Why are drugs banned (I'm not a drug-user)?

Question

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some currently illegal drugs. It doesn't make sense to ban one kind of drug and allow another. The inconsistency leads to disrespect for law. Prohibition of alcohol in the twenties led to massive wealth and empowerment of criminals. (In any case it was only the sale of alcohol that was banned, not possession. ) Today, the same thing happens with drug-wealthy criminals. Legalizing and taxing the sale of drugs would give the government tax revenue which currently goes to criminals.
Drugs should be licensed and controlled. Therefore their quality and purity would be maintained. Drug users would not have to rob people and engage in prostitution to get money to pay for drugs, since the prices could be controlled. Since crime would diminish, there would be fewer people in prison and the prisons would be less crowded.

It's not the business of government to police the private behavior of consenting adults.

Look at Amsterdam: safe and friendly.

Lots of things are dangerous that are not made illegal--, scuba diving, mountain climbing or whatever. It is not the business of government to regulate what I put into my body.

It is not the business of government, or of the majority of the population, to tell me what to do with my body as long as I'm not directly causing harm to someone else--any more than it would be their business to arrest me for telling social lies, worshipping idols, or cheating on my spouse with a consenting adult. Those things may be wrong in a moral sense, but they are not (or should not be) crimes. The confusion of "immorality" with "criminality" is at the root of the problem I think.

If someone became a heroin addict they could register as one like they used to do in Britain (the problem started when they abolished the system). Then they could shoot up for free or very little in a controlled clinical environment as in Switzerland, and go about their daily life not worrying where the money is going to come from for drugs. Since criminals would not be making money from the sale of drugs any more, there would be no logic in them trying to expand their sales by getting more people hooked.

Just because something is legal, people don't necessarily assume it's safe. Cars are legal, but they can be lethal if improperly used.

Answer 1

There's no simple answer to the question, but ethnic origin is the best. In 1877, San Francisco passed the first drug law in the nation. It made it illegal to spoke opium in opium dens. While no ethnicity was mentioned in the law, Chinese individuals were the only ones who smoked in opium dens. The push to ban cannabis didn't really begin until the Great Depression. When the nation was thriving it was more than happy to have a surplus of immigrant labor from Mexico. In the height of the Depression the majority couldn't tolerate having them in breadlines. Targeting their use of cannabis use was the easiest way to curtail this. In many states, 50 year sentences for possession were common, as was immediate deportation. In the South, unfounded claims about blacks using cocaine and raping white women as a result were used to justify making it illegal.

During Prohibition, the people making money from the black market and dying in the drive-bys over territory were not people of color. Not coincidentally, Prohibition didn't last long while the war on psychoactive botanicals has lasted over 90 years.

Alcohol and tobacco are not more dangerous than some currently illegal drugs, they are more dangerous than them all. 17,000 annual deaths caused by illicit drugs will never hold a candle to the 520,000 annual combined deaths caused by alcohol and tobacco.

It also important to note that the idea of legalizing drugs is actually re-legalizing. There were no drug laws in nation for first 100 years and we moved along rather well.

Answer 2

The problem with drugs is that you don't know what you're getting - if you buy ecstacy are you getting MDMA or a cocktail of drugs including Special K and so on...with party drugs it's not always the drug itself that hurt people, but it's the other things that are added. If drugs were legalised then like you said, there could be mechanisms in place to control the quality of the drugs.

However by making drugs legal it encourages the misconception that drugs are safe - they're not, it involves a high element of risk. More people may try them (It's legal what harm can they do?).

Look at herion addicts - do you really think that drugs aren't harmful. Drugs lower the capacity for people to think in a rational way and function as members of society. Imagine if half the nation were herion addicts, would society be able to function? No.

There is no way to lower the crime rate, government would put taxes on drugs, thus pushing the prices up (even if it is still considerably cheaper than they are at the moment), as such a market would be created for cheaper, tax free drugs - that once again quality could not be assured. Junkies will still rob and steal - even if drugs are legalised and subisidized how could they afford it - it's not like they have jobs (and if they do it's not like they last long in them!).

Answer 3

While I agree that drugs aren't OK, and that Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, it was more that Pete denied gambling on baseball for 13 years after accepting his lifetime ban. Had he owned up to it right away, he would have served his "lifetime suspension", which amounts to a year, petitioned for reinstatement, and probably would have been allowed back in. He thought that by accepting his lifetime ban without admitting guilt, he would be let back in. He found out it didn't work that way. And here's why the gambling issue is such a big deal- every player, coach, and manager signs an agreement in spring training swearing they will not gamble on baseball, with the penalty being a lifetime ban. Everyone signs this, including Pete Rose. The players are drug-tested, and there is a different policy with varying degrees of suspensions involved- see Dwight Gooden, Steve Sax, etc...

Answer 4

As if the government already doesnt control the shipping and receiving of drugs,but thats another story.
I believe a seperate party should control the flow of drugs,at least the less hazardous ones.Agreeing with what most of you said legalizing crack,cocaine,heroine,speed,shrooms,exstacy,acid and all its forms and variations would be asking for trouble. But legalizing Weed would be great,i mean look at Canada,You can pretty much walk down the street with a sack in your hand and all they do is take it away from you.Even if they so far as allowed you to do it inside your own home and not in public that would be OK.I mean its your house you pay your rent/mortgage on time (mostly) if you wanna spark one up you should be able to,i mean how far are we away from the government "dictating" to us how much air we breath and water we drink.Just because "Society" doesnt accept it doesnt mean it shouldnt be allowed.Our parents did it in the 70s and their parents did it in the 50s,people always have done it whether theyll admit to it or not.Give it some time,maybe the next C-average president we get will do something about it.

Answer 5

The business of government is to do what the majority of the governed desire. If you don't think that the government represents the majority, you have the right and duty to replace those who sit in office with those who will do the will of the governed.

The bottom line is that the system makes a great deal of money by keeping things as they are, it is big business on both sides of the aisle, both government and dealers.

Answer 6

It depends on the drug.

Some are banned because they're dangerous. Others are banned for economic reasons. (ie, the production of hemp was a danger to other businesses, so they pressured Congress to outlaw it)

Answer 7

look to Randolph Hearst at one time the newspaper magnet owned the forests and pulp mills when hemp became a easily renewable paper source his newspapers led to the criminalization of marijuana by reporting to the easily gullable masses "reefer madness"... its always been about the money

Answer 8

Because when drugs are outlawed , only the outlaws will have drugs...or was that for guns???

Answer 9

Amen..except for hard drugs i think..