Would you vote to Legalize Everything?

[OO]

Yeah pass a law . . . lets license EVERY activity we engage in, that will fix the problem. How about procreation? I think people who want to make and care for a human child should be held to at least the same standard. But people who want to legislate procreation are what we call eugenicists.

If someone makes a good enough argument to that I don't say I would be opposed, I have witnessed quite a lot of preventable suffering due to those ill-prepared for parenting. That being said, I don't hear anybody making strong arguments to that point, but would be interested in hearing some ideas, but only in another thread.

(lets keep this one on topic)

That being said, I do believe that activities which have a high likelihood of having large impacts of society as a whole should require some amount of screening by the public. I think very few things should be completely illegal, but should have a graduated amount of difficulty in the right to obtain permission for. The greater the potential for harm, the harder it should be to get permission, like driving, which is the highest form of non health-related cause of human fatality in America, I believe we should make it much harder to gain and retain the privilege of doing so.

Flying is already well moderated, that is one reason why I suspect plane crashes are so much less common per person engaging in the activity, despite the larger amount of variables involved in safety of the activity.

Take a look at many examples of permission based regulation that we have and how they are treated, and the success rates of them.

For my system to be successful, there would need to be a large amount of public acceptance, as well as a very strict enforcement of offenses.

 

[Bouldorado]

Legal drugs will be far cheaper than the black market equivalent. Do you lend your car to those that don't have a license? Simply put, the responsibility of the consumption will always fall upon the consumer, this is a way to hopefully educate them, and keep the majority of people from supporting those who are not responsible. If everyone realizes that by showing a reasonable level of education and responsibility in the consumption of a drug gains you easy and affordable access to a drug, the profit incentive for black market dealers goes down, as well as the (would be drug dealing members of the) public are less likely to waste the time on such an unprofitable endeavor.

Are you likely to support someone by giving them access to a drug that you see is screwing up their lives? Neither is most of the public. Those who are will be less willing to engage in the business of such if there is little profit, like there would be if licenses were available cheaply and only required proving understanding of the drug and demonstration of responsibility (In other words, if someone is abusing the privilege (of easy access to cheap drugs and the ability to use them openly) then take it from them).

Furthermore punish those who prove time and time again they are not being responsible. (Reasonable punishment, not jail or prison unless other offenses are involved) People should be given the opportunity to lead independent lives, but if they are proving otherwise they should not be allowed to enjoy themselves at the expense of everyone else. (No, I'm not of the mindset that socialized healthcare will work with this mentality).

The main problem I see with a license-based system is the immense amount of variables. First, is the issue of determining eligibility. It's one thing to require an educational component (most people would be capable of passing such an assessment), however determining individual responsibility is where matters get tricky. Concerning responsibility, the two main considerations would be individual and societal harm potential.

When an individual can no longer control his drug usage, he becomes society's problem. Society's main problem with drug users is the medical bills; much of which are caused by either treating addiction or overdose. Overdose can be prevented with the educational component (especially with the quality standards of legal drugs), but what about addiction?

I've read that some people are predisposed to addiction, but is there a way to screen for this? On a related note, you would also have to screen for mental illness (not a good idea to give a schizophrenic acid). These two are just a hint of what would be required for determining eligibility and already there are clear inequalities. When demand exists (those denied eligibility) for something illegal, opportunity for a black market exists as well.

And what about the production aspect? To ensure acceptable quality standards and prevent drug profits, drugs would have to be produced and/or regulated by the federal government.

 

[Frederick McGuire]

The main problem I see with a license-based system is the immense amount of variables. First, is the issue of determining eligibility. It's one thing to require an educational component (most people would be capable of passing such an assessment), however determining individual responsibility is where matters get tricky. .

I could see a demerit system akin to driving being applicable.
Commit any drug-related act, loose some or all of your drugs licence points.
Loose your licence, no more drugs for you (there would still be a black market, but then its mostly people who are negligent, criminals, etc. the people who are going to be committing crimes (well, lets say societal bad acts) anyway.

The otherwise law abiding citizen doesn't need to worry about dealing with the black market (which is always going to exist in some form IMO)

[just kinda thinking the idea through out loud, but lets say you're caught drink driving, you'd loose your alcohol and driving license, since you're showing you can't be responsible with the substance, and a car.
If you were giving alcohol to minors, you're showing you can't be responsible, loose the license.

It won't be perfect, but if its reasonable, most people will follow it.

Many people don't follow MJ prohibition simply because it isn't reasonable, yet most of those people still say kids shouldn't be toking up, because its reasonable to restrict it from kids]

Concerning responsibility, the two main considerations would be individual and societal harm potential.

When an individual can no longer control his drug usage, he becomes society's problem. Society's main problem with drug users is the medical bills; much of which are caused by either treating addiction or overdose. Overdose can be prevented with the educational component (especially with the quality standards of legal drugs), but what about addiction?.

What about it?

There are many addicts out there now to legal drugs (nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, prescription meds)

Better education about the effects of drugs on your body, including the positives and negatives, could help, but some people are just going to end up addicted to something...
Better it be a clean, legal substance that they can get with relative ease, than a potentially adulterated illegal substance that has to be sought out from a criminal IMO.

I would think that if these substances are taxed akin to other drugs (I'm thinking alcohol and tobacco here) then at least some of that revenue could be used to offset increased healthcare costs. (I haven't done any kind of economic analysis on that though )

Also, I recall reading an article recently that stated that since Portugal decriminalised everything, their number of addicts has halved

I've read that some people are predisposed to addiction, but is there a way to screen for this? On a related note, you would also have to screen for mental illness (not a good idea to give a schizophrenic acid). These two are just a hint of what would be required for determining eligibility and already there are clear inequalities. When demand exists (those denied eligibility) for something illegal, opportunity for a black market exists as well. .

If a person was pre-disposed to addiction, IMO it's still up to them to decide if they want to abstain, or try to use a substance responsibly.
We don't seem to care currently if people are addicted to cigarettes, and alcohol to a lesser extent,
Basically, I'd say its up to the individual to be responsible with their own body, and if they go overboard, we as society try to get them back on track (through rehab etc).

I don't know about the mental illness aspect, I'd have to look into it further, but for the most part, my position is;
So long as a person is capable of being responsible for themselves, it should be up to them what they consume.

We don't stop someone from eating salty food when they are pre-disposed to high blood pressure, we just advise against it and let them live their life...

And what about the production aspect? To ensure acceptable quality standards and prevent drug profits, drugs would have to be produced and/or regulated by the federal government.

I have nothing against profits on drug sales, IMO it's no different to any other consumable product.

Would you say alcohol is regulated by the government?
If so, then a similar level of regulation on other drugs would be adequate I would think.

I've never been perturbed that my Smirnoff isn't "Uncle Sam's Ruskie Juice"
Maybe I'm not understanding your point here fully?

 

[OO]

The main problem I see with a license-based system is the immense amount of variables. First, is the issue of determining eligibility. It's one thing to require an educational component (most people would be capable of passing such an assessment), however determining individual responsibility is where matters get tricky. Concerning responsibility, the two main considerations would be individual and societal harm potential.

When an individual can no longer control his drug usage, he becomes society's problem. Society's main problem with drug users is the medical bills; much of which are caused by either treating addiction or overdose. Overdose can be prevented with the educational component (especially with the quality standards of legal drugs), but what about addiction?

I've read that some people are predisposed to addiction, but is there a way to screen for this? On a related note, you would also have to screen for mental illness (not a good idea to give a schizophrenic acid). These two are just a hint of what would be required for determining eligibility and already there are clear inequalities. When demand exists (those denied eligibility) for something illegal, opportunity for a black market exists as well.

And what about the production aspect? To ensure acceptable quality standards and prevent drug profits, drugs would have to be produced and/or regulated by the federal government.

I recognize that there are many aspects of the idea which need to be decided upon, but without public discourse to determine these things, then those who are ill prepared to make the decisions (politicians) will be the ones to set these rules. I would appreciate any and all insight into how you think it should be handled, because only through sharing experiences and information can the correct route of action be decided.

As far as abuse is concerned, if the individual is addicted to drugs which harm the individual, is it not fair to make it more difficult to stay medically insured, or to insist on a program which handles the individual on a case basis to try and keep them from causing more harm to themselves? If a court ordered this then they could also make them forfeit their right to treatment. Things like this should be explicitly clarified in the licensing process.

That being said, there will need to be clear evidence to this fact before someone's societally guaranteed right to medical repair be revoked.

As far as the screening process is concerned, that should be part of the licensing process as well, questions which ask them about family history of mental illness or addiction should be addressed to inform the potential user of the risks associated with the drug, or even better, they should have to prove they have already researched these risks, to show they are truly being interested in their own responsibility.

Part of my plan hinges on the idea that a black market will always exist, but there can be multiple approaches to dealing with that fact, like reducing the incentive for the black marketeers (cheap and available drugs). I am of the opinion that if someone wants something bad enough, they will get it, especially in our capitalistic society. That being said if no one is willing to deal with selling things for a small profit, or if enough people have a conscience, then this would be effective I feel.

I really hate the idea of federal regulation, I would much prefer that the industry make its own standards, which I feel would be somewhat adequate. Consumers are quite picky and will shun products if they feel they are not trustworthy. If a product gets a bad rap because people who are using it become ill, then it won't be long before word gets around.

Also to help pay for rehab programs and the like, taxes can be levied either against the drug purchases, or against those who hold the license (upkeep on high abuse risk substances (like heroin)), or those who are guilty of the abuses (one way is to make it more expensive each time you would like to reacquire the license).

 

[IIIQBIII]

Yes. Do it. Do it all. If some person wants to do something, they are most likely going to do it regardless of it being legal or not.

 

[Bouldorado]

When I said drug profits should be prevented, I meant they should be kept away from gangs. Nothing wrong with having a pharmaceutical company produce the drugs, but such a company may be unwilling to enter the market, since sales would have low profit margins (keeping with the low-cost drug theme). There's also the possibility of government subsidies.

As for licensing, if you exclude a significant number of people from eligibility, then the system will simply not work (those people would just go the black market). I would give everyone equal access after they pass a pre-screening and an educational component. The exception might be the mentally ill; perhaps restrict their access to certain drugs.

Addiction is always an issue but that can be minimized with careful monitoring and restrictions on the most addictive. Perhaps by the time we evolve enough to be publicly acceptive of drug use, we'll have the technology to predict addiction potential.

 

[goatgobaahh]

Why is MY government telling me WHAT I CAN and CANNOT put in MY body?