Poll: Do you agree with the criminalisation of drug use?

[Colour Scientist]

You should not be a criminal for using drugs. Manufacturing and selling them fine, whatever. But drug addicts aren't criminals, they're sick. Throwing them in prison won't help them.

Pretty much this.

I don't see the benefit of throwing addicts into prison for short-term sentences with other addicts.

I'd like to think there would be more effective ways to spend the money it takes to put them through the prison system. Possibly towards some kind of effective treatment or even resourcing safe areas where they can shoot-up in order to get them off the streets, get clean needles and maybe get access to or information about treatment.

I don't know, maybe that's a bit too idealistic.

 

[Roxas1359]

Okay, so I live in California, and we have had some of the worst drug laws anywhere I believe. See, here in California drug possession is a felony charge, a charge that puts people in jail longer than they need to be. Especially in the case of California in which we are area of the world which imprisons the most people, just behind the USSR and China. There was recently a prop in the last election to turn drug possession charges from felony to misdemeanor, which is what it should be.

Basically right now here, you could have 3 joints in your pocket, get arrested, and then are charged with a felony and given felony time akin to that of someone who is arrested for felony first degree murder. Yeah, that's shitty. I say have better money for rehabs as well as better in-prison systems for helping drug addicts who are there on the long term. At the same time, don't jail everyone for longs periods just because they have some drugs on them, because a lot of the ones who are arrested here for that are teens, and teens can make pretty dumb decisions at times.

And to clarify, if the arrest for drug possession is because of a huge drug trade or something, then yes they should be punished and given a felony charge. When it comes to the teens who have say pot in their possession and get arrested, then they shouldn't be charge a felony which in turn gives them longer sentences. Prison overcrowding is a huge problem in California, and hopefully it'll be fixed soon. Still surprised my state hasn't legalized weed either. Especially since California is often seen as the most liberal state in the union.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

I'd prefer that anything that causes less damage than Alcohol and Nicotine to be decriminalized. Mainly because I really don't see the point of prohibiting less addictive and less damaging drugs than drugs that we already use. You could argue that that's adding more vices and addictions into the table, but then again, the use of these drugs can also be damaging because they have no regulation in their production. So legalizing them and overseeing the synthesis of the drugs might reduce damage, I figure.

Besides, you could do like tobacco and tax the shit out of them, so that you can discourage use but also shut up people who are clamoring for legalization.

 

[dragonswarrior]

1. It protects society from their poor choices. They've already shown a gross neglect for their own wellbeing by actively going out of their way to destroy it. Who cares about them, when they clearly don't care about themselves?

2. They tried making alcohol illegal. People literally started murdering each other over it. The Government started poisoning alcohol and people kept drinking it until they died. 'X is terrible and legal, so X should be legal since it isn't as terrible!' is a poor argument.

Also, you might want to do some more research on cigarettes. Cigarettes are legal, but black market smuggling is an multi-million dollar industry. Mokhtar Belmokhtar, an Algerian terrorist, makes about $15 million a year from smuggling cigarettes into the US. The idea that legalization will stop criminal enterprises is laughable at best, woefully ignorant at worst.

So, point one. Woof. First of all you don't understand how addiction works. You also don't understand how society or poverty works. You also don't understand how marijuana works. Or the US prison system. Erm... And I don't really know how to explain it to you over an internet forum. Suffice it to say, you should do some research.

I can however start pointing you in the right direction. In the United States it's been proven that White Americans and PoC Americans smoke weed at about the same level, but PoC Americans are incarcerated for it at a MUCH higher rate. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

So, either all these white people are destroying society whithout us knowing, or you don't know what you're talking about. (Sorry, I'd be politer but I'm in a rush to go watch Big Hero 6!)

Point 2. Prohibition clearly shows that when you criminalize an addictive substance, crime goes way up. Yea sure you have some cigarette smuggling, okay. But you don't have people being gunned down in the streets for it. You don't have a literal war going on in Mexico over tobacco. You do over pot. Because it's illegal and not regulated.

Anyway got to go. Continue conversation if you wish.

 

[Weaver]

There are some drugs I'd like to see legal, regulated and taxed; but there's others I just can't ever reconcile.
Is there really any argument that heroine is just too dangerous to let people use? Is there really any argument that meth is just too addicting? I mean, cigarettes can ruin your life in 30 years, but meth can do it in 1.

I'm a raver who doesn't do drugs; but I feel like I'm exposed to drug culture and drug use about as much as someone who doesn't use possibly can be. I have friends who use a variety of substances and, you know what? They're great people. Really, they are. They're far more friendly, welcoming, and happy than any other group of people I know.

The bulk of them are living productive lives and are responsible in their use patterns.
IMO, if you know what you're doing and know how to do it safely; go for it. So many things are bad for you with repeated use: junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Any of these things will lead to health problems and it's up to the individual to decide when to stop. Why can't, say, marijuana, ecstasy, and possibly ketamine fall into this category? Heart disease is fine, but brain damage isn't? Lung cancer and liver failure are fine, but serotonin imbalances are wrong?

I do honestly wish people would more readily acknowledge just how bad a drug alcohol really is. It's pretty brutal in all honesty. I know people who do psychedelics but don't drink because alcohol is too bad for you.

Just my two cents really. I still wouldn't use even if they were legal, and that's my choice.

 

[geK0]

I'm all for the decriminalization of marijuana, and I figure Canada and most of the states will have legalized it by some time during the next decade. Enforcing laws against marijuana is just such a hassle for such a mild drug, and honestly, a lot of police where I'm from will just turn the other shoulder because they don't feel like doing the paperwork for it. There's also a lot of tax revenue to be seen from legalizing it.

As for other drugs, I'm a little bit more iffy on them. I'm reluctant to support substances that can cause such severe psychological and physiological effects as heroine and methamphetamine, and I feel it would be extremely unethical for the government to profit off of people's dependencies on hard drugs. That being said, I feel that people shouldn't be punished for harming their own bodies.

 

[WindKnight]

What possible need would something like Meth or Cocaine have that a prescription would be even considered? Maybe there are benefits that I don't know of (see my first sentence) but what medical benefit would there be to prescribing those kind of hard-core drugs to someone?

I think the idea that was more to carefully moderate the taking of them to prevent (if Possible) the worst forms of addiction.

I believe in legalisation to some extent, at least on a par with alcohol and tobbaco for the milder drugs who's negative health impacts are comparable to them.

That being said, I feel that people shouldn't be punished for harming their own bodies.

Drug addiction can fuel crime as addicts desperately try to find enough money for a fix (muggings, robbery, petty theft, some pimps will double as dealers, and deliberately get women and girls hooked on drugs to make them dependent on them for supply, and desperate to do what their told to)

Admittedly, decriminalization could drastically reduce the price, aking the crime element moot or a much smaller probem.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Drugs that are either A) addictive, or B) have mostly harmful effects, should outlawed and carry heavy fines and mandatory stints in rehab. Everything else should be A-OK.
Then again, it might be good for clinics to be prepped for taking care of idiots who go haywire on legal drugs. There are plenty of alcoholics and potheads out there.

So heroine, cocaine, speed, acid(?), cigarettes(tobacco?), all illegal.
Pot becomes legal, alcohol stays legal (too embedded in our culture), and that's the end of that.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

As it stands right now, I'm in support of Marijuana and other relatively lightweight drugs being legalized, due to both the hypocritical nature of allowing worse with Tobacco and Alcohol as well as the relatively victim-less nature of them, since Weed rarely causes harm to people other than the user unless something like pregnancy or nearby people with lung issues are involved. Banning use in public spaces would make sense to me because of this, but otherwise private use seems fine.

The serious stuff though, like Meth and LCD... yeah, I tend to lean more to the "ban them" side, since those drugs have a much higher tendency to cause serious harm to people other than the user. I most definitely get where people are coming from when they say that those should be legalized too, both due to the counteractive affects of prohibition in the past as well as the rights of someone to do as they will with their own bodies. However, both my own personal experiences with addicts of these particular drugs (I've known a few in my time) as well as the general media's reporting on crimes related to these kinds of drugs does make me think that the most dangerous drugs should not allowed for public consumption.

EDIT:

Admittedly, decriminalization could drastically reduce the price, m[/b]aking the crime element moot or a much smaller problem.

This is a good point as well, though Windknight really does need to learn to type. >;p

Seriously though, funneling money that would be going to gangs and cartels back into the government and the local economies is certainly a good argument, as it kills two birds with one stone. The question does become, however, on whether the risks and societal dangers of any given drug are worth such a thing in the end, which is why I get behind legalizing Weed but not Extacy.

Lastly, shouldn't this be in R&P? No offense OP, but this is clearly a political thread.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

I agree with Thaluikhain. I don't think any reasonable person could consider drug use a 'choice'. Addiction removes choice by definition. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.

Consider just how many people are in prison for years because of marijuana convictions. Is a few minutes of getting high worth decades of incarceration? Is smoking that blunt really worth more than your freedom?

These people are too irresponsible to be left to their own devices.

How is destroying their current life and sending them to a concrete box for decades, where their chance of getting raped is not insignificant[footnote]factoring in prison rapes, more men than women get raped in the United States:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html[/footnote], followed by a lifetime with a criminal record and a crippled work history an act of protection? To me it seems like an act of utterly horrifying abuse exacted against an already vulnerable person.

It protects society from their poor choices. They've already shown a gross neglect for their own wellbeing by actively going out of their way to destroy it. Who cares about them, when they clearly don't care about themselves?

So in other words because people are willing to risk the punishment that means they deserve it, despite the fact that -- at least in regards to the harmless crime of smoking weed -- the punishment doesn't fit the crime whatsoever. Shouldn't punishments for crimes be based on the seriousness of the crime, not what punishments people are willing to risk?

I'm sorry but your reasoning seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I've known two types of drug users, responsible people who hold down regular jobs and pay bills and rent on time and people so hopelessly addicted they can't take care of themselves and end up hurting other people. But then I look at that statement and realize that take away the drug aspect and people STILL are like that, either decent folks who can keep their shit together or fucking pieces of shit.
We don't need drugs to be horrible people and drugs don't turn people into crappy people, but they can amplify our worst qualities. Either way I'd prefer to keep the harder drugs out of public's hands but I find little wrong with weed. Thats just how I see it, from a lot of personal experience.

 

[HardkorSB]

Wow, dude, disagree with me if you will but it's bad form on your part to just dismiss me like that. Had you actually considered my arguments you would know that one of the primary factors in my supporting decriminalisation is the negative impact criminalisation has on people and their families. If "fuck you, I want what I want" was all that you got from my post then I'm afraid you've got a very warped perspective.

Don't bother.
When the cops in the US killed that homeless guy for no reason, this guy was saying that they did the right thing.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

As a whole, putting a drug user in Jail is probably the dumbest thing you could do, want to know why? Any weed smoker and pusher will tell you prison turns people into crack and heroine addicts. Incarceration helps fewer drug user than it creates, check the figures.
There's also illegal alcohol but that's a separate issue.

If you want to attack the drug dealers fine. But Weed is one of the most useful materials but lets face it, if it was legalized for industrial and public use sooooooooooooooooooooooo many companies would lose money, it won't crash the economy but it would restructure many fundamental industries causing problems is not gradual.

 

[laggyteabag]

Should weed be legalised? Sure, it is pretty much the lovechild of alcohol and tobacco, and it should be treated as such in the eyes of the law, that and it is common enough to get hold of (hell, I know 4 people to get it from, and I don't even smoke the stuff), even in countries/states where it is illegal, so why not just regulate it's distribution and tax it? That way, everybody wins. Besides, I have found that weed is often smoked by those who think that they are a lot cooler than they actually are, and a lot of them seem to get off to the fact that it is illegal, so after the initial spike in users, I would imagine that quite a few of them would just stop.

As for addicting drugs, nope. Addiction removes the choice to quit, and a lot of addicting drugs are often super harmful. A lot of people will just end up killing themselves because of an OD, especially if it becomes readily available.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

would just stop.

As for addicting drugs, nope. Addiction removes the choice to quit, and a lot of addicting drugs are often super harmful. A lot of people will just end up killing themselves

And each other hard drugs are link to violent crime. (but then, so is alcohol)

 

[tyriless]

Illegal drug manufacturing and distribution should be and remain a criminal offense. I've seen the effects of long term hard drug use and it hollows a persons until they there nothing more than an empty shell, except for marijuana. They just tend to be annoying douche-bags, so that doesn't count as a hard drug. However, I am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences for drug sellers and abusers. In fact, I would prefer a cap on sentencing to keep some of the "hanging" judges from going overboard for political reasons (such as reelection). As far as the punishment of drug users, if we believe we should treat them like we treat those that try to commit suicide. They obviously can no longer be trusted with their own well being while under the sway of addiction so effective mandatory treatment, and for repeated offenses, imprisonment in light security institutions until they improve and have a chance at sobriety.

 

[Ravinoff]

I'm firmly against any legalization, for the simple reason that the last thing the world needs right now is more stoned idiots. Society is dumb enough as-is, no reason to make things even stupider.

 

[poundingmetal74]

My basic belief of drug (de)criminalization has long been "I don't want people who want to catch a high and watch Sponge Bob at 2am going to prison."

 

[smithy_2045]

Depends on the drug, but in general I favour legalisation and taxing them.