There's no good reason that marijuana is illegal but alcohol isn't.

Theres no good reason why I (an American over the age of 21) shouldn't be able to smoke a joint if I want to.

But think of the wood industry!

life was easy for the users

Yup, landing in prison for possession of pot due to three strikes laws and potentially getting seven years in prison for merely having drugs like MDMA, LSD or magic mushrooms on you sure is a cakewalk.

Legalization does nothing but legitimize cartels and make it easier for them to sell drugs.

The entire reason the drug trade is so profitable is precisely because it is prohibited; and our prohibition of drugs actually drives more trade in harder drugs. Marijuana is bulky, easily detectable and difficult to conceal. Cocaine, on the other hand, is a lot easier to move around despite its higher class or schedule than weed and is actually preferable in some ways to dealing weed. Sure, you'll get a hell of a sentence if you're caught, but there's a lower chance of you being caught in the first place.

Not to mention production of goods for black markets is essentially controlled by violent psychopaths. They don't care that it's illegal. Having the government regulate production, distribution and consumption not only pulls the rug out from under the cartels, but is a fuck-tonne better in terms of reducing personal and societal harm from drug abuse.

there'd be no reason for cartels to not just continue black market sales.

This is true for harder drugs, but it doesn't entail the criminalisation of possession. This does nothing to actually help those who have issues with drug abuse. Should the trafficking of drugs remain illegal? Sure, I'm pretty neutral on that question. But even if we maintain the illegality of non-governmental production and distribution of drugs like cocaine and heroin, it doesn't follow that the appropriate response is to also gaol those purchasing it from these underground producers and distributors.

So what's the answer? Why not look at what the Swiss or the Dutch do? There's no reason making cocaine and heroin legal means it must be sold openly; the Dutch, for instance, allow heroin users to inject the drug with sterile needles in supervised, government-run consumption sites. This is a lot better than throwing addicts in prison.

And if the government were to openly produce and distribute hard drugs, what do you think would happen to their street prices? Demand would collapse.

Apologies, I thought you still supported the incarceration of people possessing hard drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Although, my main gripe is with your contention that legalisation would legitimise cartel activities. In what way would this happen? We ought to be clear on what we mean by 'legalisation', too. When I say it, I mean the government not punishing people for possessing drugs and taking the production and distribution of hard drugs away from non-government actors.

Demand for cartel-supplied drugs, you mean?

Yes, isn't that an ancillary goal here? The destruction of South American and Middle Eastern drug cartels?

And assuming it did happen, there's a need for a moral discussion about the government controlling access to a cripplingly addictive substance.

I can't really see how its any less moral than allowing cartels and criminals controlling access.

but I still think there's something deeply wrong with the government coopting (and continuing) the sale of drugs as awful as cocaine and heroin.

On the one hand, I agree, and support a strict and non-commercial form of regulation. Having the government sell heroin to people isn't something that sits well with most people.

On the other hand, I use cocaine irregularly. When drugs like coke and meth are mostly harmful to the users themselves, I'm not sure what mandate I have to strictly regulate the consumption of such drugs assuming the social harm is adequately dealt with (and, lets be honest, it's nothing compared to alcohol). On what basis do I and other "regulationists" restrict the distribution and use of such drugs? Even if they are not sold by the government, does the government still have the right to say "No, you cannot use this substance". Restricting the use of materials which could make weaponry is one thing, but restricting goods used for personal consumption is wholly another. There's a significant internal inconsistency here.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 22, 2016, 06:15:04 PM

but I still think there's something deeply wrong with the government coopting (and continuing) the sale of drugs as awful as cocaine and heroin.

On the one hand, I agree, and support a strict and non-commercial form of regulation. Having the government sell heroin to people isn't something that sits well with most people.

On the other hand, I use cocaine irregularly. When drugs like coke and meth are mostly harmful to the users themselves, I'm not sure what mandate I have to strictly regulate the consumption of such drugs assuming the social harm is adequately dealt with (and, lets be honest, it's nothing compared to alcohol). On what basis do I and other "regulationists" restrict the distribution and use of such drugs? Even if they are not sold by the government, does the government still have the right to say "No, you cannot use this substance". Restricting the use of materials which could make weaponry is one thing, but restricting goods used for personal consumption is wholly another. There's a significant internal inconsistency here.

I'm not sure it's inconsistent. The government has an obligation to protect its citizenry, and in the case of drug use it's twofold: protecting the user, and protecting those around him/her. Cocaine's not a good example, because it's roughly as toxic as alcohol, but without trying to move the goalposts here I think the discussion is more general than a definitive list of what's okay or not.

Does the government have the right to control production of a drug and then tell the citizenry they don't have a right to use it? Absolutely. The pharmaceutical business is built on this principle. The same can be said for GPS, for example.

Quote from: Verbatim on March 22, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

What exactly does that accomplish?

Discourages degenerate behavior.

Tell that to all the guys still doing drugs in prison.

There's also no real reason Twinkies should be legal, that doesn't mean there's a reason they should be illegal.