Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

[DezinerAU]

Originally Posted by DanDare

Pro
reduces use by some amount
reduces addiction by a proportional amount to use reduction
provides good material for movies about drug gangs etc

Con
puts addicts into outlaw category - hard for them to get help or be helped
makes sales of the prohibited substance very lucrative and outside tax reigime
provides criminal groups with money and political power
adds a mystique to use
reduces respect for the law
absorbs much of our law enforcement budget

Another con: removes chance of regulation, making the products more dangerous and/or unpredictable for those who do use.

[Seamus]

Are you saying that "clean heroin" is not highly addictive?

No, but not dangerous and so what if it was? Banning some drugs has created far more problems and cost far more than having them remain legal. There is limit to which a government can or should protect people from their own self destructive behaviour.

'Addictive' does not necessarily mean "life threatening" . EG caffeine is addictive,and so is valium,but people do not die from those addictions. Nor are there any recorded deaths from a valium overdose in this country.


My position is the greatest good for the greatest number.That should entail harm minimalisation for both the individual and the body civil,with the body civil taking priority.

[Xeno]

It also leads to concentration of the product, so that a smaller quantity can be shipped (smuggled) and stored (hidden) for the same profit. Unlike soap powder manufacturers, drug manufacturers have no incentive to increase their packaging size to product ratio.

Increased concentration is dangerous for lives, if you are accustomed to the earlier, less concentrated, version.

[Seamus]

Increased concentration is dangerous for lives, if you are accustomed to the earlier, less concentrated, version.

In the short term,probably,but not in the long term:Legalised drugs would be produced and sold under licence guaranteeing dose and purity,just like say alcohol..

Such drugs would be produced and sold at a fraction of street drug prices.

After 40-odd years,I have yet to come across a satisfying economic,medical or social reason not to legalise all illegal drugs..


I have no interest in moral or political arguments.My basic position is that drug addiction should be a health problem, not a legal,political or moral one. The manufacture and sale of drugs need be no more of an issue than the manufacture and sale of alcohol..

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by Seamus

In the short term,probably,but not in the long term:Legalised drugs would be produced and sold under licence guaranteeing dose and purity,just like say alcohol..

Such drugs would be produced and sold at a fraction of street drug prices.

After 40-odd years,I have yet to come across a satisfying economic,medical or social reason not to legalise all illegal drugs...

I am agreeing. You may have misinterpreted me, if I may say that . I was referring to what happens under prohibition.

[ClayMonk]

Originally Posted by Seamus

No, but not dangerous and so what if it was? Banning some drugs has created far more problems and cost far more than having them remain legal. There is limit to which a government can or should protect people from their own self destructive behaviour.

'Addictive' does not necessarily mean "life threatening" . EG caffeine is addictive,and so is valium,but people do not die from those addictions. Nor are there any recorded deaths from a valium overdose in this country.


My position is the greatest good for the greatest number.That should entail harm minimalisation for both the individual and the body civil,with the body civil taking priority.

I think the severity of the harm needs to be taken into consideration for exactly that reason; harm minimisation to society. For that reason all drugs can't get thrown under one blanket.

Also, pro and con lists need to be weighted. It's not relevant to say that this list has 2 things and that one has 10 when the weights are completely different.

I looked into the "harm" of illicit drugs this morning and found this very helpful research;



Source

I think from this data (and other data) the social impact could be quantified to at least some degree. However, in a social context, I still don't by the two wrongs make a right argument. That being that alcohol or tobacco adversely impact society so lets allow everything. I think that's a silly argument. I think the argument should be; Should drugs be prohibited based on societal harm. I'm not too fussed about individual harm or being a nanny for the sake of it.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by ClayMonk

We are not talking about drugs that should be banned, we are talking about drugs that should be legalised. By your logic, two wrongs make a right. Alcohol bad and it legal, so by your logic we should make everything that is bad legal.

You missed the point of my post. It is to demonstrate the flawed logic that "drugs are bad so they should be illegal!" Even legal drugs can have a detrimental effect, so by your logic, given how bad it can be, we may as well make those things (alcohol, coffee, cigarettes) illegal.

[ClayMonk]

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You missed the point of my post. It is to demonstrate the flawed logic that "drugs are bad so they should be illegal!" Even legal drugs can have a detrimental effect, so by your logic, given how bad it can be, we may as well make those things (alcohol, coffee, cigarettes) illegal.

If "Drugs are bad so they should be illegal!" was asserted then that would be flawed logic, but it clearly wasn't asserted. So if that's the premise then the rest makes no sense.

Furthermore, we are not talking about an alternate universe where banning those things would be pragmatic in any sense. Prohibiting drugs that are legal and widely used has different variables, complications and prejudices. We are talking about whether current prohibited drugs should be legitimised.

[DanDare]

Banning based on the harm level is insufficient and erroneous.

The higher the harm the more important it is to take effective action. That is, action than that does the most to reduce the harm. I have not yet found evidence that prohibition is the most effective harm reducer.

[ClayMonk]

Originally Posted by DanDare

Banning based on the harm level is insufficient and erroneous.

The higher the harm the more important it is to take effective action. That is, action than that does the most to reduce the harm. I have not yet found evidence that prohibition is the most effective harm reducer.

What is effective action?