This conversation is closed.

legalize ALL narcotics

Drugs in the USA bring 100 billion $ in illigal profit to the drug dealers and cause high crime and police costs.

If we legalize narcotics and sell them at Pharmacies as prescription drugs the drug dealers will lose the illegal profits,the street violence and killings will be eliminated and the income from the sales tax and the savings from Law Enforcement can be used to detoxify for free those 10% that are expected to become addicts and educate the Public especially teenagers not to use Narcotics as dangerous to Health.

Sweden has a state Monopoly on Vodka ABSOLUT and the profits from it's sales are used to rehabilitate the Alcoholics in Sweden.The number of alcoholics is declining in Sweden.We can expect the same for Drug Addicts in USA.

  • thumb
    May 8 2012: I disagree with your final sentence 'We can expect the same for Drug Addicts in USA.' Statistically speaking, there is no reason to believe that what is true for alcoholics in Sweden will also be true of drug addicts in America.
    • May 9 2012: I'll second and say that Sweden probably doesn't have a huge meth/heroin problem.

      Regulation and taxation though...it's what NORML is fighting for (and it would be an economic booster...weed is for waaaay more than smoking). I still feel weird about anything that's not classified a hallucinogen. Course, we're seeing in California how (near) legalization isn't (really) impeding productivity so...maybe it's worth a shot? I really really would like to trust that every adult can make an informed decision on when to stop their usage...but again, California has some horrendous meth problems; I'm not sure stimulants or deliriants should be classified in the same category as THC, MDMA, LSD, Mescaline, or even Alcohol and Tobacco.

      One thing we should do here is increase taxation on alcohol in tandem with the increases in tobacco. It's preposterous that we don't. And when I say increase, I mean a modest increase, not what my idiot representatives proposed: http://laist.com/2010/03/26/initiative_to_tax_alcohol_could_bri.php

      I know, I know, that's supposedly what canada pays. We're not Canada. That said, if I had to pay two dollars extra for every drink, and I knew that money was going to reduce the deficit, pay for universal healthcare, and ensure quality education for my neighbor's kids...I'd become an alcoholic.
  • thumb
    May 4 2012: who will get a prescription and under what circumstances? everyone with no prescription will still go to the black market
  • thumb
    May 31 2012: Our societies cannot even cope with the ones we have.
    Just listen to the stories of agony that the MADD mother have to carry for the rest of their lives.
  • thumb
    May 10 2012: Can't say I agree with your proposal nor the outcomes. How far is Woodside from Woodstock?
  • thumb
    May 5 2012: good point!!!and i don't think it should be legalized only in USA rather it should be legalized in each country where illegal acts prevail and not only they should be a remedy for illegal drug business but even they should be a remedy for all the illegal businesses prevailing within the world. and it can be best done when the government of specific country actively participate in eradicating such businesses!!
  • thumb
    May 5 2012: You have a point. Why not forget prescriptions (for the most part) and let freedom reign when people reach the age of legal consent. Alcohol is a drug. Sell the rest in special, regulated stores with no ads or marketing and make it illegal to give or sell to minors and illegal to be under the influence pretty well any where. Instead of battling the cartels and dealer networks train the police eye on users who get out of hand just as is now done with drinkers
  • thumb

    Josh S

    • 0
    May 5 2012: Because of the dangerous side affects
    Because of the senseless crimes that occur because someone has ingested narcotics, not to obtain them

    Other then the monetary benefit, which is true, there is no reason to do so. What you propose is essentially to make a problem, then fix the problem with the profit from the problem... Its pretty simple to just NOT make the problem
  • May 4 2012: i'm tendentially anti-prohibitionist, so i do agree with the spirit of your idea. state should not interfere with personal choices that do not interfere with others. i don't smoke, i'm a very moderate alcohol drinker and i don't use drugs, but provided that people who might want to use this substances don't bother me, are responsible (that is they use stuff in places and under conditions they don't harm anyone), they should be free to use it (should be responsible for their health though, as they're deliberately risking it). i think that a pragmatical approach should be used. denying legal drug use (as well as prostitution) is by far worse than regulating it, i think, but i would be curious to read about some serious studies upon the case. maybe there would still be a black market for drugs even after regulation (like it still exists for cigarettes and alcohol), but i'm quite sure that criminal organizations would experiment a huge cut on their profits, not to talk about related deaths every year. i think that regulated choice with a proper dissuasion campaign would win in the long term.