The illegal drug question, WHY?

Simple and easy solutions to the illegal drug problem.

We legalize drugs and the plants they come from completely. The only stipulation, you cannot sell any manufactured drug or plant to someone else. Only the seed.

Now, I could go on and on about the reasons. But I will just field the questions on any "supposed" problem, that you may think could arise from this solution.

I warn you, I will give Libertarian answers. So shoot away.


edit to add-Thanks to Flakey. If the government wants drugs such as any pharmaceutical or something like aspirin to be allowed for sale. That is fine. They just cannot make it illegal for anyone to produce for their own consumption.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


Too much money is made off of keeping them illegal. Entire industries would cease to exists. These industries happen to be well funded and have control of the government. Therefore, it will never happen.

reply to post by Karlhungis


Hey, that is not a question. Of course I agree with you but do you think this would solve the problems?

reply to post by endisnighe

It is because liquor has a lot to lose if certain seeds are planted.

Greedy people who sell bottled death will lose a bit of their revenues. So?

New law of the land, as far as I am concerned. Else, the Constitution isn't worth the hemp it's written upon.

reply to post by endisnighe


I don't know. In principal, I think it is a reasonable scenario, certainly not any worse (for the people) than our current scenario. My problem is that it is so far from reality that it would never, ever happen. You may as well propose that Santa Clause be the distributor of all drugs and the only legal drugs are ones that Santa delivers.

My intent isn't to mock you. It is just that the deck is 100% stacked against the people here. Like I said in my other post, too much money is to be made off of criminalizing the populace and it isn't going to change.

reply to post by davidmann


Okay, damn it. Everyone agrees with me so far. Maybe not such a good OP.

Alright, I will answer the problem of businesses going out of business.

The businesses cease to exist and whoever works for them, get different jobs.

Next question. Hopefully a question next time.

reply to post by Karlhungis


Yeah, I know, I never thought the OP through to it's logical conclusion. It cannot happen, but anyway in the perfect world, we would not care what our neighbor was doing unless it hurt someone else directly.

I think this OP was not very well thought out. Oh well.

I agree with you too.

For your benefit I shall try to ask a question.

If we can not sell any manufactured drug would this not pose a problem for substances like aspirin or cough syrup?

reply to post by Flakey


Hmmm, I never considered the legal drugs folding into the equation. Thanks for showing my mistake in forgetting that.

Now, with this question, we say the government can make a decision to allow drugs to be sold. Just not allow people to not produce their own.

Thanks for pointing out this problem. I think that would take care of the mistake I made in the original OP.

I will be adding a stipulation to the original OP.

The war on drugs is a war to see how much freedom we will willingly give away for security. Needles to say, it worked quite well. Too many people see certain drugs as something nobody should do, and they are willing to throw peoples lives away for it.

Damn ignorance.

reply to post by gandhi


And a person with a name like gandhi sees the point.

Do we need any further proof of the logic.

Yes, I think the war on drugs is one of the biggest detriments to society today.

Thanks for the comment.

reply to post by endisnighe


I'm not sure what your talking about marijuana ,coco plant opium poppies or all of the above .it's simply not practical any way ,inner city drug addicts are unlikely to be able to grow their own poppy or coco plant so they will still need to score. Marijuana is the exception which can be grown easilyat home.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Flakey

 

Now, with this question, we say the government can make a decision to allow drugs to be sold. Just not allow people to not produce their own.

Well now we encounter another problem. The people not being allowed to produce their own falls in direct contradiction with growing certain plants. Granted the government could sanction and regulate all production and sale of drugs. With these regulations comes the ideas of how much active ingredients to incorporate into any given drug and what dosage is considered too much. Eventually the concern I would have is things falling back to the way they currently are with government insisting any amount is too much.

Their are also the consequences of slipping someone something to consider. If everything is legal how then do we address those that would slip a substance to someone else with out their knowledge or consent? I know some drugs in particular are highly advised against for pregnant women as just one does can cause a miscarriage. Then their are the accidents or unintentional usages. If you have seen the movie "Sin City" then you know the example I'm speaking of. How would we handle those that get others without informed consent? How do we determine the truth in cases of accidental or unintentional use?

reply to post by Flakey


Which people are you talking about not being allowed to produce their own.

I never said someone could not produce their own, only that certain drugs the government would want to allow to be sold, would still be regulated as they are now.

If I get your jist of it, you are thinking like slipping someone a mickey? If that is what you are positing, that would be held under the normal law of Libertarian ideal, you did something that hurt another or that infringed upon another's right.

Let me know if that is what you meant.

reply to post by endisnighe


Obvious problem: You said "completely" legalise. There would be people wandering and drivng around high everywhere.

I hate have to repeat my self so much but, you DO realise alcohol is not completely 'legal', right?

Thats why you cant drink in public. You can only drink in LICENSED establishments and public drunkkenness is a fine. Alcohol also has certain LIMITS. Explain how you would plan to enforce limits on drug use. You would also need equipment to test (ie. equivalent of breathaliser).

You said they can not "sell" drugs. What about giving? I hope you know, a very high percentage of processed and 'non'-processed drugs(if there is such a thing any more) are more and more frequently laced with other far worse and far more addictive drugs like methamphetamines and opioids (heroin)...

So my point is, you could easily lace your drugs and give to others to make them addicts... maybe you cant sell? Maybe you're just malicious! it can still happens. Manufacture your own? You could add literally anything to it... drain cleaners bleach I cant remember what the main ingredient in the ecstacy was but it was some kind of house hold cleaner to keep it in solid form...


...But any way to the opposite point of view: I have often thought a solution would include being able to make your own but ONLY a certain 'personal' amount, and if you were ever caught selling immediate jail and fine... but its the capitalist aspect. Drugs are only popular because they're profitable. If people were able to make a 'personal' amount at home with high punishment for breaking that law, as well as zero tolerance for driving high (ie. endangering others in any way), in my opinion this would solve issues we have today... but because it would not be profitable (ie not having one corporate source) they would not let this happen. Legislation usually follows lines of 'whats best for profits' not whats best for people.

But what do I know? I believe the narcotics trade is run by governments and corporations because it keeps supply and demand even. If it wasnt illegal it wouldnt have as much demand OR the ability to have such high street prices for narcotics(almost like a convenience fee). If it was 'legalised' we would still have the same problems as in meth heads wandering the streets and high drivers killing innocents (happens a relative lot here), and prices would be heavily taxed so that wouldnt change...

The only solution is what you said, make your own limited PERSONAL amount and not be able to sell any (narcotics we're talking)... but what are the odds thatll be allowed to happen..?

reply to post by INQUISITION11


Did you know that Thomas Jefferson had his own poppy plants? If people could plant their own drugs and than manufacture them, themselves, there would be no need for all the police, prisons, drug gangs, etc etc etc.

Now, I have said this before, if you want legalized marijuana, are you than going to say no to another drug. Is that not hypocritical?

I am a firm believer in the Libertarian ideal of freedom. If what you do does not hurt another or infringe on their rights, there is no infraction.

And I also stated that you could not buy, just that you could not sell. The seller would be a criminal still, just not the purchaser.

Let me know if you need any further breakdown?

reply to post by endisnighe


Yes that is what I meant.

Which people am I talking about not being allowed to produce their own? Anyone not sanctioned by the government. But I see I misunderstood you there.

If I understand you, the current regulation of the legal drugs remain while we legalize everything else. Is that right? I would be allowed to "grow my own"?

People would want to buy and sell it though. Would this be legal and Taxable or illegal and discouraged?

reply to post by Ridhya


I think you about answered all of your own questions.

No selling. Did you know you can produce your own alcohol in the US and give it away? I would suggest the same in this regards.

As for poisoning someone intentionally or even accidentally. Cover that under existing law of negligent harm or if intentional, any given existing statute of causing harm.

Now for the affect of driving or such. Draconian jail times for causing harm or death. I have always felt that drunk driving fatalities and injuries should have been covered the same as in negligent harm or negligent homicide.

I think I covered all your points. Let me know.

edit to add-chance of happening? about ZERO

[edit on 3/8/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Flakey


No selling what so ever, if it is not approved of by the government currently for sale. But you could give it away. Now, you would be held liable for negligence if anyone was injured though, just like in everything else.

I have been thinking about the government sanctioning the sale and then the taxing of it. But if that is done, you know what they would do, oh it has to be tested and limited and blah blah blah.

So no, no selling and produce your own, but giving it away would be fine.

reply to post by endisnighe


I'm not against drug reform just against the impracticality of your original premise.I come from an area flooded with cheap Afghan Heroin since the 90's ,the street price has fallen by 2/3s in 15 years .However i have seen the damage it has done to many peoples lives.The only solution to me is decriminalisation of the harder drugs.i'm in favour of the government licensing production and and administering the drugs to registered addicts through local health services.At least they wouldn't need to steal your £1000 TV and sell it for £20.Most dealers rely on hard core addicts and without them the amount of drugs and use would plummet.The damage done to society and the addicts themselves would be minimised.I belive they have tried this in Holland.Hard drugs are damaging and should not be legalised the police should then crack down on any remaining dealers.The notion of addicts growing their own Poppies is unrealistic Jefferson not withstanding.