally get some pot and resell
small amounts to friends. He knew someone whose sister was busted for heroin. The DEA
offered her a deal if she gave up her supplier. She was afraid to name her real supplier so she
named her brother's pot dealer, Jerry. They launched an undercover operation to bring him
down.

Of course Jerry repeatedly told his new "friends" that he had nothing to do with hard drugs
but they spent six weeks haranguing him until he approached a street corner dealer and
purchased a tiny amount retail for them. When they showed up in force to arrest him, he
managed to toss it out the window of his apartment building at which point they told him
they would perp-walk his wife, who knew nothing, through the entire building and send his
kids to social services unless he admitted it was his and that he'd planned to "distribute" it
to them. So he did.

He served eighteen months at Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary because of a bunch of

incompetent assholes who knew he wasn't a heroin dealer but needed to justify the many
thousands of taxpayer dollars they wasted to apprehend him. Of course, his few pot
customers easily found other sources so they accomplished absolutely nothing but
bolstering the statistics they show the politicians who fund them.

I have never known anyone who wanted to use drugs but didn't because of our drug laws or
because they were in short supply.
1.2k Views · View Upvoters

Mike Peditto, living

Answered Jun 21, 2016 · Author has 183 answers and 141.5k answer views
Originally Answered: What is a better solution: criminalizing or legalized and regulating illegal drugs?
Why?
Criminalizing increases the percentage of people in poverty. There is a machine out there
that wants to accomplish that. Government, Illuminati, corporations, whatever you want to
call it. Rage against the machine.
251 Views · View Upvoters

Marcos Sheldon Padilla, Sakadagami (2002-present)

Answered Nov 23, 2015 · Author has 5.2k answers and 1.8m answer views
A2A, thank you: I don't think purely medical drugs should, no. I know, all recreational drugs
have medical uses and almost all medical drugs have recreational uses, but.. you know what
I mean.

Drugs... coffee. Tea. Pumpkin pie. Sex. Driving fast. Rock music. James Cameron movies.
Moils. Viagra. A cold glass of water on a cold day. Beautiful views. Animal slippers. Ice
cream. Peanut butter.

Most drugs are already legalized. It's ridiculous to put things in categories. The excessive use
of anything exists in the individual and in the mind. Things are just things. Nothing should
be illegal except hurting other people.
350 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Trey DiCarlo and Paul Watts

Carl Stone, studied at Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

Answered Aug 22, 2013 · Author has 82 answers and 130.6k answer views
Originally Answered: Should recreational drugs be legalized same as cigarettes and alcohol?
Yes they should. Tax revenues, reduction in crime, standardisation of substances meaning
less drugs cut with harmful chemicals. Legal drugs means removing a means of generating
cash for criminals....the list goes on and on

The argument against doesn't really hold any worth. People have always, and always will
take drugs, no matter their legal status. Drugs use has risen since the 'war on drugs' has
been in existence so it obviously isn't working.

Legalisation will allow for better education and advice, as it removes the taboo from the
culture.
1.8k Views · View Upvoters

Maya Mitchell
Answered Jul 23, 2016 · Author has 148 answers and 282.3k answer views
Originally Answered: Assuming that we can agree that cannabis should be regulated and legal
recreationally, what age should it be allowed for someone to have it and why?
For recreational purposes, I would say 18, solely because cigarettes are far more dangerous
yet they're legal at that age. Some people say 21, but that implies that marijuana is as
dangerous as alcohol, and worse for you than tobacco, which it's definitely not. It should be
treated the same as or less harshly than tobacco. So 18 is my realistic answer, or 16 in a
perfect world, but I know that would never happen in America. Maybe in the UK or other
countries.
For medicinal reasons, I don't think there should be any age limit. If it's going to make
someone’s life better, they should be allowed it. It's safer than any pharmaceutical drugs out
there.

307 Views · Answer requested by Robert Jarman

Jordan Crawford, Postcard Marketing @ sendwithscout.com

Answered May 28, 2014 · Author has 382 answers and 895.6k answer views
Originally Answered: Do you think they should legalize drugs?
Who is they?
Which drugs?

I assume they is the state.

As for the drugs, here's what I think.

Mind altering substances can be incredible for human potential and imagination. But, also
can have an incredibly harmful impact on social welfare.

I'm for controlled use for most substances. Maybe in university or lab settings for most
things. Tread softly.

For things like pot, it seems harmless and useful for certain medical conditions. But you
wouldn't want an entire society high all the time.

I really think the question here is, which drugs should we legalize to help improve society
and expand our imagination. While at the same time preventing addiction, abusive
behavior, and general mindlessness. It's so hard to regulate such a balance, so prohibition is
easier.

This is why the states are great experimentation grounds. Let states try it out, without
federal punishment. See what happens.

If Colorado starts to get that funny eye and Dorito sales spike while their employment
numbers drop, maybe we shouldn't make it a federal law.

If we start to see incredible music, art, and a brand new chocolate chip cookie come out of
Colorado. Well, maybe on the whole, it's worth it.

But not drugs that destroy the body and mind like meth. I don't see any positives there.

So let's start with the light stuff, test that out. Then we can move to the medium stuff and
see what's too heavy and then back away from the heavy stuff and then heavily regulate the
medium stuff. The hard stuff, let's just outright ban.
589 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Paul Watts

Dan Robb, SpcAgtRetDHS/AdjProf/PhD/GrdCertFornscPsy/USMCOfc&Enl/PI

Answered Jul 17, 2016 · Author has 8.5k answers and 3.8m answer views
Originally Answered: Assuming that we can agree that cannabis should be regulated and legal
recreationally, what age should it be allowed for someone to have it and why?
First, no such agreement exists, second assuming hallucinogens are “soft drugs” is
ridiculous, IMO.

https://www.quora.com/Are-the-ba...

https://www.quora.com/Does-smoking-weed-cause-psychosis/answer/Michael-E-
Silverman?__snids__=1433202510&__nsrc__=4

275 Views

Robert J. Kolker
Answered Dec 16, 2013 · Author has 18.7k answers and 16.1m answer views
Originally Answered: Why don't we legalize drugs? If cigarettes and alcohol can be made legal, why not
drugs?
It all depends on which drugs. We now permit alchohol consumption. Alcohol is a
drug. Smoking tobacco is legal, but nicotine is an addicting drug. In the US. the anti
opium, ant cocaine and anti pot laws exist historically because of prejudice against
Negroes. It was believe that the consumption of such drugs would cause Negro men to go
out a ravish white women. I am not kidding.

That is why the cocaine in coca cola (note the name) was banned and aspirin substituted.

Over the years the sanctimonious Christians ass-holes of the land made war on all drugs
including alcohol which is why we had Prohibition (which not only did not work, but
funded the growth of organized crime).

Politically having rules against gives the government more power to interfere in the lives of
ordinary citizens. Which is why we now have the War on Trans Fats.
706 Views · View Upvoters

Josh Manson, studied at School of Hard Knocks

Updated Mar 24, 2015 · Author has 4.4k answers and 13.6m answer views
Originally Answered: Should all drugs be legalized. If so, why?
All drugs should be legal. Some prescription medications should have some limitations
though. A person should be able to show that they understand what the drug does and how
it will affect them.

For some drugs a waiver might be needed to confirm the user's full responsibility for their
usage and effects.

I dont think anyone should randomly sample anything and everything. But who am I to tell
them not to if they understand the consequences.

That is the important thing. People need to be responsible for themselves and be held
accountable for their actions. If a person is not encroaching on another person or his
property, what business is it of mine or anyone else what substances they consume?

I believe that one of the worst sins in life is forcing your will onto another living person.
There is no acceptance for that in my mind. There is no way I could ever believe that is
anything other than repugnant.
537 Views · View Upvoters

Robel Mesekir, works at The Krusty Krab

Answered Jul 4, 2016
An argument I hear quite a bit from Conservatives for continuing the Drug War usually
consists of points such as “just because it's hard doesn't mean it's wrong” or “making fewer
laws doesn't make us more free”.

While I see the logic of these points, I believe in stating this, you are simplifying a massively
complex issue into one or two political zingers. The Drug War in reality has caused more
harm than good. By stagnating the flow of drugs, you only create the demand for them
higher, which leads to cartels, gangs, mobs, and more crime in general. A good example is
the prohibition of alcohol back then, and it's flaws. As well, as it is true that passing fewer
laws does not directly imply a greater degree of freedom in a given society, as this could
encourage crime and lawlessness, I think it is very important to point out that in this case,
abolishing drug laws would only increase obedience to the law, not defiance of it.

417 Views · View Upvoters

Mary Miller, works at Crossroads Tarot Consulting

Answered Jul 17, 2016 · Author has 2.1k answers and 1m answer views
Originally Answered: Assuming that we can agree that cannabis should be regulated and legal
recreationally, what age should it be allowed for someone to have it and why?
Well, for starters cannabis is not all created equal. There are children taking cannabis for
Dravet’s Syndrome, that is high CBD and almost no THC. This seems to work as a protocol
unless the child is not responding to the CBD syrup, then more THC needs to be added to
create the entourage effect. How young is okay? That would be an answer best left to the
doctors and the folks who are working with high CBD syrup to answer: contact Realm of
Caring for starters.

Do I believe in young recreational users? no.

307 Views

Bish Fay, A positive mind is a beautiful mind ...Have A Nice Day! <3
Answered Nov 2, 2015
Originally Answered: Should all currently illegal drugs be legalized?
I think the answer should be NO! people can't control themselves if intoxicated with drugs
and it can cause harm to people. Companies should be more strict actually in implementing
drug testing, as well those police who are doing the road side drug testing. I think Urine
drug test is more accurate, our company is using K2 Quick View Synthetic Marijuana Urine
Drug Test and all employees are tetsed. No one is excused , they can really say whos into it.If
it will be legalized some people might abuse it and might go to work intoxicated and won't
be able to perform well at work, bringing more danger in the company and in the person
and his co workers.
30 Views

Louis Keep, Sales Manager

Answered Jun 10, 2017 · Author has 671 answers and 661.2k answer views
Originally Answered: Should drugs be legalized?
No.

Its more fun that people go to strange places, meet with strange people and conduct strange
deals for what essentially boils down to kicks and giggles. Its character building and you get
to have fun adventures.

I have met many interesting people, some nice, some not so nice. One guy had a pet komodo
dragon. Another guy was an actual bona fide terrorist wanted by Spanish Intelligence. Or
the semi-paralyzed comic geek. Or the mad lesbian I met with an actual billion dollar trust
fund and a hilarious lack of self-control. I had mishaps like the time I was caught by the
Queen’s Royal Protection having a smoke in Green Park 2 hours before Commonwealth
Heads of State were due to attend a Royal Review. Its damn scary when you are a chilling
only to look up and see 250 policeman walking in a line towards you not 30 meters away.
Thank God London coppers have a sense of humour. Other mishaps weren’t so nice like the
time I got the shit kicked out of me by some guys who assumed I was a dealer (which I have
never been). There are many many more experiences I’ve had.

I would never have met any of these people or had these adventures if drugs were legalized
which would have sucked. Also I think that I would probably be dead if things were so
available that I needn’t bother to look hard.

But personally I think that drug culture as it is right now seems right. If you are a fucking
scumbag criminal idiot with no self-control then maybe you deserve to o’d in some shitty
dive or get knifed by some rival gang. If you have poor judgement of people or product or
are terminally unlucky then sorry but that’s fate and your bad. I have on occasions had bad
feelings about people and scarpered. If you brag about it to people or are some coked up
terminally aggro nutjob then maybe you deserve to have people shun, avoid or speak shit
about you. I get very shitty with people who are blatantly doing drugs in public areas or
around children (a couple of times even violent).

Most coppers in my experience that aren’t hideously corrupt (in which case you can simply
pay them off) tend to have a sensible approach to drugs which is: if you are sensible and not
a complete lairy angry plonk carrying a huge quantity of whatever then most of the time
they can’t be bothered. They might at most throw your stash down a drain or tell you to go
home and sleep it off. The fact is is that if a policeman really wants to arrest you then you
can’t stop him.
117 Views · View Upvoters

Kris Rosvold, Aikidoka, Chef, Wood Splitter, Patternista, Cynic

Answered Dec 16, 2013 · Author has 8.4k answers and 11.7m answer views
Originally Answered: Why don't we legalize drugs? If cigarettes and alcohol can be made legal, why not
drugs?
Because there is no (or very little) profit for drug companies, insurance companies,
corporate prisons, etc. in having cheap, legal, easily available, drugs.... thus there is no profit
for legislators in legalizing drugs.

...And so the Citizens (esp. The poor) get screwed AGAIN by "our" (bribed and treasonous)
government.
1k Views · View Upvoters

Chris Ashworth, Content Creator at Viral Cloud Media - Http://viralcloud.mobi/

Answered Jul 15, 2017 · Author has 99 answers and 95.2k answer views
Portugal decriminalised all drugs back in 2001 and has since concentrated all efforts in the
rehabilitation of its citizens, instead of treating them like criminals.

It has worked so far and helped thousands of people become drug free.

Not to mention the countless lives saved!

Watch the video about Portugal decriminalises illegal drugs here.

74 Views · View Upvoters

Rene A Diedrich, Writer, artist, poet, teacher, embarrorist, bohemian, revolutionary

Answered Dec 26, 2015 · Author has 497 answers and 413.4k answer views
People have many arguments against legalization: not condoning abuse, safety, mental and
moral decay, addiction, birth defect, etc. I have heard oeople complain rpthat legal pot has
ruined heir income . Pot dealers cannot compete with 215 cards. Hover that itself is the best
argument for legalizing the drugs, too much Monet is squandered the war against drugs. By
keagalizjnb its, we will soare ourselfves the futile effort and expense of imposing our will in
those who choose the doors if perception, Somme oeople see drugs as a civil rights issue. It
is free expression, and self medication . Certainly legalizing drugs wikk not hurt socierty
anymore tHan this war has.

323 Views

Tony Miller, Software Developer

Answered Dec 16, 2013 · Author has 829 answers and 1.5m answer views
Originally Answered: Why don't we legalize drugs? If cigarettes and alcohol can be made legal, why not
drugs?
Because we, as a nation, are too proud of our ignorance.
560 Views · View Upvoters

James Geraghty, Tv fan

Answered Jul 22, 2017 · Author has 1.9k answers and 1.7m answer views
I think it should be illegal to sell drugs but not illegal to do drugs. Instead health treatments
should be provided for people with addictions instead of being sent to jail.

The truth is the medical system in a lot of countries is horrible a lot of people turn to drug
dealers not to get high but to get actual medicin they need.

That shouldn't be how it should work. The war on drugs shouldn't be fought in the streets in
should be fought in the government and corporations.

Being addicted to Cocain is bad but the government doesn't really care about other legal
addictions, alcoholism is okay as long as you do it in private and don't get behind a car or
something, tobacco addiction is legal and what about caffeine salt and sugar ?

Sugar is even said to be more addictive than cocain. Hearth disease which used to be rare is
now common among people and obesity is on a all time high.

For some reason some addictions are illegal and can end you in jail but other addictions are
being advertised all people including and especially to kids.

I'm not saying ban sugar or salt I'm saying bring in a better system so people are aware of
these addictions and people can get help

31 Views

Krishna Prasath, bored IT professional.

Answered Jul 17, 2014
Originally Answered: Should all drugs be legalized. If so, why?
Definitely.

We are not implying that it should be commonly available to everyone so that all kids get
access to it and get "high". It should be legalized and regulated.

Two key points,

1) Life will be hard for black market and drug cartels. We could use the money for better
purposes, rather than all the money going underworld.
2) Think of the employment opportunities it will create. Its a win-win.

And as for a person, they should be aware to know what is good for them and what is not.
655 Views · View Upvoters
Tom Muntsinger, Retired Foreign Service Lawyer / Diplomat.
Answered May 28, 2014
Originally Answered: Do you think they should legalize drugs?
They already have been. I have a number of legal drugs in my medicine cabinet. The
question is too broad for a simple or comprehensive answer. It should be rephrased to
identify specific illegal "drugs" or categories of them to which it refers.
600 Views

Phil Jones, Still trying to figure it out

Answered Jul 3, 2015 · Author has 6.3k answers and 4.9m answer views
Originally Answered: Why don't we legalize drugs? If cigarettes and alcohol can be made legal, why not
drugs?
Has to be said, this is pretty suspicious : The Real Reason Pot Is Still Illegal