Why do governments prohibit drugs?

[Svartalf]

Depends, is lack of opportunity the same as being a square?

[RESiNATE]

Mm, how do these politicians cure people by putting them in jail?

Agreed - the issue of drug addiction or misuse is a matter of health and safety, NOT criminality.
People have taken drugs (especially Cannabis) for thousands of years. It was a recognised and widely used medicine right up until the 1930's (even later in some cases). People will ALWAYS take drugs.

The problems arise because there is little or no education in schools, the market is unregulated, and the vast profits that are gained from the sale of drugs (whatever that drug is) are precisely because of prohibition and move in only one direction - the drug lords bank accounts.

If the crap about society falling into disarray and anarchy are true, as our politicians would have us believe, then Amsterdam would have crumbled into dust decades ago.

Cannabis is NOT a gateway drug and does NOT lead people to take harder drugs - they move onto harder drugs because the pricks selling the weed are not only selling weed, rather they are selling harder drugs also. They want you to try something harder because the harder drugs are [arguably] more physically addictive and hold more of a profit margin. They can be cut with all kinds of shit, whereas weed is weed.

There are countless studies which prove time and again that Cannabis is more of a terminus. There are countless studies that prove that Cannabis is NOT physically addictive.

The benefits of Cannabis, both physical and economical, are numerous and sound: pain relief, post-chemotherapeutic, period relief, anorexia, anti-psychotic...I could go on.

The ONLY reason that Cannabis is outlawed is because it threatens the oil industry, the food industry, the paper industry, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Some people can't handle the effects and they should steer clear - some people can't handle alcohol...should that be banned?

If the governments were so concerned about our health and well being, then tobacco would be as outlaw as Cannabis - ask yourself why this isn't the case.

I'll save you the bother: the drug war is big business with millions of dollars wasted on its ineffectuality...and I mean big business for government. And, while you're about it, ask yourself who funds many of the goverments...

Res...

[mistermack]

Mm, how do these politicians cure people by putting them in jail?

I didn't say that they got it right.

The question was, why do politicians prohibit drugs. I think the reasons that they give are the true reasons why they ban them.

Tobacco and Alcohol are historically legal, the banned drugs are historically illegal.
The question is, why don't they UNBAN them?

The answer is probably votes. And that's why tobacco and alcohol don't get banned.

[RESiNATE]

Mm, how do these politicians cure people by putting them in jail?

I didn't say that they got it right.

The question was, why do politicians prohibit drugs.

<snip>

The question is, why don't they UNBAN them?

The answer is probably votes. And that's why tobacco and alcohol don't get banned.

Also agreed - no one wants to be the one who [potentially] 'let's the genie out of the bottle'...

However, if the case was made in the right way, then it could be that clear thinking people would wonder at why it was made illegal in the first place.
And therein lies the problem: there are precious few clear thinking people

Res...

[Hermit]

Tobacco and Alcohol are historically legal, the banned drugs are historically illegal.

Orly? Cannabis has been legal for most of its history. In North America it was cultivated and sold since around 1600. Until 1937 you could buy it legally over the counter in pharmacies and general stores. Amphetamines were widely distributed to soldiers during World War II to combat fatigue and improve endurance and mood, and were prescribed by doctors after the war to help fight depression. Cocaine was a popular medical drug in Europe for decades before it became popular in America. In 1886, “Coca-Cola” was introduced and contained syrup derived from coca leaves. That same year the Surgeon-General of the United States Army endorsed medical use of cocaine. It was not outlawed until 1914. Morphine was created in 1803 and widely used during the American Civil War as an injectable pain reliever. It, and its derivative, heroin, were legal until the 1920s. Your appeal to tradition in order to explain why some drugs are illegal is factually wrong.

[rainbow]

[mistermack]

And therein lies the problem: there are precious few clear thinking people

Res...

I think you're right. I put it down to a lack of drugs.

[mistermack]

Tobacco and Alcohol are historically legal, the banned drugs are historically illegal.

Orly? Cannabis has been legal for most of its history. In North America it was cultivated and sold since around 1600. Until 1937 you could buy it legally over the counter in pharmacies and general stores. Amphetamines were widely distributed to soldiers during World War II to combat fatigue and improve endurance and mood, and were prescribed by doctors after the war to help fight depression. Cocaine was a popular medical drug in Europe for decades before it became popular in America. In 1886, “Coca-Cola” was introduced and contained syrup derived from coca leaves. That same year the Surgeon-General of the United States Army endorsed medical use of cocaine. It was not outlawed until 1914. Morphine was created in 1803 and widely used during the American Civil War as an injectable pain reliever. It, and its derivative, heroin, were legal until the 1920s. Your appeal to tradition in order to explain why some drugs are illegal is factually wrong.

Ha, I'm talking about legal recreational use, not medical. We used to say ''did you have cocaine'' when we went to the dentist. I don't know if they ever used cocaine to freeze your tooth, but that's what we called it.
When I said historically, I meant recent history.
Change '' historical '' to '' already '' if it's any clearer.

I'm just talking about why the politicians aren't keen on legalising drugs.
They may be going that way in Arizona and elsewhere, but that's probably an admission that they've lost the battle. If it was practical they would ban recreational drugs.
But it doesn't appear that it is. Not without Saudi levels of control.

[Hermit]

Ha, I'm talking about legal recreational use, not medical.

The date points I mentioned also denoted times up to which recreational use of the mentioned drugs were legal for recreational use.

When I said historically, I meant recent history.

So, why hasn't tobacco not been made illegal recently? Kind of destroys your point, doesn't it? Alcohol has been made illegal recently, and that measure turned out to be massively unsuccessful. In fact, it was found to be spectacularly counter-productive, what with the increased deaths from adulterated moonshine, increased poverty, corruption in the police force and among politicians, giving a leg up for organised crime, filling gaols with perpetrators of victimless crimes and so forth. Prohibition was unceremoniously dumped after just a few years because the idiocy making the consumption of alcohol was so obvious. We have the same situation now with the current range of illegal drugs. So, why are we not following where Portugal leads?

[mistermack]

So, why hasn't tobacco not been made illegal recently? Kind of destroys your point, doesn't it?

What is my point? You seem to be replying to a different one.
I just made the point that the reasons that govt.s continue with the bans are the ones that they give publicly. I'm not saying that they have got it right or wrong, just that there is no mysterious hidden agenda.
Politicians aren't going to ban cigarettes or alcohol, because they use them themselves, and it would be a vote loser. Most people understand that perfectly well.
It may be an inconsistent stance, but it is still the genuine reason for the bans.
And of course, there is votes in standing against legalising drugs. And lost votes in championing the liberalisation of the drug laws.

Some of the drugs out there are incredibly harmful. I personally know women who have lost a succession of children to the local authorities, because all they can think about is drugs.
That's a lot of harm done to themselves, and more importantly, a lot of kids condemned to living in a subculture of kids in care. All because of addictive drugs.

One guy who I have known for years, did a lot of drugs in his time.
He's in a mental institution now, after killing his girlfriend by cutting her throat.
You don't meet many people who have done something like that, and it's no coincidence that there is a long drug history there.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's false to pretend that there is no cost to legalising drugs.
Whether it's a price that has to be paid, I don't know.

[RESiNATE]

You make a valid case in many ways, mistermack

However:

One guy who I have known for years, did a lot of drugs in his time.
He's in a mental institution now, after killing his girlfriend by cutting her throat.
You don't meet many people who have done something like that, and it's no coincidence that there is a long drug history there.

I also know of hundreds more cases where a similar set of circumstances were brought about by an individual who was under the influence of alcohol; child abuse, wife beating, public fighting, drunk drivers, rape, civil unrest, abuses at A&E, property destruction,.....shall I continue?

One cannot lambaste one substance without considering the negative effects of all the others.

I am not for one moment suggesting that recreational drugs are any 'better' than alcohol - what I am saying is that there is a very apparent disparity in the argument.

The 'War on Drugs' is and always will be a failure - it can be proven by regarding the 'balance sheet' of the financial and health benefits that have been attained since its inception...which is, to date, nil.

I, and many others, became involved in a very fervent debate on this very forum many years ago - I'm sure you could seek it out in the archives...I can't remember the exact title of the thread (maybe someone else can), but it is well worth revisiting. There were some very good points made by both 'camps' (I am firmly in the pro-legalisation 'camp') and I would like to think that, as I certainly did, a greater understanding of both points of view were gained.

It would be very foolish, in my opinion, to legalise drugs without very careful consideration. But it is more foolish to continue this pointless and dangerous prohibition. Prohibition is the very thing that is preventing people from seeking help with their addiction. Prohibition is forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to deal with people of a very different ilk.

Prohibition ONLY serves the criminal elements of our societies, and millions upon millions of [currency] is passing into the hands of criminal cartels instead of into the systems that can help those that need it.

Interestingly, in the UK, the treasury are now accounting for the money spent on illegal services and goods into their GDP...and the calculations are revealing astonishing figures (they are well underestimated, of course)! Would it not be better to gain those monies in a constructive way, rather than view them as money that could have been had?

Those here that are new to this site, or indeed this topic of debate - please take the time to search out that thread I mentioned earlier and read through the debate. There are no definitive answers (as yet), but many of the points that would be raised or argued in this thread have already been explored. Moreover, maybe a fresh set of eyes and ideas can arrive at some positive solutions.

I am a regular user of Cannabis. I have had experience of using other recreational drugs (though NEVER such things as heroin or PCP etc). I have carried out extensive research and debated in many forum on this, one of my favourite topics. I, by no means, claim to be an authority, but I am very confident in my knowledge whilst remaining open and receptive to new points of view.

Peace and love [pfft], and doughnuts to all humankind



Res...

[piscator]

On November 4th, I will have the pleasure of being able to vote to make the use of marijuana legal for persons 21 or older in Alaska, as well as to depose our incumbent Governor and to prevent the Republicans from gaining a US Senate seat.
What could make it better? In the Oct 7 Borough & Local elections, I get to vote my girlfriend back on the City Council.


It ain't always easy being me, but sometimes it's pretty fkn good...

[rainbow]

Sara Palin is your girlfriend????

Does Mr Palin know about this?

[JimC]

This thread makes me extremely nostalgic for the pleasure that illicit dugs gave me in the past...



However, I'm somewhat conflicted because of the reality that some illegal drugs such as ice are having major negative impacts on areas of Australia. But cannabis, even though it ultimately triggered bad symptoms in me, should not be illegal, certainly not illegal to grow for personal consumption...

[mistermack]

Even though it's thoroughly inconsistent to have Alcohol and Cigarettes legal, while other drugs are illegal, that doesn't mean that it would be a good thing to automatically legalise everything, just because we have two harmful drugs that are legal.

It's a fallacious argument. That we should always fix inconsistencies, even at the cost of making things worse. Sometimes, leaving inconsistencies to stand is a much better option than trying to even it out.
What parent in their right mind would allow a very young child to smoke and drink alcohol, just because their much older brother was a smoker and a drinker? The fact that you can't stop the one, doesn't mean it's a good thing to allow the other to do the same.

It might be necessary to liberalise drugs laws eventually. But only because it's impractical to keep up a ban. Not just to even out some inconsistency.

If it were practical, I would ban all recreational drugs, including tobacco and alcohol.
If it could be done for no cost, and the ban was effective, I would do it, and I'm convinced that it would save lots of lives, and prevent lots of misery.
But that's impossible, so you do the best with what you've got.

I would legalise marijuana now, if I was in power. Because then you can regulate it.
I would only allow weaker varieties, have it grown on licence, test its strength regularly, and tax it. And have very strong penalties for anyone supplying it to a minor, in any situation.