Drug Ethics

Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more

EggBeast

- deska`
Retired
I don't think this discussion in going to move any further without some serious facts and figures going on. We pretty much disagree with each other on every major point, and base our opinions off of... well... nothing substantial.

This argument is totally getting circular.

EDIT: It seems like we all have a different outlook on human nature. If we all utilized a reward/punishment schematic to determine their moral choices, then yes, drug legalization would likely result in some serious consequences. However, real life gets more complicated then that. If you've never taken a human psychology class, then suffice it to say that the majority of people who run off of a reward/punishment system to base their decisions off of are young children (who wouldn't be allowed access to drugs anyways), and some particularly extreme conservatives. The vast majority of individuals get past this point throughout their lives. Laws and rules still play a major part in their decisions, yes, but they don't remain the absolutes of their lives.

I didn't say it, years of psychological research did! Blame the psychologists!
 

poonk

-dono
Kouhai
QUOTE (EggBeast @ Jan 25 2008, 01:21 PM)*sigh* it seems like most people here have a very negative outlook on humanity.  Where's poonk when you need her?
Passed out in an alleyway somewhere, knowing her... *laughs*


QUOTE (EggBeast @ Jan 25 2008, 01:21 PM)But while I'm a big fan of following the law, I don't take is as an absolute in my life.  The people who made those laws were people just like us, so we shouldn't give some some kind of god-like status.  That's all I was saying.I agree, legality does not equal morality by any means. Many laws exist for ridiculous reasons; it's just that no one thinks it's worth making an effort to repeal them, or the general public is so used to them that they no longer question the arguments behind their creation so many years ago (I'm thinking about anti-marijuana laws here).

QUOTE I'm a big fan of the social contract ideology, that humans are born with every right to do anything they want, but when they form a government, they forgo some of those rights in order to maintain the best interests of everyone.
...
Most laws fall into that category of maintaining mutual interests, but methinks drugs may not.  In the social contract ideology, individuals have every right to harm themselves, because they're not doing anything to infringe upon the rights of others.This is exactly the point, I think. No matter what arguments people bring, I keep thinking I'd much rather err on the side of freedom (within the parameters of "not infringing on others' rights") than have my government control everything I do "for my best interest," because that, taken to an extreme, could be pretty scary. If I don't have the opportunity to make a bad choice for myself, isn't it meaningless to make a good choice? Having said that, I'll admit it is crazily difficult to figure out exactly where an individual's right to self-destruct (and hey, not all drug-use leads to self-destruction, it should be said) intersects another individual's human rights. Which leads me to...


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jan 25 2008, 02:08 PM)We could argue a lot about what the social contract includes. Especially if becoming a burden to the society is acceptable (Health care are expensive for a drug user, and they are often broke. So the society has to pay. Or has to let him die, which is quite unacceptable).There are plenty of things that are perfectly terrible for one's health-- smoking, eating crap food, sleeping around w/o protection, etc.-- which are still legal. But somehow we've come down on the side of letting people pursue their own version of "happiness" (even if it involves a diet of vodka and french fries, liver-and-heart-be-damned), even though yes, it very well may cost the government in future healthcare costs, and it definitely will affect that individual's friends & family.

Off-topic, but utterly bewildering in this day and age:

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Jan 25 2008, 02:07 AM)In Tennessee you MUST believe in God to be elected to office, and you must not have ever participated in a duel.Whaaa--!? (will not be moving to TN anytime soon. Because of the god thing, not the duelling thing-- although I'm not ruling out the possibility of a duel someday).
 

EggBeast

- deska`
Retired
Yay! Someone who agrees with me!
I'm not alone!


See? You don't need to be a libertarian fanatic to prefer personal rights to governmental control? I'm not saying anything about your libertarian tendencies, by the way, poonk.

But yes, the issues regarding drug legalization can get sticky. But the way I see it, the benefits, both the financial and the ideological, outweigh any possible cons. But I think expanding on that again would be redundant in the extreme.

QUOTE (poonk @ Jan 29 2008, 06:07 PM)Off-topic, but utterly bewildering in this day and age:
QUOTE (EggBeast @ Jan 25 2008 @ 02:07 AM)
In Tennessee you MUST believe in God to be elected to office, and you must not have ever participated in a duel.
Whaaa--!? (will not be moving to TN anytime soon. Because of the god thing, not the duelling thing-- although I'm not ruling out the possibility of a duel someday).
phew! I'm so glad I wasn't the only one outraged by that!
 

overfiend1976

-san
Kouhai
Last I checked, pretty much anywhere in the country (maybe not as intensely as in TN, but regardless), you need to be affiliated with some sort of religion to have a chance at obtaining any political office.

But back to the topic of drugs.


IMO, anyone who hasn't actually had any personal experience with drugs has absolutely no right to dictate the choices of others. Thats as stupid as men passing abortion laws, people complaining about most things without ever having done those things themselves. I'm sorry, if you have no personal point of reference, you need to STFU and go play in traffic.
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE If you've never taken a human psychology class, then suffice it to say that the majority of people who run off of a reward/punishment system to base their decisions off of are young children (who wouldn't be allowed access to drugs anyways), and some particularly extreme conservatives. The vast majority of individuals get past this point throughout their lives. Laws and rules still play a major part in their decisions, yes, but they don't remain the absolutes of their lives.


It may be a half-full / half-empty glass problem.
You see that the majority of people will play fair.
I see that a significant minority will not.

A lot of laws (including the ones against murder, rape. Or speed limits) are not here because otherwise the majority would do it. They're here to prevent a minority from doing it, and punish them if necessary.
Because even as a tiny minority, they are harmful.

----------------------------------------------------------


QUOTE This is exactly the point, I think. No matter what arguments people bring, I keep thinking I'd much rather err on the side of freedom (within the parameters of "not infringing on others' rights") than have my government control everything I do "for my best interest," because that, taken to an extreme, could be pretty scary.

Both side are scary.
A totalitarian government is scary.
And so is a too lax government (For example in France, the Demon Dwarf does his best to abolish some social rules protecting workers. Which had more influence on their life than a law banning drugs. Nothing unheard of, but still worrying).

I don't like this kind of 'slippery slope' argument, at least not without good explainations.


QUOTE
There are plenty of things that are perfectly terrible for one's health-- smoking, eating crap food, sleeping around w/o protection, etc.-- which are still legal. But somehow we've come down on the side of letting people pursue their own version of "happiness" (even if it involves a diet of vodka and french fries, liver-and-heart-be-damned), even though yes, it very well may cost the government in future healthcare costs, and it definitely will affect that individual's friends & family.

About smoking, the laws are more and more stringent. I wouldn't be surprised if we end with a total ban one day, at least in some places (of course, as in the discussion on Prohibition earlier, it's far more difficult to ban an legal product than to keep banning an illegal one : there's a social acceptance and more than that, there's people whose job is related to tobacco and we can't tell them to go to hell).

About crap food and sleeping around w/o protection, it's more difficult because you can't draw a clear line between what would be legal or not : You can't ban sleeping without protection, except if you want a natality rate of 0. You can't ban crap food because crap food is dangerous only when taken in excess (well, it's not exactly true, laws have been passed against transfat, even in the US. Or at least some states).

----------------------------------------


QUOTE IMO, anyone who hasn't actually had any personal experience with drugs has absolutely no right to dictate the choices of others. Thats as stupid as men passing abortion laws, people complaining about most things without ever having done those things themselves. I'm sorry, if you have no personal point of reference, you need to STFU and go play in traffic.

And I guess only murderers have the right to pass laws against other murderers ?
Doesn't make sense.
 

EggBeast

- deska`
Retired
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jan 30 2008, 12:21 AM)And I guess only murderers have the right to pass laws against other murderers ?
Doesn't make sense.
I agree with that mentality, Dalriada. You don't need to have been directly involved in/affected by something to have a say in it. But I think the Fiend-Meister was getting more at not being judgmental towards others if you haven't walked through their shoes. I think it's mostly in response the the notion going on in here earlier that "people who do soft drugs are tempted to to stronger drugs, get stronger drugs, get even stronger drugs, break the law to get money for even more drugs, commit murders for drugs, AHH!!! SOCIETY IS DOOMED!!! EVERYONE WHO DOES DRUGS IS MORALLY, MENTALLY, AND PHYSICALLY DOOMED FOR ETERNITY!!! GOD SAVE US!!!", or at least something that sounded an awful lot like that
. The point is not to judge a book by its color, in this case, taking any arbitrary drug user and seeing a sickly, needle poking bum incapable of having a meaningful life.


QUOTE Last I checked, pretty much anywhere in the country (maybe not as intensely as in TN, but regardless), you need to be affiliated with some sort of religion to have a chance at obtaining any political office.
Yeah, that's true. You'll never see an open atheist getting into any kind of office (that's more an issue with the american people than the american laws, though). But the fact that there are some states with laws in effect that forbid atheists taking office, how insanely hypocritical is that to our so-called "freedom of religion"? Bah! How is such a law even constitutional?!? But yeah, that goes in some other thread which may or may not exist on this site... *sigh*
 

poonk

-dono
Kouhai
QUOTE (EggBeast @ Jan 30 2008, 02:40 AM)I think it's mostly in response the the notion going on in here earlier that "people who do soft drugs are tempted to to stronger drugs, get stronger drugs, get even stronger drugs, break the law to get money for even more drugs, commit murders for drugs,  AHH!!!  SOCIETY IS DOOMED!!!  EVERYONE WHO DOES DRUGS IS MORALLY, MENTALLY, AND PHYSICALLY DOOMED FOR ETERNITY!!!  GOD SAVE US!!!"*pfft* This is so true. Like I've said, I've smoke marijuana and not gotten "addicted" (honestly, can one get physiologically addicted to marijuana?), and I know people who have smoked A LOT of it, and never gone on to hardcore drugs. I think it's really great that a lot of the forumers in here have no interest in it. But that doesn't mean those who do are bad people. Honestly, I felt the same way as a teenager (totally feeling that being straight-edge was the way to go) but now, being older and wiser (and having sampled -some- of the wares in question) I no longer see things as being so black & white. (I guess I would attribute it to maturity, were I not so remarkably immature in all other areas of my life *laughs*)


QUOTE Yeah, that's true.  You'll never see an open atheist getting into any kind of office (that's more an issue with the american people than the american laws, though).  But the fact that there are some states with laws in effect that forbid atheists taking office, how insanely hypocritical is that to our so-called "freedom of religion"?  Bah!  How is such a law even constitutional?!?  But yeah, that goes in some other thread which may or may not exist on this site...  *sigh*This CAN'T be constitutional. Seriously. *Is getting pissed even though this isn't even in effect in her state*
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE (EggBeast @ Jan 30 2008, 02:40 AM) I think it's mostly in response the the notion going on in here earlier that "people who do soft drugs are tempted to to stronger drugs, get stronger drugs, get even stronger drugs, break the law to get money for even more drugs, commit murders for drugs, AHH!!! SOCIETY IS DOOMED!!! EVERYONE WHO DOES DRUGS IS MORALLY, MENTALLY, AND PHYSICALLY DOOMED FOR ETERNITY!!! GOD SAVE US!!!", or at least something that sounded an awful lot like that
.
I was not saying that soft drugs lead to hard drugs (A good 30% of my male students friends when I was in a boarding school smoked weed. They were decent fellows, very good students and never went higher than weed).

What I'm saying is that a great majority of those who take hard drugs started with soft drugs. Which is quite different.


Besides, if for you, a problem appears only when everyone (or at least a majorit) is part of the problem, then I guess that indeed the thread won't go further anymore.
 

EggBeast

- deska`
Retired
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jan 30 2008, 02:34 AM) Besides, if for you, a problem appears only when everyone (or at least a majorit) is part of the problem, then I guess that indeed the thread won't go further anymore.
Well, another issue with that is that there is already a minority doing drugs. So based off of that, the real question would be whether legalizing drugs would substantially increase the drugged-up population, or at least the outrageously irresponsible drugged-up population. My signs point to "no". Your signs point to "yes". And since Prohibition isn't being accepted as a valid example here, well, yeah, I agree. There isn't too much further this conversation can go. We've pretty much hit every point there is to hit. The arguments have already started getting repetitive.

But dang, what a clash! But you've got to admit, it's a pretty roundabout way to not change anybody's mind, right?
 

mamori

-sama
Sempai
i say that certain drugs should be made legal. my reasoning is that if it's legal, the control on it will more than likely increase as suppliers will then be accountable to the government for quality, not to mention *taxes* that could be collected. so as long as the price doesn't get too high, most casual users would likely rather get their supply from a regulated "safe" source than a questionable source.

(*also reason to legalize prostitution)
 

overfiend1976

-san
Kouhai
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jan 30 2008, 01:21 AM) And I guess only murderers have the right to pass laws against other murderers ?
Doesn't make sense.
I see where your thinking comes from, but you're missing my point a bit. What I am stating is the fact that things that only directly involve the person involved shouldn't be guided by an 'outsider.' Murder is different, since it DEFINITELY involves someone besides the person responsible. Abortion does not, drug use does not. Both of those are individual things. At a certain point though, where its no longer 'use' for 'pleasure' but TRUE abuse, then I think someone can step in bounds. The issue lies in the fact however that those on the outside seem to believe that ANY use whatsoever is misuse. Uhm..... I've smoked PLENTY of pot in my younger days, but I most certainly didn't 'abuse' it, consumed plenty of LSD and psilocybin as well, and definitely wasn't abusing those either. It's a very grey area indeed, but I think the responsible thing on lawmakers parts would be to actually take the time to find out the discrepancies between such use and abuse.
 

khael

/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ being M
Sempai
QUOTE Yeah, that's true. You'll never see an open atheist getting into any kind of office (that's more an issue with the american people than the american laws, though). But the fact that there are some states with laws in effect that forbid atheists taking office, how insanely hypocritical is that to our so-called "freedom of religion"? Bah! How is such a law even constitutional?!? But yeah, that goes in some other thread which may or may not exist on this site... *sigh*

Maybe it's the stereotypical view that atheists are immoral people/people without morals that is causing the harm?

Anyways, i'd like to relate some personal experience.

I've started smoking 3 years ago. Someday around June. As of now, the total sticks i've smoked is 69. Yeah i keep track.

I drank my first glass of alcohol 2 years ago, around August, as of now i've drunk a total of 3 liters of beer on a total of 7 different occasions, and a bottle of wine, 12% alcohol. Yeah i do keep track. Honestly, no jokes.

I haven't taken drugs yet, and i don't intend to. But as i was reading this thread, i was thinking that if people have the discipline that i have, they can overcome possible addiction. BUT, this kind of thing will only happen in an ideal society where everyone is not, obsessive compulsive or easily driven by their emotions. It's only gonna happen in a fantasy world, i think. So i guess drugs still shouldn't be legalized yet, the people are, i think, not yet ready for such a thing.

I think the responsiblity doesn't just lie on the government, it also lies on the users and dealers themselves. Not everyone has full control of his or her physical, emotional, mental, or w/e urges, right?

Besides, the users and dealers themselves won't like it if drugs get taxed. I think... Correct me if i'm wrong on this one, but i'm currently taking a criminal's perspective.

One question though, what about painkillers, like morphine? Those drugs used in medicine but can get addicting. I think they should be included in the discussion.

-EDITED-

WTH poonk la femme?!
 

overfiend1976

-san
Kouhai
I have an extremely addictive personality but quit smoking (after 15 years) cold turkey 17 months ago without considering going back. I never once felt a 'need' for drugs or alcohol. Go find a psychotherapist that can figure me out and I'll buy you wtf ever you want.
 

khael

/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ being M
Sempai
I'm not really sure what that meant, but anyway...

That's you, that's me, we can control ourselves, but face it, there are a lot of people who can't. It's just as simple as that. It's mere discipline and self-control. Yes it'd be great if everyone was disciplined, but the fact is not everyone is. That's why i said people aren't ready for this.

Besides, if people do become addicted and get out of hand, who will people blame? Of course the addicts are at fault, but who will the non-users blame? Of course the one who legalized drugs, of course they'll blame the government [that's how democracy works anyway]. Correct me if i'm wrong in this notion.
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE That's you, that's me, we can control ourselves, but face it, there are a lot of people who can't. It's just as simple as that. It's mere discipline and self-control. Yes it'd be great if everyone was disciplined, but the fact is not everyone is. That's why i said people aren't ready for this.

It's a bit disingenuous to take the example of tobacco (or even pot) as a typical example of drugs.
When I agree with a ban on drugs (which is different than agreeing with the current campains against drugs), I have more heroin or cocain in mind. and as far as I know, the addiction (both physical and psychological) is far stronger than tobacco.

Otherwise... It's a bit like saying "I'm a very good driver, so I should be free to drive faster than 130km/h on the highway".
Well, it may be true that you're good. But some aren't, and we can't make two different laws. So the speed limit is set as the most careful solution.


QUOTE
One question though, what about painkillers, like morphine? Those drugs used in medicine but can get addicting. I think they should be included in the discussion.

Every medication has its drawbacks. As long as the cure is monitored by a physician, I've no problem with it (neither with morphin, nor with weed, which is said to be useful to help with the pain of some cancer victims).
 

overfiend1976

-san
Kouhai
It's because no one wants to assume responsibility for their own actions. They feel the need to whine to other people to make others do what they want.... Then they have the audacity to bitch when they wake up one morning and find all their freedoms got shafted. Sorry folks, but WHAT THE FU*K did you think was going to happen!? Just because the drug is legal doesn't mean you gotta do it. FFS, you need some examples of some similar subjects?

1a. Drinking in Europe = legal at wtf ever age. People are taught to respect alcohol at a young age. Alcohol abuse levels are quite low.

1b. Drinking in America/Canada = legal age 21. Alcohol abuse all over because we're taught it's wrong, etc.

2a. Sex and such matters are expressed very openly in Europe. Basic TV stations 'soap operas' would be considered pornography in the United States. Rape cases, sexual abuse, sex crimes, etc. are low.

2b. Sex is the ultimate taboo in North America. Rapes cases, sexual abuse, sex crimes, etc. are NOT low.

IMO, there is no debate over whether drugs should be legalized or not. Of course they should be legal. The simple fact is, police forces need money, politicians need clout, religious officials need fire and brimstone and rather than educate people about the truth (I don't mean scare tactics bullshit like DARE, etc.) drugs will remain illegal. Don't think for a delusional second that the reason marijuana is illegal has anything to do with its 'bad' qualities. Go ask your local pharmacologist roughly how much money the 'legalized drug industry' (aka pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, Bayer, and so on), would lose if marijuana were to be legal across the board. Suddenly people wouldn't be paying billions of dollars annually for anti-depressants. Pfizer alone makes 20 billion dollars a year.....and perhaps 30% of their product line could be replaced by smoking pot. No more Zithromax, no more Xanax, no more Zoloft, no more Celebrex. No more Geodon. And that's just Pfizer. So you see, regardless of whatever upsides may exist to certain drugs that are illegal, this nearly 1 TRILLION F*&KING DOLLAR A YEAR business sure as shit isn't going to allow any of that precious income to fritter away. Them permitting the lawmakers they have in their pockets to legalize marijuana and certain other drugs is as likely as them to extend a kind hand to the elderly (especially those on fixed incomes) to absorb some of the absurd costs for the medications necessary to keep them alive. (*cough* most of which could be replaced by smoking pot *cough*)

Have a nice day folks. Go, bureaucracy, go....


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jan 31 2008, 10:14 AM)When I agree with a ban on drugs (which is different than agreeing with the current campains against drugs), I have more heroin or cocain in mind. and as far as I know, the addiction (both physical and psychological) is far stronger than tobacco.
Uh, no. Go do a teeny bit of research and you'll notice you're wrong on all fronts.

"Tobacco is as addictive as heroin (as a mood & behavior altering agent).

* Nicotine is:
o 1000 X more potent than alcohol
o 10-100 X more potent than barbiturates
o 5-10 X more potent than cocaine or morphine
* A 1-2 pack per day smoker takes 200-400 hits daily for years. This constant intake of a fast acting drug (which affects mood, concentration & performance).. eventually produces dependence.

Pressures to relapse are both behaviorally & pharmacologically triggered."

"Possible withdrawal symptoms (after stopping tobacco use):

* Irritability, anger, hostility, anxiety, nervousness, panic, poor concentration, disorientation, lightheadedness, sleep disturbances, constipation, mouth ulcers, dry mouth, sore throat-gums- or tongue, pain in limbs, sweating, depression, fatigue, fearfulness, sense of loss, craving tobacco, hunger, and coughing (body getting rid of the mucus clogging the lungs).
* Symptoms may last from a few weeks to several months. After withdrawal subsides... urges for nicotine (for the effects of the drug) occur in response to all kinds of cues to smoke or chew."

(Taken from http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html)

Also;

"I would like to thank this nations leading expert on addiction, Jack Henningfield for pointing out that nicotine is more addictive than heroin, alcohol, or cocaine. A true voice uncorrupted by tobacco money. I would also add that tobacco has a far higher death rate (33%?) than either heroin, alcohol, or cocaine. Yet, addiction criteria alone does not determine the nicotine (or illicit drug) health threat.

The body of scientific evidence now indicates that harm associated with both heroin & nicotine is the result of contaminates in the drug delivery devices. Other than addiction itself neither nicotine nor heroin pose significant behavioral or toxicological threats (given the use of safe/effective drug delivery devices).

The result of this scientific understanding, in the interest of public health, has led to the current over the counter sales of safe high purity nicotine chewing gum and soon to be OTC nicotine patches. On the European front, heroin prescription programs are having great success in both England & Switzerland.

The issue of alcohol/cocaine addiction, use, and harm is a little more complex than posed by nicotine/heroin addiction. Alcohol and cocaine addiction are causative of both behavioral & biological problems. However most daily users of either alcohol or cocaine have no problem regulating usage at levels that do not cause behavioral or biological harm. The effect of daily light/moderate alcohol consumption being relaxation & lowered risk of heart disease. The effect of light/moderate cocaine consumption being the equivalent of prescription ritalin (increased levels of dopamine), ie increased attention span, less impulsive behavior, and better ability to focus on desired tasks. "

(Taken from http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/hening.html)
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE
1a. Drinking in Europe = legal at wtf ever age. People are taught to respect alcohol at a young age. Alcohol abuse levels are quite low.

1b. Drinking in America/Canada = legal age 21. Alcohol abuse all over because we're taught it's wrong, etc.


Legal age meaning
-A 20-y-o person can go to jail (or be fined) for drinking ?
-Or a 20-y-o person can't buy alcohol ?

Because in some parts of Europe also, selling alcohol to minors is restricted.

Besides, speaking about Europe is a bit like speaking about Africa : doesn't make sense, there's a lot of differences between the countries (sometimes even inside one country).
There's nevertheless two different approachs of alcohol (imho, afaik etc) : Alcohol as a 'gastronomical' product (roughly enjoying alcohol) and alcohol as a mood-alterer (roughly enjoying the effect of alcohol). My impression being that in countries with a culture of alcohol, the second approach (binge drinking etc) is less common.


QUOTE
"Tobacco is as addictive as heroin (as a mood & behavior altering agent).

Now, tell us about the physical addiction and the tolerance.


QUOTE
(Taken from http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/hening.html)

I guess I'll wait something stronger than a forum post on a site promoting drugs before changing my mind.
No offense intended.

Edit


QUOTE
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...bmedid=15863429

Perhaps that'll help.

It's more convincing, but it doesn't deal with the same problem.
No one said tobacco didn't create dependence.
 

monsta666

-the bee's knees
Kouhai
Cannabis should not be legalised in my opinion. It is more dangerous (but less addictive) than smoking cigarettes. It contains more tobacco and carcinogens than normal tobacco smoke. This means all the negative effects of smoking should effectively be times by two. Secondly smoking weed long enough will effect the mind of most people. Incidents of schizophrenia are higher. Your general attitude from smoking it gradually changes, it becomes more lathergic; I can't be bothered type of attitude (this is from knowing a few mates who did it). Here is some info on cannabis:

Science & Nature: Hot Topics

If cannabis was legalised the extra cost to the NHS (Britain's health service - National Health Service) would be enormous (as America's hospitals are privatised I guess it will mean increased cost of insurance for people). Will people be prepared to foot the bill? If the answer yes then it could work. There is a further problem, if the drug is legalised the number of hours lost to work will increase, this will cost country money too.

If harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin are also included in drug legalisation it will compound the problem further. Not only will health costs increase but there will be more crime. This is because these drugs (this could apply to most illicit drugs) lower ones inhibitions making people do things they wouldn't normally do as a result increased there will be more violence, gun crime etc. Then there is other things like driving under the influence that should be considered before legalising these drugs.
 
Top