CMV: Drug addiction is purely a health concern, not a legal one, and any and every drug should at the very least be decriminalized, if not legalized.

/u/L_Lautsprecher (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/lpt2lu/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_drug_addiction_is_purely_a/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

> Freedom of choice no matter how bad of a decision it may be should still be considered a human right, Some choices create consequences or heighten risks for other people. A simple example is drinking and driving. Drinking and driving is of course a choice. Do you believe it's one people have a right to be free to make? I'm generally with you that the war on drugs has been a failure and that laws as we've been using them have not been a humane or effective measure to deal with the health crisis of drug addiction and abuse. We're on the same page there. But I don't think we necessarily want to throw out all legal tools for dealing with this crisis. Yeah, a lot more resources need to be pumped into rehab, and systems that make addicts feel they're in legal danger if they try to get help need to be reworked drastically. But legal frameworks are a tool in our belt. To give an extreme example, I don't think it should ever be legal to sell meth to a twelve year old. Wouldn't you agree?

Drugs are a physical and mental problem to individual health. I agree with that. But I disagree that the problems associated stop at individual choice. Hard drugs like crack, meth, heroin and other opiates have massive social costs like increases in crime, violence, prostitution, homelessness, etc. Think about children who are raised under addict parents, they are indirectly the victims of drugs in multiple ways. They didn't make a choice to breathe in meth fumes or find their overdosed parent dead on the living room floor. Now with that said, I think we have learned that the skull-cracking war on drugs also doesn't seem to be "fixing" the problem. The best course of action is probably something like : reducing or eliminating sentencing for small-time drug addicts in favor of treatment facilities or programs. Legalizing drugs that are known to not cause major social problems and would be safer if they were taken out of the black market (like mushrooms or cannabis) and focusing any policing on busting meth labs and drug logistics networks.

I agree with most of your points, but take issue with a few specific ones. First the things that I agree with: 1. Legalization removes barriers to seeking help, as well as stigma (and thus more barriers). 2. Legalization removes or at least cuts massively into the revenue streams for cartels and other organized crime groups. 3. The financial and social costs of cracking down on drug use through the justice system are significant. We are very often taking people who would have simply been recreational users, and sending them through the criminal justice system which is likely to lead them to far more criminal behaviour in the future, and we are doing it with taxpayer dollars. And two more points that you didn't directly mention in your post, but that are valid points none the less 4. People worry about legalization of drugs like marijuana due to its role as a gateway drug, but I would argue that this is mainly because, when all drugs are illegal, people are turning to the same, or at least related, outlets for all drugs (not all dealers sell multiple drugs, but it's certainly not uncommon, and most would at least have "colleagues" selling other drugs). Legalization allows us to control how they are sold, so "upselling" on drugs is not possible, and the natural temptation of moving on from one to the next could be controlled. 5. It presents a potential (large) revenue stream for governments that doesn't cut into existing legitimate businesses. \_\_\_\_ But your points that I would challenge: \- Your original post points to either legalizing or decriminalizing. While both would probably help with respect to points 1 and 3 and 4 above, decriminalizing would do nothing with respect to point number 2 and 5. The only way to remove organized crime from the picture is to establish a legitimate supply chain to steal the market, and decriminalization doesn't accomplish this. \- I don't think that your claims (not so much in your post, but in some other comments here) that legalization does not lead to higher use are supported. I haven't seen data from Portugal that you refer to, but what I've seen reported on marijuana in states that have legalized it shows an increase in use, and even in problematic use (especially adults 26+). Here is an example. It's a web article, not an original scientific journal article, but it was the easiest one to find with a google search, and there are many others that corroborate it, so it seems to faithfully portray the study it reports on. [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/13/20962924/marijuana-legalization-use-addiction-study](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/13/20962924/marijuana-legalization-use-addiction-study) There are valid reasons to challenge it, because results are self reported, and legalization removes barriers to self report, but I think the general consensus I've seen from this and many other sources is that marijuana legalization has lead to more widespread use, and possibly even more abuse. You could argue that this results from poor implementation, and more efforts must go into education/rehabilitation initiatives, but the act of legalizing a drug certainly can lead to more use. Whether this can be mitigated through education etc., and whether the advantages outweigh the possible increased use is where the real discussion lies.

In your own view you speak of a heavy drinking culture, so that lends support to drug abuse being as much a cultural problem as a health one. If you treat drug abuse as a health problem, then unfortunately the dominant method of treatment is... with more drugs.

I disagree with you only on the premise that drug dealers or anyone who is selling drugs illegally should be condemned legally. I only say this because I think if we just let anyone sell drugs then they can call poison drugs and sell that too. The selling and distribution of anything that is super harmful must be properly regulated. I think more research has to be done too. I don’t think it’s helpful to legalize all drugs. There has to be a line drawn. On the consumption front you’re correct.

In the UK where I live you practically don't buy cigarettes without a label telling you they kill you. All my friends at university smoke, along with so many students international and British. I promised my dying grandmother I wouldnt smoke since it killed her, but people dont care. I think if some drugs were legal usage might increase. I don't think weed is harmful but I've seen what addiction to lean, molly and cocaine can do to people. Also weed is ok for people who do it cos they like it. A friend I knew who did it to be popular ended up doing all kinds of other shit he claimed he would never touch since that way its like a gateway. But hardcore drugs can potentially have a really destructive effect on a person. Instead of turning to therapy or family during tough times people might opt for that. Quitting alcohol is hard enough, I think quitting heroine will be much harder. I see your point but I can see how it will be a stronger vice for so many. Idk its just how I feel.

I'm mostly in agreement, but I have one substantial quibble here - I would argue that criminalizing certain drugs _is_ a health concern. > Freedom of choice no matter how bad of a decision it may be should still be considered a human right, the last word on what you choose to put in your body should still be up to you. I am _somewhat_ in agreement with this. However, I very much draw the line at certain points. In most situations, I will object to someone who tries to kill themselves, on the basic heuristic that the vast majority of people who try to kill themselves are not in their right mind, and that most survivors do not go on to try again. So I guess the question is, how close is taking a drug like Heroin to committing suicide? It is an extremely addictive, extremely harmful drug with a low ratio between an effective dose and a lethal dose. I feel like there is a case to be made that, regardless of how progressive we become at dealing with drugs, we will need to continue to ban certain drugs, most notably opioids like Fentanyl and Heroin, due to the extreme harm they cause to individuals.

I don't want crackheads walking around. And i DEFINITELY don't want crackheads around children i bbn parks. That's why i think it should be illegal. Bot 15 years in prison, but more like 3 years in light prison dedicated for rehabilitation.

While I agree with you in most of this I have one difference. What about drugs that make a person violent. Or LSD or PCP which cause hallucinations which may make people violent? I don’t think those drugs should be legal. Edit: to clarify. I did some research, I was wrong about the LSD and PCP thing. I’ll make my point more plain. If there is a drug that takes away your ability to reason yourself and makes you violent, that should be illegal.

Just ask a drug addict's family and see if they agree with you on this

Alcohol was legalized OK good , now check the statistic of not only the death by intoxication but also those cause by accidents under the influence. If drugs are legalized the will get into the science pros and cons rabbit hole, many people will use them damaging society as we know it. Take into account decisions made by non users, many erroneous , now imagine decisions under the influence.Imagine a surgeon that is also crackhead because it is *legal*, you would want your kid's pediatrician to be a heroin user?

i feel like consumption of drugs should be decriminalised. i totally agree. what people to do themselves should not be governed by the government. however, i believe suppliers of drugs that are known to cause significant harm to people should be face legal consequences

Decriminalized? Sure that's understandable and fits with the argument that it's a health concern. Legalized? No way, there's no world where that makes any sense. Pretty much all the drugs that are illegal right now (in most states) are illegal because they are highly addictive and damage your body. Now, decriminalization makes sense because the solution to that would be to discourage damaging substances while trying to rehabilitate those who have crippling addictions. Decriminalization makes sense in theory, legalization does not

Its the fact that some drugs can cause people to hate themselves and others is why the laws are there to help prevent injuries. Laws are there to keep us safe.

My son nearly died from an oxycontin overdose at 2, and tested positive for methamphetamine at 7, so I think I have every right to say: F### the notion that addicts are only hurting themselves. Let me back up a little. When I married my now ex-husband, he seemed like a pretty decent guy. He had a prescription for oxycontin, but it seemed legitimate- he took it for a back injury. Little by little, I noticed he was taking more and more. He became obsessive, and would count his pills constantly, as if he was terrified he'd run out. One day, I noticed our 2-year-old son didn't want to wake from his nap. What do you think had happened? Ex had most likely dropped one of his oxys during his routine countings. It was devastating. CPS came down on me harder than they did him. I forced him into rehab, thinking that would change everything. I even informed his doctor that he was an addict, and that these oxys were ruining our lives. Then he got into meth. OMG, did he change. He became super paranoid, and installed over 12 cameras all around and INSIDE our house. He started seeing things that weren't there. He became physically abusive. I left, and filed for sole legal and physical custody. The judge refused to acknowledge all of my concerns, stating that "drug abuse is not necessarily child abuse." Gave us 50/50. For months, our kids would return from visits telling me crazy stories. They'd slept on the floor, because he'd given up their beds to his tweaker friends. They saw lots of people going into the bathroom, and it was really smokey. They'd missed school because he took them to the casino instead. They learned what CPR was, because one of his friends needed it. Then the worst happened. My son came home saying he had gotten up in the middle of the night and wanted water. My ex's friend gave him a glass, and it burned his throat. It tasted like smoke. I had my son tested. Positive for methamphetamine. I will never, ever forgive my judge for letting it get to that point. My son SHOULD NOT have had to go through that for the court to finally take action. I had presented PLENTY of evidence that the situation was not safe. My kids have supervised visitation with their father now. He has continued in his decline. His live-in girlfriend is a felon who reached out to me to tell me he was physically abusing her, but she got back together with him (poor girl). He has lots of teenagers living at his house- he is dealing drugs to them and having sex with them. Do you think their mothers would agree that he is only hurting himself? F### that notion.

And the crimes committed to feed the habit? Are those part of the "health condition" and to be treated as such? Remember, opiates are legally prescribed.

There are some drugs people aren't aware of, like fentanyl and (even worse) carfentanil. Carfentanil is 5000 times as potent as heroin. The problem is that it's synthetic which means it's way cheaper to make than heroin. So people who sell heroin lace carfentanil and fentanyl in with heroin to dilute it and save themselves money. But then to the user who wants heroin they take 5g of heroin and instead get 1g of carfentanil in there. Now instead of taking 5g of heroin they are effectively taking 5004g of heroin because of the potency of carfentanil. This is why there are so many opioid deaths. It's not just about addiction it's also about the drugs themselves and how they are sold. You might argue that if you legalize heroin then people will be able to take it safely. That might be true but you are also arguing to legalize all drugs, including carfentanil. So you'd have the same problem really. My point is that you need a limit somewhere, and carfentanil and fentanyl are that limit for me.

Too often drugs are cut with other garbage that can be very harmful. If drugs were legalized and you could buy pure drugs safely it would make a significant difference in the way people use drugs. Set up programs for those that do get addicted, help them lower their usage until they are able to quit. At this point we’re just pretending drugs are illegal. I can go on my phone and have any kind of drug I want delivered to me within an hour, it’s not hard. People are still gonna do drugs whether their illegal or not, wouldn’t it be better for people to be able to do them safely? The war on drugs has lost every single year. When are we gonna stop spending money on trying to prevent something perfectly normal, instead of letting people enjoy their drugs, helping addicts and simultaneously taking in tax revenue.

For me, there are three levels "allowing" drugs into society. "Purely Illegal" to produce and sell, like Heroin is right now. "Medical Use" like most prescription drugs and Marijuana is most of places. Then there's purely recreational/OTC like Asprin and Alcohol. Now, where would you put these drugs within those three categories: Marijuana, Alcohol, Tobacco, Heroin, Lipitor (for cholesterol), Aspirin, and Vicodin? It's easy to make a case to decriminalize possession of small quantities of (presently) illegal drugs. To me, it would be an easy sell to lock all drugs behind a prescription wall. If a doctor goes around prescribing Heroin for there patients, there's a check there from the state medical board that may cost them a professional license should they not be able to justify the medical use. But what if I want to use Heroin and can't find a doctor willing to give me a prescription? Society has invested quite a bit in me, but I want to waste it all by doing drugs until I die of overdose. Have you tried life on Heroin? It's pretty great. You don't have any problems and everything is super great so long as you can keep maintaining that high. It's a pretty sexy sell. Without some form of enforcement, it will run rampant like it did in China, as Britain was using it to blatantly poison their populace into unproductivity during the [Opium Wars](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars). Now for something fuzzier. What if I want to take Lipitor over the counter? Why should I need a doctors prescription if I want to lower my cholesterol? After all, I can take Aspirin without trouble, so why not Lipitor? The commercials on TV said it's my problem, so why should I pay hundreds of dollars to a doctor to get a dosage and permission to take the drug? This sounds like a silly example, but I'm trying to juxtapose the issue of wanting to take a drug over the counter that people don't take to get high recreationally. So if you make Lipitor over the counter, why not Testosterone supplements? For men, there's a wide range of Testosterone that is considered "acceptable" and insurance won't cover you until you're at virtually zero natural production. But if you can get some supplements, Testosterone makes you way better in almost every way. You run faster, think more clearly, and feel 10 years younger if you've gone from zero to 90% of that range. But if you're just taking Testosterone without a cocktail of other drugs to balance the hormones, your body will stop producing Testosterone naturally and permanently. That means you're stuck on supplements for life. Now there's a massive profit incentive for pharmaceutical companies to push Testosterone supplements hard into the hands of every guy. Once they start taking them, they're hooked as a customer for life and have to deal with feeling like shit (for life) or paying $100/mo to the pharma company for supplements. They don't get "high" recreationally, and you can't improve your life by going to an NA meeting to stop taking it. It's just ruined your body's biochemistry. Again, because they made the choice. And now society has a weakened male population because a pharma company pushed it on users that took it without being required to consult with a doctor first.

Well there are pros and cons to this. The pros are of course cheaper and maybe safer if it is fully legalized to sell causing less violence and crime. The cons are pretty large though. Drugs ruin lives. People get addicted and can’t stop. If they are legalized so many people who wouldn’t otherwise use drugs will use them. And the thing is drugs don’t just hurt the user. They also hurt everyone else around them. A drug user is way more violent and likely to commit crime just because even if drugs are cheaper, they still need money for other necessities. They won’t have a job or any source of income most of the time. The increase in drug users will probably create a lot more crime then it will reduce by cheaper drugs. Freedom of choice may have limits. Do you want your family member homeless on the streets addicted to heroin? It hurts them and us. Drugs don’t just hurt the user they cause so many other problems as stated above. The well being of the community and its members is the responsibility of the government and an insane increase in drug users will hurt that well being massively. The problem with lack of rehab is totally separate from this. We need to put rehab programs in our prison. Punishing drug users won’t help them. Prison should help drug users not punish them since addiction will outweigh that fear of punishment. Prohibition is not really very similar here because although alcohol does hurt the community the impact is not even close to that of drugs. So the argument against it is really: Drugs hurt the community and their members so greatly that free choice isn’t just affecting them. Another point is that even if it is just affecting them, do we want this many people to have their lives ruined by said free choice?

[removed]

The government of Singapore did this (if i can remember correctly) with Heroin, the black market actually came out and sold their stockpile to the government and because of the purity/lack of poison etc they were given a fair exchange. Their crime went down by a significant margin because of this. Small area to see it work, but if it works there then there is a chance it can work anywhere. Use said cash flow from sales of regulated drugs to fund rehabs and clinics that can help if one such requests it.

I'm going to put in from a health standpoint: no. While it seems a better solution, you don't take in consideration the short and long term problems this will cause. People above pointed out the danger to others. It's a danger to the person using it, despite being his/her choice. All the hard drugs (meth, cocaine, heroin, etc.) come with health issues. Short term (broken veins, fallen teeth, etc.) and long term (circulation problems, lung problems, etc.). Even in countries with universal healthcare, no one is willing to take on the cost of long term health issues caused by recreational use of drugs. Because they are too high. Also, consider this: while it's illegal to sell alcohol to minors, teen alcoholism is considered a big problem in most developed countries. If you try the same with hard drugs (legalize only for adults), you'll go the same way. I agree on the part that the whole "war on drugs" is ineffective and that punishing users hard is counterproductive. But if your willing to make hard drugs legal because it's a "health concern", then be prepared to overstretch an already stretched to the point of breaking health sector and pony up a hefty price per addict.

Absolutely agree. However - a charge of burglary/assault etc should not carry a lesser sentence just because the offender is a drug addict and needed money

While I agree that consumption and possession should be legal, sale definitely should not be, except for certain drugs that have been proven not to be CHEMICALLY addictive and are safer than alcohol. Psilocybin and THC come to mind for no-brainer across-the-board legalization and regulation on par with tobacco and alcohol, after thorough testing by the FDA, of course. However the more dangerous drugs should probably remain illegal to sell/produce and simply their possession/consumption should be made a misdemeanor, since I agree that addiction is a disease and not a crime. And certain drugs should probably remain illegal to posess/consume just as a deterrent, like PCP or Meth, since these generally cause people to become more violent, although I suppose tougher public indecency laws could indirectly cover this

My main concern with this line of reasoning is the potential Corporatization of hard drugs. Like, we know tobacco and alcohol companies are ethically iffy, pushing their addictive products onto children in 3rd world countries, lying about addiction and cancer risks, etc. Now imagine that but with heroin. We already have enough issues with companies that sell prescription opiates. It would be an absolute dystopian nightmare I'm personally perfectly fine with the legalization of non-addictive, non-lethal drugs like psylocibon, LSD, marijuana, etc. But the idea of some mega-corp putting out cocaine ads is genuinely terrifying to me

[removed]

I would agree with you, generally, with the following exceptions: Any drug that involves combustion and inhalation of the drug should be decriminalized for use, but should only be allowed in particular designated areas and not under general circumstances. Meaning that it should be illegal, basically, to *smoke* any drugs in the home or on the street, or anywhere not specifically designated as an inhalant zone. Punishment should be limited and equivalent to public intoxication punishments, misdemeanor only, fines and minimal jail time. The reason it should be banned is for a very simple reason: secondhand smoke from mind-altering drugs alters the minds of those around the smoker without giving them the chance to consent to use the drug. Your right to consume mind-altering chemicals does not give to you the right to force others to consume the same chemicals.

There would be no money in it for law enforcement and the prison system if all drugs were decriminalized. They want to keep chasing the drug cartels and bringing in the big cash from large busts. Then they can make more money by setting up drug stings using the same drugs they confiscated. Hell, some law enforcement will even make their own hard drugs and set up the stings. Then in the crossfire, people who need help, get thrown in prisons. Money is made on so many levels. It’s a shame it’s taken this long for marijuana to be legalized in certain areas of the world when it should have been legalized long ago, everywhere. It would of saved a lot of people from going to prison over a few grams of weed. And in fact, in the areas where it’s made legal, they are still making money off of it by way of taxes and it goes directly back into the city. But the main point is people don’t typically need help getting off of weed. Money doesn’t have to be dumped into creating clinics to help addicts. Weed is starting to become more normalized and it’s almost in the category of cigarettes and alcohol. I think years down the road, it’s going to be legal everywhere and it’ll be just as common as cigarettes and alcohol simply for the fact it can be profitable for the community. You’d think they could do this with harder drugs, but fact of the matter is they probably won’t. They won’t want to set up medical clinics to help people. They won’t want to dump the money needed to treat addicts. At least with weed, people aren’t dying on the streets over it. Harder drugs like meth and heroin do kill people. And I think it’s much more profitable for law enforcement to keep doing what they are doing. Even though I don’t agree with it. I feel like all drugs should be decriminalized. They should treat it like they do weed. You should be able to buy it in a safe environment, use it in a safe environment, and get help if you choose so in a safe environment. But with drug cartels and corruption in our governments, I just don’t see it happening. When it comes down to it, people only care about money and profiting. It’s sad but it’s the cold reality.

[removed]

How does poisons which have the intent to kill and are still considered drugs fit into this framework. Does someone who decide to sell poisons deserve to be punished by the law?

Certain drugs like bath salts increase your adrenaline levels to a superhuman level where you eat peoples faces off. So some hard drugs are definitely a legal issue and access to them/ consumption should be illegal.

My step-father is a lifelong addict My mom met him in 1997, since then he has: been fired from every job he has ever had because of him either showing up to work drunk or high or being drunk or high and physically assaulting people that he worked with. In 2009 on the forth of July he got drunk and attacked me in a public restaurant and was arrested his elderly parents bailed him out and he was forced to go to rehab, he used it to network with other live long addicts to get better drug connections and even brought a fellow addict home with him to my mother. In 2010 he gets high and attempts to spilt my head open with a shovel, my mom got it on film and called the police. Against his parents bail him out and they order him to rehab...again. And again he uses it to update him drug contacts. In 2011 he ODed, then went to rehab. In 2014 he ODed again then went to rehab He ODed November of last year And he just ODed about a week ago. This time he has permanent brain damage due to lack of oxygen. He is a mean man who is the very definition of a narcissist. I believe my mom has stayed with him solely because of Stockholm syndrome. In my life he has gone to rehab about 7 times, but he wasn’t someone who was “under the influence” of drugs. He *lived* for drugs. And went he was high or drunk he *wanted* to fight, he would seek it out. You could get in your car to get away from him and he would follow you. Him and people like him belong in a concrete box or a pine box. There is no “fixing” them

I totally agree with you , anyone who is against decriminalization of drugs should watch/read Johan Hari. If you're still against it take some heroin or fent and be more compassionate. Honestly this is deeper than addiction or chemical hooks. Its about connection and compassionate, we could be fixing the system and helping suicide , depression, crime. Its annoying at this point, people should wake up. I've got personal experiences from a legal/medical. I was prescribed fentanyl daily from 16 to 22. It doesn't matter if its physical pain or emotional, its a coping tool and should be looked as a tool to get a person back to 100%/happy not as a person to avoid or be frowned upon. This system is causing too many people with real pain needs, I know so many people stuck on illegal painkillers who can't get proper help doctors so they turn to the street and its almost impossible to get back. Anyone who thinks opioids are the devil, what happened to all the heroin users from the Vietnam war. Stop ruining peoples lives and start helping them.

Implicit in your viewpoint is the notion that drug use is bad. This is demonstrated by the following passage " Freedom of choice no matter how bad of a decision" It is this viewpoint I would like to change. First of all, it is incorrect to think in terms of universal good or bad. Not to say that morality is subjective, but when it comes to eating a burger, what is good for the man is not necessarily good for the cow. Perhaps partly we can attribute this attitude to your own admitted inexperience with substance use. Certainly hundreds of millions, if not billions of people use drugs. Billions of people use caffeine, for the psycho-active effect of increased altertness. Likewise, alcohol is widely enjoyed because of the stupor it invokes. Hundreds of millions, if not billions of people have enjoyed a cannabis spliff on occassion. So were all of those people mistaken? Is their drug use all "wrong" or "bad"? Isn't that simplistic? Indeed, who but the individual in question, can determine whether the high or satisfaction from substance use is worth whatever costs, either physical, monetary, or otherwise use make incur? Every person has different value scales, and only the individual in question is aware of their value scales. Couldn't it be that the satisfaction a smoker gets from smoking a cigarette is worth whatever cost to his health or pocketbook that satisfying that addiction incurs? You may not want to smoke, but you also are not that person. You have no idea what their satisfaction from smoking feels like to them. Maybe they don't care about money or health, but do greatly enjoy their cigarette. In fact, the extreme lengths that drug users will go to in order to achieve their high, the high prices they pay on the black market, seems to indicate that they get extreme satisfaction from drug use. Some people get satisfaction from buying expensive clothes. Other people put their money towards electronics or expensive computers. Can we evaluate whether they are right or wrong to spend their money in that manner? The most we can say is that we would not. But we are not aware of their value scales. Perhaps they greatly value wearing the latest fashion. Perhaps they greatly value having a fast computer. Perhaps they greatly value using heroin or cocaine. Ultimately, we are not aware of other people's value scales, and we cannot say what they should do or they should spend their money, including whether or not they should or should not use drugs.

I can change your view with one simple, polite sentence. Inhaling just a small poof of fentanyl dust that gets kicked-up from a surface can be fatal, so the only drugs that should be decriminalized are the ones than can be handled in a reasonably-safe fashion by children and untrained adults.

This is a complex view so I will do my best to break it down: Just decriminalising drug use would be irresponsible as people need to be properly educated on their effects, especially for the hard drugs. While, individually, this can be seen as just a health issue, long term drug use of the harder substances (coke & opioids) leaves people that are in need of expensive drug rehab which most likely will not be able to afford themselves and the burden will fall on the community. For hard drugs, I don't see how this would reduce the effect of drug cartels... They will just use lower cut ratios to keep profits and addiction up. Legalizing them would entail setting quality standards for the substances, an education programme, sorting out production and distribution, and setting up a control mechanism for the consumption limits and pricing of the hard drugs. The latter part is probably the most important one as if you allowed people to consume as much coke/opiods as they wanted you would end up with an uncontrollable addiction rate. Mix this with Pharma setting whatever prices they want and you end up with people addicted on hard drugs that are now mentally unable to work a job that would pay for their addiction, which means they would lose their homes & families and resort to looting to pay their addiction. Pharma will just function as a legalised cartel, something one can argue already happens (see insulin). When this happens, who will pay for their expensive rehab? The tax payer will - making it a community issue. I would recommend you read up more on just how addictive hard drugs can be and their effects on livelyhood. IMO, hard drugs shouldn't exist or at least be so heavily regulated that you would only be able to get like a gramme a month for some actual medical condition.

I get what you are saying, but I think with some drugs it alters your perception of reality or can cause increased aggression like pcp, acid, etc. It is those sort of drugs that would be far too dangerous to allow people to access them freely. However, other drugs like marijuana could be legalized and taxed like alcohol and cigarettes are. The system available to help fight drug addiction still needs to be fixed. Another thing, if you don’t know anything about an experiment called Rat Park, it’s worth learning about. I believe that people can benefit better if communities were improved and quality of life improves. Often people will turn to drugs and alcohol because of perceived loneliness and other emotional or mental perceptions of themselves or their environment, even if they have people who love them. It doesn’t help that rehabs are typically expensive or difficult to access. If I recall correctly a lot of the heavily drugged areas are areas where the life quality is crappy (high crime rate, poor areas, etc). Look at the countries where there are a lot of cartels. There’s poor job prospects, poor educational quality or institutions, struggling to survive, etc. they turn to it because it’s easy to make money from it to take care of their loved ones....which brings me back again to improvement of communities, jobs, education, etc. give people something to be proud of, hope for, and feel like they can accomplish something instead of dismal situations due to over regulation and so on. So, while it’s not a bad idea to delegalize some drugs the bigger issues still need to be addressed and fixed before de-legalization can occur successfully

Ideally I agree, but I think the problem here is that legalizing something you're kind of condoning drug abuse. Of course you could make it harder to get drugs if it's the state itself to sell it, but at some point it would be too inconvenient to buy legal drugs and people would just go back to their dealers (at least the most desperate ones). Also, I don't agree with the claim that drug abuse only hurts the user: apart from the more obvious consequences that can "easily" be mitigated (e.g. driving under the influence), we should consider the impact that one's abuse has on their family and friends. Addiction is an awful thing that doesn't stop at the addicted. For me the solution is decriminalisation for all drugs, legalisation for some (I'm not an expert, but we can all agree that weed or ecstasy aren't as dangerous as meth or cocaine). If I'm an addict I have a problem, and treating me as a criminal, vilifying me and debasing me will just make my condition worse. The state should prosecute the ones that are selling me drugs, and give me real psychological support (if I want). Also, I don't know how it is in other countries, but here in Italy no one talks about addictions in the school (apart from those guys that makes you skip a couple of classes to tell you how bad drugs are). I think that proper education and information is key. Like, don't tell a 16 y.o. "drugs are bad and if your friends use them you should change friends", it will just make them more curious and willing to try drugs. EDIT: formatting

I agree with this, obviously sometimes a situation can become dangerous for others depending on the drug. But freedom can't be free if you can't do something that only effects you. All we do is waste money putting people in jail for stupid things like pot. And the war on drugs that has yet to end will never end. People have been doing it since the beginning of the war on drugs and its definitely not gonna stop. Its just a big waste of time for everyone. But sometimes people eat each other on some drugs so I guess you can't fully say it only effects you. But if you eat someone's face I think you should be held accountable and not the drug that did it. It shouldn't be a drug charge, it should simply be you ate someone's face you're going to prison. The fact that they are on bath salts shouldn't make it any better or worse. Driving on any drug should stay the same though. I don't believe that you should be allowed to be on drugs and drive because then it harms others. But if someone wants to sit at home and smoke pot, people should honestly just leave them alone. Too many people are judgemental and don't realize that maybe that person does enjoy their life and just doesn't care about living to their 90s. And it doesn't affect anyone but them, so I think its honestly a violation of peoples freedom.

Any drug that is purely a “freedom of choice” over ones own body I agree w u 100%. This is not the case w many illegal drugs. All drugs alter your brain in some way and inhibit your ability to make decisions. So when someone uses drugs, there’s a very real risk there will be harm that occurs outside of that individual person, and affect the community around them. For example drugs that could increase violent tendencies are a risk to those around the drug user just as they are for the user. Is prohibition the right solution for these risks? I don’t know. However there certainly should be legal implications when irresponsibility of drug use which causes harm towards others. I’m not informed enough to evaluate those levels of risk through diff drugs, but I would imagine there are drugs which use in of itself provides a risk so great that it should be illegal. There would also be a category that deserves alcohol level legalization w caveats around risky behavior such as driving. To summarize: any action that brings undue risk to the community should have legal consequences. Like speeding. Drug use can be considered one of these risks. (Btw I agree with you that the current legal framework is flawed, but the correct solution to prohibition requires consideration of this factor)

All drugs should be legal. There is a lot the government thinks they should have control over because it helps them gain control over other things little by little. There is a saying about giving them an inch... Drugs are terrible, not all (depending on what you consider a “drug”, e.g. marijuana, psychedelics, caffeine, etc...) but the government doesn’t have the right to tell YOU a FREE individual what you can or can’t put into your body. I HATE abortion, I hate the fact that it exists, I hate that some women feel like it’s their only choice, I hate that we have so many children suffering at the hands of the GOVERNMENT RAN foster care and adoption systems which make women choose abortion over the fear of putting another child through that torment, but I would NEVER vote against it because IT IS NOT MY RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEY CAN OR CANT DO WITH THEIR LIFE! I can advocate for alternatives, as an individual I can raise community awareness and help start movements to provide these women with endless resources and opportunities to nurture the life growing inside her, but I CANNOT tell her what she can or can’t do. It’s the same exact argument with drugs. Everyone needs to realize that the more power you give government, the more freedom and liberty you lose.

Legalizing drugs is a devil's bargain. I actually do agree with across the board legalization, but I'll argue the other side here: First we need to establish some facts: - legalizing drugs will not prevent problems with addiction. It may reduce problems, but they definitely will not go away completely. - we, as a society, will need to treat those addiction problems. - treatment will cost a lot of money - we will also want to make sure that if drugs are legal, they are also as safe as possible. With this in mind, the only way that legalization makes sense is if you allow companies to manufacture and profit off of drugs. Any drugs. Crack, meth, heroin, doesn't matter. You need to allow companies to profit because you need to tax them to pay for the inevitable drug addiction treatment that would need to be provided and because you need to make sure drugs are as safe as possible. So in the end, you're definitely enriching a few people (likely pharmaceutical companies), at the expense of the many people who will suffer due to drug addiction. It's better to continue fighting (what some people world consider to be) a moral drug war than to legalize the immorality of selling drugs.

The argument for freedom of choice becomes compromised when talking about something with significant potential for addiction. By its very nature, addiction impairs one's ability to freely choose. Thus, while the initial decision to use may be made freely, once the person is hooked the ability to learn, change, and grow from that mistake is not there the same way it would be for other life choices. They often become trapped, resulting a net negative ability for them to choose their own path in life. Especially so as an addiction becomes stronger and starts taking over other aspects of their lives. And not all addictions even begin as a result of free choices. Where I agree with you is I don't think criminalization of users is the right route, and we should be pursuing prevention and rehab instead. However, that still means a legal approach is necessary. Drug laws are not just about prison sentences for users, but also about defining things like how drugs can and cannot be pushed (should people be allowed to drive others toward something known to be both addictive and harmful for their own profit?), and what support systems are in place for those individuals.

\>Drug additional is purely a health concern, not a legal one Ok, that's an interesting conversation to have and certainly addicts would be better served getting treatment for their addictions rather than being throw into jail \>any and every drug should at the very least should be decriminalized Well, that's a pretty extreme answer to the problem, but certainly the legal system should prioritize recovery from addiction. It would mean changing the way our system allows people to be incarcerated against their will, which in turn would cause a lot of people to question the new tactics of incarceration and who gets to enforce them and what the nature of freedom is. \>Any and every drug... should be legalized Absolutely not. There are a ton (the vast majority) of drugs that have severe, long term deleterious effects on their users both physically and mentally, not to mention the drugs that literally compromise people's thought patterns in the short and long term. A society that is designed for the betterment and safety of all inhabitants has a responsibly to criminalize substances that can cause harm to people and the innocent people around them.

I defeintly agree to an extent. Obviously it goes without saying that I belive it should be treated similarly to drinking where once you are twenty one you are legally allowed to partake in drugs. If we would go to the extent of full legalization. I definitely think that it should be treated exactly the same as alcohol in a legal sense like I said. An age requirement, DUIs, and things like needing a license to distribute and you can't be outside publicly under the influence. I personally don't think it should reach that level because of how dangerous some drugs can be. I absolutely agree with decriminalization of drugs though as you aren't solving the problem when you in-prison someone for doing drugs. You're just putting them in a box full of other addicts and telling them to not do drugs. It's just a very lazy way of handling a serious problem. What should happen is people who are addicted should be going to see mental and pyahical health proffesional to get aid for the addiction and any health problems that come with addiction. I feel as though this whole issue falls under a much larger issue of how we handle criminals in the US

I was caught with a Percocet and a straw and now have a 5th degree felony from Gurnsey county Ohio. This was my first charge ever in the court system at 51. While on probation. My phone was seized and my PO saw pictures of guns. She had my resident county Jackson raid my house. They found my wife’s handgun and a shotgun. Now at 52, I’m looking at two pending felony 3’s. Which can carry up to 6 yrs in prison and if convicted for the firearms, 9 months on top of the gun sentence. My name has been posted on Facebook by the Jackson county sheriff department like I’m a dangerous drug kingpin. My lawyer is costing me $7,500. Not to mention if convicted on the firearms. I will have acquired 3 felonies in two years with a spotless record for a previous 50 years. The Ohio justice system turns everyday people into felony criminals in order to justify they pay checks. Meanwhile actual justice is put on a back burner and forgotten about. This is not a free country when a municipality has the legal ability to punish you for what you put in your own body while not harming others. It’s slavery with extra steps.

I'm gonna go on the offensive here. We both came to the same conclusion, decriminalize all drugs (at least, I'm for full legalization). I don't think drug usage is wrong. In my culture proper responsible use is not taught. Drugs themselves aren't the problem and can be INCREDIBLY beneficial if you use wisely. And drug usage doesn't even need to be beneficial. It can be a hobby. Using psychedelics recreationally can be fun and exciting. Using nearly all drugs in a responsible manner (including meth, heroin, cocaine) can be fairly safe of done properly. Our society as a whole is influenced heavily by propaganda. The half that are not okay with drugs have been brainwashed or have a negative anecdotal experience without fully recognizing the issue at hand. The half that do use often don't recognize why. People often use drugs as an escape from reality and their mental health. There's a balance. There's a responsible way to use drugs. But there needs to be a COMPLETE shift in mindset about how we go about it.

I am broadly in favor of a lot of decriminalization and legalization, but I think there are a lot of edge cases where a drug is so dangerous that the possession of any amount without a prescription shouldn't be allowed. Keep in mind that the more you decriminalize possession of a drug, the harder it becomes to incriminate those who deal the substance. All a dealer needs to do is keep below the legal limits on hand, which can be pretty easy to do. Good examples to me of drugs we might want to severely limit: * Rohypnol, GHB, Ketamine, and any other 'date rape' drugs. If a 20 year old college kid shows up at a party with even a single dose of any of these and gets caught in possession, IMO that should be a chargeable offense even if there's no evidence they tried to use it on someone * Krokodil. If you've never seen its effects, trigger warning for gore before you google pictures of its users * Several forms of the bath salt drugs, particularly the ones that have caused things like people eating faces

I tend to agree with you, but the one point that I would tweak is on the sale and distribution. I think that sale and distribution should be regulated to a degree, much like alcohol production and sale. This would be necessary for two reasons, 1. to ensure the quality and correctness of what is being sold to protect the end consumer from harmful chemicals (other than the intended substance) being mixed in with the drug they are intending to consume, i.e. to make sure your tylenol is actually tylenol and not other substances; and 2. to ensure that those substances are not being sold to minors, however that is determined by a given nation/ state. Personally, as an American, I would advocate for the same 21 year old mark that we use for alcohol. The other upside to regulation and managing the sale is that it would then be taxed. Those taxes can then be partially used to fund rehab and treatment, as well as education about substances, as well as a host of other things.

Freedom is dangerous, but it is the only way. Individuals should have the right to decide what they consume, even if it’s killing them.

> Freedom of choice no matter how bad of a decision it may be should still be considered a human right, the last word on what you choose to put in your body should still be up to you. I would like to change this view if nothing else. Freedom of choice means that you're free to do stuff *until it begins to restrict other's freedom*. In this particular instance, using drugs means you're less able to care for yourself and others around you. Somone who's high on heroin just sits there and does nothing. Occasionally they overdose and need emergency ambulance transfer and admission to hospital for resussication. They stress and worry their families at the very least, and often steal from their families to support their habits. Their overall productivity and output is basically zero, and they're a major drain on society. This all restricts other people's ability to live their lives, and overall *decreases* the amount of freedom for everyone.

This one is hard for me to get behind. I once responded to a residence where the mom was so high on heroin that her 5 year old pulled the dresser down onto himself and suffocated while she was passed out on the couch. The father came home and found him. Another call where a 2 year old got ahold of the dope on the bed while mommy was passed out and also died. The friend getting high with the passed out mother left and called 911 from a "safe place." And another where the parents were both so high that they put their toddler in an oven and killed him. Safe places to get high like other countries have? Sure. More funding for education /rehab? Sure. More lenient laws for those who come foreward or who get in trouble (i.e. state funded rehab instead of prison) sure. But you will never ever convince me that all drugs should just be dicriminalized when that eliminates the basis/ grounds for protecting these children.

Heroin is already called "heroin", and yet people are still finding ways to get it and use it the first, second, third, fourth and fifth time and then to become permanently and hopelessly addicted to it. Because people come in a spectrum, with wise people on one end and not wise people on the other. So I guess making it legal for not wise people to use heroin would be okay. Same with crack, or meth or Krokodil, or anything else that not wise people might want to repeatedly use until they're dependent. But the fact is that someone will have to manage them. Someone will have to help them obtain food and shelter and medical care. And if they aren't given food and shelter, someone will have to scoop their corpses off the street and bury them. So, sure it might be okay to make it legal for them to use these drugs. But it won't be the panacea that some people imagine.

Since some government agencies use drug money to fund their illegal activities over seas, legalization will never happen.

Those social costs that you bring up are a result of the system that is around the substance, not a result of the chemical. When you make something strictly prohibited you only give users the option to buy unregulated drugs at any quantity you’d like. Maybe there is a medicinal or therapeutic benefit to a low dose of some of those drugs that you mentioned in your reply. Meth, as you may know, on a chemical level is very similar to amphetamines like adderall and we as a society are ok with doctors prescribing these potent chemicals to our kids. The point of legalization of all drugs is to improve the relationship between these substances and the individuals who chose to take them. Obviously we know of drugs that are highly addictive, but in my opinion the mistreatment of the chemical is more to blame for the social side effects that they are causing today.

When freedom of choice is 100% guaranteed to become a burden on society it should be illegal. I can't think of any rational reason why heroin should be legal. Your opinion is that we should leave the door open for people to make retarded decisions who are then entitled to treatment. At that point you're a burden on me because I have to pay for your bullshit. And while I do actually agree addicts should get free treatment, I don't think open season should be allowed on certain drugs I don't agree with criminalizing possession but what you suggest would equate to shops where I can buy heroin or horse tranquilizer or some other nonsense. I'd ask you to name a single benefit for legalizing that drug in particular. I'll erase the tax argument before you make it, addicts become such unproductive fucks that there is likely a net loss in tax revenue.

I do think some substances absolutely should be illegal. The reason being is that some drugs are simply not worth the risk. A couple examples: Heavy stimulants - drugs that cause extreemely unstable, and often violent, behavior in the majority of users. Not talking about a bad trip, or an adverse reaction. This is usually a problem with heavy stimulants like cocaine, steroids, and amphetamines. All of which can be used to enhance performance, but taking enough to actually get high typically results in violent, irrational, and aggressive behavior. Non recreational drugs - drugs that are not meant to be medicinal or recreational and often have a nefarious purpose. Like rohypnol(date rape drugs) or sodium pentathol(truth serum). There's no reason a private citizen should have either of these in their posession.

Portugal has done just that years ago and has seen a decrease in dangerous and addictive drug usage over time.

In an ideal world, drug offenses should be treated with counselling and not jail time. Dealers should still be prosecuted, though, but more because they're selling black market goods and avoiding taxes than "drugs". The real danger is all the peripheral risks. Drug addicts don't just exist in a vacuum. They damage or destroy lives on a regular basis. Their own, first and foremost. Their loved ones. Anyone they hurt while under the influence. Anyone they steal from to support their habits. Laws are in place to mostly protect society, not individuals (with some exceptions). The laws against drugs aren't there to specifically stop someone from ruining their own life, but rather the lives of everyone they come into contact with who had no choice in the matter.

Portugal did it. I increase in drug use as far as I'm aware. If you decriminalise/legalise there are many benefits, which probably outweigh or eliminate the negatives. Massive reduction in spending and resources used for policing, Reduction in spending on housing and supporting prisoners on drug charges. Reduces the violence associated with criminal gangs producing and supplying. Reduce the stigma of addiction, make people more likely to seek help for addiction, and underlying mental health issues that may have lead to that path in the first place. Reduces drug related fatalities/overdoses etc because if its legal, regulated, standardised you're not risking taking something much stronger than you were expecting, or something that's been cut with something nasty

I agree generally, but it’s complicated. It’s a health concern that starts with a choice to do something you know is addictive. It begins with a choice that has a fairly predictable outcome. I feel like maybe you should get one chance to fuck up your life with drugs and then get help for free on the tax payers dime. If you do it again, you’re on your own. People deserve a second chance. But I don’t know about letting people just make dumb decisions then make other people pay for it. If there are other societal issues (and there most definitely are) that cause people to turn to drugs, we need to address those, not just legalize it all and hope for the best. Legalization would solve some problems for sure but I think it would probably create some new ones as well.

Easier said than done. Legalizing drugs requires deep changes in the whole judiciary system. It is not simple to compete with cartels which are in the market for decades. If all drugs are legal they would profit even more, because their supply chain is ready. That is what happens in NL for example. The only people who can supply weed in tones are the drug lords. And if all drugs are legal, all criminals convicted on it will be released. All of the sudden, el chapo is a freeman together with other criminal masters. How is it possible to make that from day to night? It is too much for our system. The government needs to be super prepared and this legalization would take almost a decade to be a successful one.

Legal and regulated would get rid of the crime and shady drug dealers. Prohibition has never worked.

I think that once you watch a loved one spiral out of control due to a heroin addiction and die, it will change your view. Not all drugs are made equal, to blanket statement that they should all be decriminalized is naive. Obviously pot should be legal; mdma, lsd, shrooms, probably as well. Meth and heroin are drugs straight from hell. You can’t even fathom the amount of suffering and torture that they bring to anyone who uses them, or anyone who loves someone who uses them. You also must clarify when you say that all drugs should be decriminalized. Do you mean personal possession of these drugs? That’s probably reasonable. But the toxic, pieces of shit that peddle those life ending drugs? Fuck no.

Basically where I live in Seattle, all drugs have been decriminalized. Especially if you’re homeless and/or have mental health issues. They don’t arrest for anything less that 5 doses of heroin, cocaine and meth. Weed is legal. They realized that arresting these chronic reoffenders doesn’t do any good at all. It’s just a waste of time and resources. So I’m all for it. What we need is a megaton bomb of federally planned drug and mental health care treatments and facilities. It’s a fucking nightmare in any major market city now. Seattle is literally a joke of the city I grew up in 50 years ago. The Federal government has completely fucked this up and no one city can fix it with taxation.

The only way that works is if you can pair it with a total lack of societal compassion for that individuals well being. You have to pair it with a nihilistic society that demands cash on the barrel before providing life saving emergency support. You have to be willing to let people starve in the street because they spent all the money they could find on an addiction that is possibly even a physical addiction which will kill them if they abruptly stop using drugs. The problem of addiction isn’t just crime it’s that we as a compassionate society are forced to be a part of saving these people. We aren’t ok with our friends and family becoming a slave to an artificial high. We aren’t ok letting people starve. We aren’t ok with not trying to provide emergency care. So we pay the bill for their mistakes. Yes in a cold logic you will kill the profits of drug cartels. Yes in a cold logic these people do it to themselves. But the thing is, if you see a person standing in a train track you don’t say “he put himself there” you push him off before he gets killed. There is an underlying social contract that we are trying to build a better life by working together and by abiding by imperfect laws to get the best outcome we can. Having criminals profit from illegal drugs is a smaller price to pay in a legal system that will never be perfect.

Think of it from the government's perspective though. They want you and everyone around you to be productive, and drugs can harm that. That is why there is drug laws, and alcohol laws, and smoking laws and driving laws. That is why fast food laws are coming into existence, and why food safety stuff exists in the first place. The government's concern in banning drugs is that it stops you from making them money, similar to how an employer might disapprove of you coming in to work high. It comes with problems of its own sure, but they feel there is a net benefit to restricting the substances. Whether or not that is the case can be up for debate, but that is where the debate should happen.

I think that freedom of choice had limits. People on dope make for shitty parents and members of society in general. You see it as telling someone what they can or can't consume, but it's really about decision making. People on drugs drive cars. People on drugs own guns. People on drugs don't really make the best decisions so bad things can happen. I've seen the aftermath of a drunk mom killing a young couple in her car. I've seen a dude go to prison for killing his friend while high on acid in his room with a shotgun. I've seen a young boy flatline in a hospital bed after getting into his parents meth and trying to smoke it. I'll never vote to legalize drugs.

I’m for decriminalized drugs with money from the prisons going towards rehabilitation including help with temporary housing. I also would like to see harm reduction clinic in every city to give users a chance to survive until they’re ready to seek a rehabilitation program. Criminalizing has created a shameful stigma that keeps people from getting help and possibly losing their lives to drug addiction. *Prison doesn’t truly rehabilitate anyways. It just perpetuating the cycle crime. So why the heck are we still locking people up if it only makes it harder for them to integrate back into society as a function member?

You’re assuming that all drugs are only harmful to the person consuming them and that people only take drugs by choice. Neither premise is necessarily true. Take rohypnol for example. Or scopolamine. Your argument is that both of those should be totally legal and unregulated because they’re drugs. Would you think the same way after being roofied and mind controlled by someone who picked up a few doses at the local Walmart? Also, how would you define what are totally cool and legal drugs from what aren’t? What about outright bio weapons such as cyanide or Ricin, which are (to a degree) naturally occurring? Would those not also fall under the ‘totally unregulated’ category by your definition?

As a former addict for over an a decade... free will and freedom of choice has nothing todo with a life of an addict. 90% of all addicts need to be pushed to get help, most need to be pushed many times and it usually takes legal action or rock bottom for it to finally make sense that they need help. You can decriminalize it but asking nicely or just having services available free of charge isn’t enough. Maybe for 50% of them... the rest, they haven’t hit rock bottom yet so they don’t see a reason to stop yet. Why? Because we tell ourselves, “I got this, it’s not as bad as other people”.

Drugs can have some pretty serious negative externalities. It seems reasonable to keep production and distribution for drugs with a use profile like meth illegal. We'd certainly benefit by diverting all resources put into catching and prosecuting end users of most drugs and send those resources to stopping drunk driving. Of course, this would require elected officials to take a reasoned look at things and weigh the pros and cons diligently. So, it'll never happen. At least legal weed looks to be poised to cutting down on reckless use of other, more serious drugs like alcohol and opiates.

I don’t believe we should legalize something that is a such a health concern as hard drugs. I understand decriminalizing. In my mind, this is a matter of freedom choice but also the protection of society. In life there is the individual organism (a human) and the conceptual living social organism (a society). We have to find a balance between both. People should not be punished for a weakness, they should be helped. At the same time, we must maintain the ability for citizens to survive harmoniously. People struggling with addiction should be able to seek help if the drug is decriminalized, no?

I agree with decriminalizing because for a lot of people it is a dirty bandaid on a lot of problems, it can make things easier to deal with before it becomes an addiction. But, legalizing all drugs is a terrible idea. It makes it way easier to acess shit like heroin and meth for both adults and minors. The point of decriminalization is helping them get off the drugs without punishing and shamimg them. We don't need more crimes done to afford an addiction or because they are drugged out of their mind in public, making them legally accessable will do nothing good for anyone.

It is important to note no one ever sets out to become a drug addict. The instances where a person decides, "Hey, I'll try it once" and then can't quit is rare. The normal path is a controlled substance is given/prescribed for an actual medical emergency or painful procedure; wisdom teeth extraction, broken bones, surgery, cancer, etc. When recovery is achieved (or not) withdrawal is very real and takes careful monitoring by the attending physician. The patient must be proactive in their own goals to quit, and often they cannot. Absolutely it is a health concern only.

I look at it this way: Car accidents are a "health concern"; But I assume most people would agree, that driving cars must be regulated, so that the amount of accidents is minimized. I know it is not the best analogy, but I feel like it is close to that with drugs: If everything is legal, more people might get hurt than if they were strictly regulated. I agree "soft" drugs like marijuana or psylocibin should be legalised, but only to control their purity and potency. Legalising drugs like Crystal Meth, Heroin or desomorphine could lead to serious harm done.

I’ve seen drug addiction first hand. Drugs being illegal may save a few from ever trying them, might save some from overdose, may keep them in jail to finally sober up or make the decisions to stop even if it’s a short time in jail. I think that many people that didn’t try it before would if it was legal. I think other companies would abuse of that status and then commercialization will have many people hooked. I don’t see it playing out. Imagine a cigarette company, only that it’s meth, and stopping might litterly kill you from withdrawal.

What it is, is both a health issue and a legal concern. One could make exactly the same argument about all crime, that it’s a social issue because social disfunction of some type is ultimately what motivates crime. But of course that doesn’t negate the utility of criminal penalties. I mean ideally a jail sentence for drug offences are also a health treatment. I doubt that many five times a day crack smokers manage to sustain their drug use in prison. While contraband is undoubtedly an issue, that’s not the system working as intended.

Second hand smoke is a big thing and if u decriminalize all drugs the fumes that come from the chemically nasty drugs like meth and crack will go into the air and when I tell you that lots of people smoke crack and meth I MEAN IT I live it Long Beach California and this place has it bad there are crackheads everywhere and I'm not gonna lie having a country without laws on illegal drugs makes it way harder for addicts to illegal drugs to get sober not only that hard drugs are just nasty in general and it would make the U.S. trashy

Drug addiction has consequences for both the individual and society. If you don't understand that then you are woefully too ignorant to be debating the subject. If you could magically absolve society from any and all obligation to take care of people who become addicted then yes, by all means decriminalize it all. But that is never going to happen. Society is made up of all the citizens and since they bear the burden of taking care of people who get addicted then they get to say whether the behavior is illegal or not.

You hear a noise at 3am...someone is in your living room, no, several people are in your living room. they are unplugging your computers and tv, and loading them into sacks. they come at you with a rusty knife. Tell me that is a health problem and not a criminal problem now.

My problem with legalization is that that it makes it more accessible to people who wouldn't have otherwise used it. I mean the really hard, addictive ones. Yes, that is a health concern for that person and its sad, and you are saying that it should be their choice to do so. BUT... Many drugs change the brain. A tame example is when people take them and say they are "woke." To them it feels enlightening and to me they look like idiots. But an extreme example is a guy tripping out on "bath salts" eating a homeless man's face off. Lastly, I have a negative view of Marijuana as a separate issue. It's already going to hard for me to prevent my child from using Marijuana especially while they are young and developing if society completely normalizes. Agree or disagree I dont care, first ask yourself if you have ever smoked pot. If you have, I don't care what you have to say about it. I have seen how it CAN affect people. Though you can do it with little to no affect IN MODERATION AS AN ADULT.

I understand where your coming from, I certainly believe in live and let live. However only in the privacy if your own home, keep drugs off the street and away form the public. I also believe any medical costs including ambulance rides should be entirely on you though. Tax payers should not be paying for your poor life decisions. Even private healthcare insurers should be under no obligation to pay your bills. With the exception of maybe rehab, its in everybody's best interests to make less drug addicts.

Drugs of each and every kind especially herion and methamphetamine are so abundant in my tiny flyover America town that usage alone is no issue at all if I chose to cut loose. Now dealing is different and I can see why the CIA wants to protect their dark project revenue streams. I mean if we make drugs legal do you think the CIA is go legit as well? Haha. The world would be a better place without the CIA and it's secret arcana of assassination and regime changing. So yeah a 2 for 1. Let's go!

About your freedom of choice. Its not about you killing yourself, because that's not really a big deal, it's about children being able to easily access drugs. And idk about usa, but where I live actual hard drugs aren't easy to access and children/young teenagers would have hard time to get any. And that's good, because kids wouldn't understand what they're doing, and how much they can take. They're also too scared to call ambulance when something happens because "parents will be angry". On top of that even adults can make stupid decisions and the harder it is to access the lower risk of them choosing it. Think about parents who are having problems and decide that the right way to cope is to use meth or heroin. it's the children that take the hit. Yes, they can still get alcohol, but I'd argue that alcohol is still better than heroin or meth, and I'd also argue that strong alcohol shouldn't be legal either, but sadly we know it can't be done.

Yes so 3 year old can start doing bath salts and black tar heroin

Decriminalizing drugs & legalizing drugs are two very different positions. Also, “drug” should be defined more clearly. I personally am in favor of decriminalizing almost every drug. My only hesitance is for drugs like fentanyl, where even a minuscule amount is enough for a healthy grown man to OD. IMO, controlled substances should only be chemicals like fentanyl, arsenic, cyanide, etc. - chemicals that kill people in extremely small quantities.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you after reading only first line of your title. Drug addiction is not a health concern that can be treated. Drug addiction is the response to human suffering. I'm willing to bet every single female addict you know or could name was sexually abused in their youth. Every male addict has endured physical/emotional/ sexual abuse while growing up. You can't "cure" an addict. You godda cure the root of the problem.

Drugs, like opiates, that are highly addictive and potentially deadly should be illegal to sell without a prescription (and even then scaled back dramatically). But the user should not face legal trouble on top of struggling with their drug addiction. Nor should street level dealers, desperate themselves to make a living, face overly harsh legal consequences. We should offer rehab/treatment to addicts and economic opportunities to dealers.

The war on drugs can be ended and addicts can be given the help they need without legalizing drugs. We certainly don’t need to be raiding a heroin addicts house in order to send him to jail for 20 years but we should be able to legally confiscate dangerous drugs and prosecute major dealers. I agree that you shouldn’t be prosecuted for having drugs on you but if you’re supplying an area’s addicts with drugs you deserve to be locked up.

I dont think it should ever be legal to sell meth or anything seriously life ruining and highly addictive. Thing is lets say its legal. At what age should it be legal. 18? Most if not all 18 year olds are highly experimental and naive. Easily to become hooked to a drug thinking nah ill quite next week, or the next, or the next. And before they know it they are either full on junkie. Or have the life long battle of staying clean.

Legalize? Only for the purpose of regulating drug sales to out compete drug traffickers. Decriminalize? Absolutely. Doing drugs is not a crime, often its a sign of desperation or stupidity. People addicted should be put through mandatory rehabilitation. Dealers should still be punished, but far less severely than they are today. Though if government sales can remove the source via competition it will be much less of a problem.

The use of drugs shouldn't be criminalized except in situations that it can harm or otherwise impact others, but the sale and distribution of these drugs should be. Sell someone heroine, and they are pretty much hooked and their life will go down and down. It's not only a form of extortion, artificially making them dependent on your product, but that product is also destroying and sometimes ending the buyers lives.

Overall I agree with you! I think so many bad situations are brought upon people who have drug addiction in part by the fact they cannot reach out for help without feeling they will be arrested or charged. However I feel certain drugs need to be restricted heavily. Like PCP or croc. These drugs make people violent, make you pack the kids in the car and drive into a river, eat your sister's face etc.

No, because there’s no such thing as non-predatory selling of certain drugs. For something like pot or alcohol a majority of the population can use them without becoming addicted, and so there’s no reason not to allow them. But other things like Meth or Heroine are so incredibly addictive that there’s no such thing as non-predatory meth or heroine dealing, end as such they shouldn’t be tolerated

I agree with the sentiment of the OP. I wouldn’t legalise drugs such as crack or heroine though as they are almost impossible to incorporate into a functional life. I’d also say that road side screening for drugs has to be developed first(just like drink driving) Roadside testing for cannabis has happened already but until you can test for all other legal substances it would be too dangerous.

I agree that there is a strong case for a variety of drugs to be legalized to minimize influence of black market activities. What I think is lacking from your POV is the common mental health /mental status influences that can lead to a bad situation being worse. Legalize meth and you will see a lot of high schoolers and college age kids that want to fit in because their friend can purchase meth.

The primary thing that undermines your stance is that, like all markets, drugs will be pushed on people, abusively. It is extremely important to regulate against predatory actions. We should generally decriminalize possession and use, since the addict is the victim, but to decriminalize the drug is to suggest that it's fine for people to have their addiction abused by others for profit.

If it’s a societal issue in that the behavior impacts other people in society as whole, then it’s criminal. The argument is that drugs present societal impacts like danger to children, child abuse, increased crime rates, money laundering, gang activity, increased homeless populations, disease spread, increased violence, etc. All of which are a menace to society, not just the user.

> a human right, the last word on what you choose to put in your body should still be up to you I agree with you, but to argue against this you have to consider all the laws we have that are not stopping actual harmful behavior, but risky behavior. From drunk driving to building codes, society has accepted that the law should outlaw risky behavior (which would include drug use)

My main concern with total legalization is that if legalized, more people will try them, and we do NOT want more people trying incredibly addictive substances like crack and meth. These are drugs that are incredibly addictive and incredibly hard to quit, which would result in a larger portion of society being completely unproductive and addicted to hard drugs.

Imagine all the taxes from the black market if drugs get legalized. My concern would still be teenagers trying it for fun and getting addicted to it. Imposing strict age laws would be useless since we all know it hasn't worked for alcohol or weed. The availability will make it easier to get at a slightly higher price but less than what it costs now.

I always have a hard time having an opinion on addiction. Like I know science says it’s a disease and needs to be treated as such, but ever fiber of my being just tells me it’s a weakness. A lack of mental fortitude that causes the falls. Why else would there be so many recovered and why they can relapse so easily. It’s pure will power at work.

If you want to see how your view plays out, keep an eye on Oregon over the next few years. We’ve opted (60+ percent vote) for decriminalization, minimal possession fines dismissed if people get addiction assessment. I think you’re right, and that’s why I voted yes. Wish us luck, but I think it will go well. People can come back from addictions.