legalizing drugs only would extend issues like driving under the influence.
Originally Posted by: Pack93z
This is similar to the argument I heard on the radio a few months ago: "But if we legalize drugs, we will have bus drivers high on cocaine!" It is a common objection, but one I don't find it very convincing. Leaving out the fact that drugs like cocaine are out of the system in about 15 minutes and that some studies have shown that driving while stoned may actually
reduce the risk of auto accident (due to increased paranoia), the fact remains that legalizing the use of drugs will not legalize their use in all situations. Driving while intoxicated (on anything) would still be unlawful. Employers would still be allowed to forbid the use of drugs while on the job. Buildings that were smoke-free would remain smoke-free.
And are all drugs open at that point, even prescription ones to be handed out upon the street?
Originally Posted by: Pack93z
Your question presupposes that some drugs should be available by prescription only. The pharmaceutical companies like it that way, of course, because it allows them to jack the prices way up. The question then becomes: which drugs should be prescription only and which should be freely available? It's not like over-the-counter drugs are intrinsically safer than prescription drugs. Overdosing on aspirin and other NSAIDs can induce severe gastrointestinal bleeding, acetaminophen can cause liver failure, dextromethorphan (cough medicine) is a dissociative-hallucinogen, chlorpheniramine (also found in cough medicine) can induce heart arrhythmias, etc. The FDA is currently looking at making extra-strength (500 mg) Tylenol prescription-only due to the risk of liver failure, but what will that really solve? All it means is I will take three 325-mg tablets instead of two 500-mg tablets. The drugs are already out there on the streets, and business is booming. The street prices for Ritalin, Adderall, Percocet, and Oxycontin, just to name a few, are nothing short of astounding. By reducing access, the government is literally subsidizing the dealers.
The argument is commonly advanced that society needs to protect the risk takers from themselves, but the fact is, it is the risk takers who are currently using the drugs. Legalizing drugs removes the element of risk and makes consumption a lot less glamorous -- think of all the people who drastically reduce their alcohol consumption after they hit the age of 21. It is no surprise that consumption in Portugal plummeted after drugs were legalized there.
Whether we like it or not, there is a subset of humans that likes to alter their state of consciousness or other physical sensations with various drugs. They will find a way to do it whether it is legal to do so or not. Likewise, those of us who aren't into that won't suddenly start doing so if it is made legal. Alcohol consumption is not only allowed in our society, it is tacitly condoned, yet the Hefeweizen (Krombacher, decent stuff) I had on my birthday two days ago was the first beer I had drunk in weeks. There are cigarette machines on practically every street here in Oldenburg and in many buildings, yet I have not spent a single penny on tobacco. Amsterdam is only a few hours away by train, but I haven't sneaked away to spend a few hours toking in a Shisha bar. It's not my thing. I would guess it's not most people's thing. Legalizing drugs might lead to a transient spike in consumption, as a few of the more timid among us would be induced to take a guilty sample, but I am confident it would drop shortly thereafter, as most people realized it didn't do all that much for them.
So why are we making a few unscrupulous individuals fabulously wealthy -- outside the reach of the taxation system, I might add -- in a vain attempt to keep a small subset of people from frying their brains on various substances, some of which grow on the side of the road in Wisconsin? Legalizing drugs would cause prices to plummet and bankrupt these dealers almost overnight. I think that would be the moral thing to do.