When they say legalize drugs what do they mean by that?

[leftyladyfrommo]

Is it just maryjane or does that mean other drugs like heroin. What about crystal meth?

I would like to see pot legalized but I'm not so sure about the other drugs that are or can be really dangerous.

Will legalizing drugs and taxing them stop the street violence?

[NightWatcher]

1. decriminalizing will stop the black market profit motive

without profit, why would the criminals continue to operate?
Maybe then they could go open payday loan offices with the rest of the criminals

[Taverner]

7. EXACTLY eom

[eShirl]

2. google "harm reduction"

[endarkenment]

3. it means adults can legally use formerly illegal drugs

which drugs would be legalized depends on who you ask. A first step would be the legalization of marijuana, as there is simply no rational basis for its being illegal. If you ask me, all of the addictive drugs should be decriminalized and probably legalized. Yes that includes cocaine, heroin and methedrine. Legalizing drugs would end drug related violence and crime overnight. Legalization and/or decriminalization, which would save taxpayers billions of dollars in prison and law enforcement costs, should of course include treatment on demand services for anyone who wants to get sober.

The 'other drugs that can be really dangerous' are not as dangerous as you have been told. Most of the danger is a consequence of their illegality. All of the crime and violence is a consequence of prohibition. That is the sad fact of the 100 years of intolerance we have gone through, it has simply made the problem of drug addiction and dependence and crime associated with drug addiction worse with every ratcheting up of draconian policy.

[H2O Man]

4. "They" is a rather

wide group, and can include everyone from those advocating a sane approach to marijuana, to those who are suggesting legalizing all drugs. It would be fair to say that the attempts to legal the legalization of marijuana for adults are most likely to succeed.

[Webster Green]

5. Crossing the street is dangerous..

Harm reduction are the key words here. The consequences of the laws against drugs are far more detrimental than the drugs themselves. :hippie:

[RoadRage]

6. I'd advocate for leagalizing Pot..

I've never smoked it - but I know many who have.. and i've never seen any of them do anything other then act goofy, eat, and nap while high. Hardly harmful.. in fact, i'd say alcohol is more dangerous then pot.

The same can't be said for Meth, Coke, Heroin, etc. Many people to violent things to others while under the influence of those drugs.

I'm fine with legalizing things that you want to take that will only harm yourself. I don't agree with legalizing anything that has a tendancy to influence people to harm others.. weather it's while on the drug, or because it's so addictive that people will utilize violence to harm others to obtain the means neccessary to buy the addictive drug.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Who is this 'they'?

And what is it 'they' say about legalizing drugs? Who do you mean, and in what context do they speak?

[On the Road]

9. Drug Legalization Covers a Lot of Territory

Some people favor legalizing only marijuana. Others would include supposedly non-addicting hallucinogenics like LSD, mescaline, and some designer drugs. Others would include heroin, cocaine, and pretty much anything else.

Some people, usually libertarians, would prefer drugs to be an unregulated commodity. Others would prefer government regulation and taxation, but allow drugs to be sold through private businesses, like alcohol. Others would prefer drugs were sold through government-owned outlets like ABC stores.

Drug prohibition has united a lot of diverse opinions. If it started to become a serious possibility, a lot of these fault lines would likely open up and different groups would start arguing over different proposals.

[Spike89]

10. Most likely, non-criminal regulation leads

I think it's a losing battle to start ranking drugs by the "harm" they cause...it's a false premise and actually leads into continued prohibition. "Natural" is another red herring...some manufactured products are totally benign, some natural plants are deadly. The real issue is whether the state has a legitimate role in determining what people do with drugs. It is pretty well established that the state does have such a role (alchohol, perscription drugs, tobacco all have some form of regulation).

My guess is that eventually drugs will be regulated and taxed as an economic bonanza--not only would we save millions (billions?) on drug enforcement and incarceration, but we'd bring in potentially billions more in taxes that criminal drug dealers currently don't pay. Once this happens, the health issues will prove to have been way overblown, as are the concerns about crime. Regulated drugs aren't going to be cut with potentially dangerous filler, potencies will be consistent (fewer overdoses) and crime will actually be dealt a huge blow from losing almost the entire drug profit center (repealing prohibition did pretty much cripple organized crime for a few generations).

[unpossibles]

11. Did ending alcohol prohibition stop all crime related to alcohol?

No, of course not, but it did stop the black market crime behind it, as well as stopping the average citizen user who is not a criminal from being locked away in prison and all of the ensuing problems associated with it.