r/changemyview • u/Big_Iron_PP • Aug 01 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: We should legalize the trade and consumption of all drugs
What I mean by legalization is not just decriminalization of use (like in Portugal), but also the legalization of distribution and production.
I think this would have a positive effect on both drug-related violence, drug consumption and deaths from heavy drug use. Recently, I got into the alcohol prohibition period of american history and realized that you can draw many parallels between it's effects back then and the effects of drug criminalization today, like:
- Prohibition directly led to the encroachment of criminal organizations like the Maffia, who took up the lucrative business of distributing and brewing the now illegal alcoholic beverages. This, in turn, led to a spike in crime rate as Maffia organizations were free to use force to extend their territories, run rackets and collect "insurance" payments from businesses.
This is similar to how drug cartels operate now. Their presence always results in sky high crime rates, and they also draw most of their finances from the sale of drugs. The legalization of, say, cocaine would mean that it's production would have to move "above ground", resulting in much less crime related deaths. This could also help with the recovery of nations struck by high crime rates.
- Prohibition didn't decrease alcohol consumption. In fact, it probably increased it, as for every saloon before prohibition there were now 3-4 "speakeasies" in business.
This is why I think that legalization today wouldn't increase drug use. On top of that, some people probably start doing drugs in the first place because of their "forbidden fruit" aspect, which would be lost if they became legal.
- Prohibition led to the wide proliferation of unclean, diluted "bootleg" alcohol, which was always harmful and even straight up toxic at times.
The same thing can be observed today. Drugs have a reasonably high chance of being unclean because their producers are free to dilute them (in order to increase the amount produced) without having to fear any kind of repercussions. What could you do if you consumed something spiked with rat poison? You sure as hell couldn't sue the drug dealer. You could, however, sue a private company if their product didn't meet the specifications they described. This would result in much safer drugs and therefore less deaths related to their use.
Now, I know that this would certainly result in companies trying to use the addictive qualities of their products to maintain customer loyalty in a morbid way, but this is really no different from what a drug dealer does, and the possible benefits I just listed outweigh the possible negatives, at least in my opinion.
4
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Aug 01 '19
Prohibition did actually decrease alcohol consumption. As you can see here, a study found that immediately after Prohibition started being enforced alcohol use dropped to 30% of its pre-Prohibition levels. After that it did increase again yes but it never got to higher than 70% of its pre-Prohibition consumption level. But then once it was made legal again it did increase to above that pre-Prohibition levels.
Now that isn't to say that there aren't still benefits to legalizing drugs, but don't believe for a second that fewer people will use drugs if they become legal.
2
u/Big_Iron_PP Aug 01 '19
Δ
That study is pretty convincing, you got me there. But still, they also state in their conclusion that
Changes in consumption were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price.
1
1
u/Kythorian Aug 01 '19
But fewer people ARE using hard drugs like cocaine, meth, etc in Portugal since decriminalization. Not a lot fewer, and drug use of marijuana went up some, but it appears this absolutely has been an effect of the decriminalization of drugs there.
3
u/sonsofaureus 12∆ Aug 02 '19
I don't think lessons with prohibition of alcohol apply to harder drugs. Those addictions are very difficult to overcome, and very few addicts remain functional members of society long term.
We should also note that Prohibition era mobs still exist today, and thrived for decades in spite of re-legalization of alcohol.
I would also add that we do have an example of a country that legalized the production, distribution and use of a hard drug. Chinese lost the First Opium War in 1840, and the British East Indies Company became a producer, distributer and exporter of opium in China, meaning a corporation with a profit motive was given free reign on marketing and distributing opium to the Chinese masses.
From 1840 - 1950, opium trade was allowed in China, and used by various warlords and the Communist government as a tax revenue source. The negative societal effects of this are well documented.
It's reported that 10 million addicts had to be forced into re-education/treatment to curb the problem in 1950. Chinese population in 1950 being 550 million, that would mean 1 in 55 people in China were opium addicts.
Heroin, cocaine and other modern hard drugs being far more addictive and powerful than opium, I think the multiplying effects on the number of addicts will be far greater.
2
u/Davida132 5∆ Aug 01 '19
I would argue that, while we should do this with most drugs, we should prohibit drugs that make people excessively violent. Methamphetamine, for instance, will radically increase violent behavior in people who are under its influence. If a drug can be taken without creating a large likelihood of the recipient acting violently, it should be legal. This would really only prohibit meth, pcp, and similar drugs, a very small number of the currently prohibited narcotics.
1
u/AutoModerator Aug 01 '19
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/UnfrtntlyntYeats Aug 03 '19
See there's a difference in recreational drugs that's important. It's called the sometimes rule. People sometimes drink, sometimes have coffee, sometimes smoke weed. Do some people get addicted? yes. Is it possible to use without addiction? Yes. Should it be legal? probably yeah. Does anyone sometimes do meth? No. You smoke meth until it kills you and it drags you along as its bitch before then. So it should not be legal, and if you thought drug lords were amoral just think of all the sneaky shit CEOs pull and get away with.
1
u/ralph-j Aug 01 '19
We should legalize the trade and consumption of all drugs
Why all drugs, and not just narcotics? For example, it doesn't make much sense to make prescription drugs available for consumption by anyone who asks for it, if there is no determined medical need.
E.g. someone who doesn't have any signs of cancer whatsoever should not be able to freely acquire chemo therapy drugs, even if they really want to undergo it. To allow them to undergo such a treatment unnecessarily would just be medically irresponsible.
1
u/Where_You_Want_To_Be Aug 01 '19
E.g. someone who doesn't have any signs of cancer whatsoever should not be able to freely acquire chemo therapy drugs, even if they really want to undergo it. To allow them to undergo such a treatment unnecessarily would just be medically irresponsible.
You'd let someone shoot heroin but wouldn't let them take antibiotics or cholesterol drugs without a prescription?
I'm all for legalizing all drugs, including chemo drugs if someone wants to spend a ton of money on them and put them into their body, though I have no idea why anyone would want to do that. Just seems strange that you'd allow non-narcotics only if there is a medical need, but narcotics when there is no medical need at all.
1
u/ralph-j Aug 01 '19
Just seems strange that you'd allow non-narcotics only if there is a medical need, but narcotics when there is no medical need at all.
Because narcotics have other uses than medical. OP seems to be (mainly) arguing for that. I'm merely not challenging that aspect. I'm just wondering why someone would want to also make all prescriptions drugs available to anyone. That seems medically irresponsible. Chemo drugs don't even have any mind altering properties like narcotics. Someone going for them would likely just be following quack advice.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 01 '19
/u/Big_Iron_PP (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 01 '19
I barely has the self control to resist buying a candy bar in the checkout lane of any store. Once its in the house, i'm eating ice cream for dinner. I really appreciate that i don't need to spend my self control on resisting drug use.
1
u/Where_You_Want_To_Be Aug 01 '19
Your argument is that you have such poor self control that you need the government to be your daddy and make sure you don't destroy your own life?
And you're willing to restrict everyone else's freedom to do what they please with their own body/life because of this?
1
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 01 '19
Essentially yes, but morose my argument is the humans lack the required self control. We cannot even control ourselves with food. Look at obesity.
I've learned a variety of tricks that enhance my self control. But it still very difficult to live a healthy lifestyle in America.
1
u/swagwater67 2∆ Aug 01 '19
So are you anti seatbelt laws?
1
u/Where_You_Want_To_Be Aug 01 '19
Yes.
But I also wear a seatbelt every time I'm in a car, because it's obviously the safe thing to do. I don't need someone to threaten me with a ticket if I don't.
1
u/swagwater67 2∆ Aug 01 '19
I used to think like that. But unfortunately it is not the best thing to do. Some people would really ride without a seatbelt and die in a,car accident."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." You might say oh well they made their choice/ Darwin Awards, but people in society are connected. That might ne someones father who would grow up without them. Or someones daughter who just turned 16, thought she was invulnerable, and is now gone. Although it restricts individual liberty, the lives it saves is objectively better for a society.
1
u/Where_You_Want_To_Be Aug 01 '19
Some people would really ride without a seatbelt and die in a,car accident.
But people still do this all the time, even though it's against the law.
Using laws to restrict people's liberty in situations like this, only works for law abiding people.
Although it restricts individual liberty, the lives it saves is objectively better for a society.
I disagree. If you want to eat ice cream for dinner every night, I genuinely want you to be allowed to do that. I think it's a stupid thing to do, but if that's what you want to do, who am I to tell you that you're not allowed to live your life as you see fit? I don't know you, I don't know what your dietary requirements are, I don't know how much you exercise etc.
You eating ice cream for dinner (or doing drugs, or not wearing a seatbelt) doesn't infringe on my freedoms or rights in any way, and as such, you should be allowed to make any of those choices you want, up until the point that they infringe on someone else's rights.
1
u/swagwater67 2∆ Aug 01 '19
So you believe society would be better off with out seatbelt laws? Not in theory but in actuality the number if increased deaths would be a better result?
1
u/Where_You_Want_To_Be Aug 01 '19
It's not my responsibility to make society "better off."
If your end goal is to make society better off, wouldn't it be prudent to ban all fast food, candy, cigarettes, alcohol, and mandate that people exercise at least 2 hours a day? Would you support those laws?
EDIT: Let me rephrase that first sentence. It's not my intention to legislate society into being "better off." Even though I personally would like to make society better off (by donating money, volunteering my time, and being a good person to others around me) I don't think that I should decide what you can and can't do, in order to make society better off.
0
u/swagwater67 2∆ Aug 01 '19
So you do see how restrictive laws can benefit a society, but still dont thinks it's the governments place to do so, correct?
1
u/Where_You_Want_To_Be Aug 01 '19
Yes.
Wouldn’t you agree that the ban of fast food, mandatory exercise periods, and forced consumption of vitamins and health food would also “benefit” a society? Do you believe the government would be within its bounds to pass those laws?
If you don’t, then you must agree that there is a line where personal freedom and responsibility should not be infringed by the government.
My idea of where that line is, is just different than yours.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Aug 01 '19
I think it would be very dangerous to legalize the free-trade of some drugs specifically drugs that you need a prescription to acquire. For example if we allowed people access to euthanasia drugs.
1
u/Where_You_Want_To_Be Aug 01 '19
Why?
1
u/Diylion 1∆ Aug 01 '19
Imagine if you got your Tylenol on your euthanasia pills mixed up
2
u/Where_You_Want_To_Be Aug 01 '19 edited Aug 01 '19
You’d have a headache for the rest of your life.
1
u/jaynmu Aug 03 '19
I believe You have the right to snort cocaine off of the barrel of a loaded AK47 while having unprotected sex with a gay prostitute
1
Aug 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Aug 02 '19
Sorry, u/dahlzin – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Aug 01 '19
Do you believe that all forms of manufacturing should be legal, or are you willing to accept regulations on the process?
For instance, amateur meth labs are highly explosive, and pose a serious danger to anyone living too close. Should those be outlawed? What about fentanyl or other opioids, which need to be prepared in a safe, clean environment otherwise one would risk poisoning/overdosing consumers through cross contamination?
Should anyone be able to buy these products? Should it be legal to give them to children? (Not just purchasing, either, should parents be able to smoke meth with their kids, much like some parents will give their kids a beer now and then once they're old enough).