But I have digressed.
Firstly, let's consider what "drugs" actually refers to, drugs by definition, are "A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular". This can include anything, from cough medicine, to penicillin to your heroin and cannabis. But for the purpose of this, we shall actually only look into narcotics, as the American use for the word applies:
Quote:
"A drug or other substance affecting mood or behavior and sold for nonmedical purposes, esp. an illegal one"
If we're being persistent on classic definitions, a narcotic is only something that induces drowsiness. But we shall use drug and narcotic to refer as mentioned above.
Now, people talk heavily about legalising narcotics so they can be regulated, the problem is - people forget a Catch-22 here. If drugs are regulated, then people will either have to be limited on purchases (thus, street dealers are not fully dissolved) or we don't actually tell people how much they can use. Thus we risk people utterly wasting themselves. If we are to talk regulation in terms of dealing with the fact dealers will lace drugs with harmful substances, then we forget reality. We do not so much have a case of home-brewed alcohol, because as prohibition days will demonstrate - a lot of home made alcohol turns people blind. But in the case of cigarettes, industry exists for people to vend them illegally despite their legality. Illegal cigarettes often being quite dangerous (One example). Drugs won't neccessarily be provided in complete honestly by the bodies that sell them. However, a legal practise is arguable more applicable to various watchdogs than an illegal vendor.
Now, when looking into the drugs themselves, we arguably have risk of the above being a bigger form of industry but there is actually a more contendable issue. The drugs themselves, if we're to take this scale, it could be idealised that everything with lower dependancy and physical harm is less dangerous than alcohol and tabacco is easily reasoned safe. This is a falsehood, many of these are psychoactive - their primary effects are in the brain. And thus they create mental harm. Particularly vulnerable are those with underlying conditions. However, you may argue then we should have a regulated drugs business in regards these - but that would only empower illegal distribution once more, perhaps making it more difficult case-by-case and thus negating anything economically recovered from the drug trade largely. Thus, we would end up with great risk to much of the populace in mental condition and/or physical condition with teh legalisation of many recreational drugs.
But here end the more rational arguments I can think of to say "don't legalise it". One I often hear from the camp promoting the status quo is that legalisation = promotion. I refute this in great extremity. Alcohol, and tabacco - are both legal, yet the government does not endorse them neccessarily. In fact, increasingly for many developed countries - the government encourages citizens not to smoke and to "drink responsibly", if at all. Thus, it can be concluded that a legal item can be discouraged by a government and therefore legality is not mutually inclusive with legalisation. Considering this, we have it entirely plausible and obstensible that a government can legalise drugs and still disapprove of their use. It is merely an act of acceptance they will be used and an attempt to quell an issue which suffers only posing constant economic loss.
Now, in terms of health risk - since aforementioned concepts are of governments berating how bad something is for outr health if we do it. If I'm to use the work of cancer research uk (scroll down a little, there's a graph), I begin to find that despite no change in legality status for tabacco, an increasing knowledge of health risks has actually been massively impacting on the rate of smoking amongst the populace and consider, action to force warnings to be displayed, etc did not come for a while after 1975 where we see decline particularly high. As is often given, the prohibition had little effect on how much people drank and in fact, only created wipespread corruption amongst the populace. Thus, it can be argued health knowledge is far more effective than legality status. With drugs legalised, health risks and management would become a lot easier to find and understand.
Now, onto the earlier point of complete deregulation in terms of vending. I know I made this argument but I thought it best to introduce it on it's terms before refuting it. This is an argument I often hear - that given opportunity, people will just purchase drugs (if legalised) to such extent that they pose huge self endangerment. By extension, it is also argued that under psychoactive effect, one can be a danger to the rest of the public. Yes, both of these must be accepted arguments when we consider addictability, physical harm and mental distortion. But what these arguments forget is that many forms of self-harm are not illegal, and that drugs are not a direct source of a crime or action. I am, by my own will, perfectly capable of performing a myriad of activities that would cause me great sufferance yet there is no legal retribution. Thus the self-harm argument is invalid unless we ban all forms. Which would not be condusive to depressives now, would it? Even if we ignore such slight strawman positions, we find that an argument that people must be defending from their own innate stupidity is Heraculean task. If not an impossible one. Thus there is no cause on which a government can argue it will regulate narcotics to protect people. In fact, on this - I pull myself to the point made by Clive Staples Lewis. Whilst he argued about the provision of police forces in general, I wish to posit his point in light of the narcotics question:
Quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
Now, what is he saying here? He is saying that it is not the purpose of governments, and in fact - it is an endangerment of the populace by government, to protect the people from themselves. To act as a nanny or mother/father from on high. Because not all action is good for all people. A government lacks the omnipotence over human nature and omniscience of societal psychology, to find the correct way to manage a populace. Even then, the idea that one can call themselves so inherently superior, by merit of political rule, that they hold mind to posit rights over others, is insulting. I woudl agree that it is. As Thomas Paine put forth in The Rights of Man, a government of people told they rule over others than for others, will lead to tyranny and injustice (although I have paraphrased his arduous work here). A government should be in service to a people, not in mastery of it. The vote gives someone the power to represent a populace, not to master it. This often seems forgotten by politians.
But in the harm of others (as I mentioned some way before), the argument is poor - not all psychoactive drug use leads to acts that cause harm upon others, in fact - it is by no means a causation. Or even neccessarily a correlation. Even then, if it is considered an action that can only be done in the privacy of one's home, then that reduces public risk and it can be obstensibly made that those present with the drug user will have a concept/contingency to their defence in the unlikely case of any assault. In this, there is not neccessarily a means to protect people from each other by the development of drug illegalisation.
However, I wish to refute those who would make a strawman of me, I mean not to say that the government need legalise acts such as murder. For they are the act of one human harming another. Not acts of a human harming themselves. To profess that argument for the right to harm oneself is professing for the right to harm others, is an obvious fallacy. If I am to slit my own wrists, it is by far different to slitting another person's. Besides which, murder is not unprofitable to keep illegalized (I will address profit later). Whilst I can posit the Ron Paul rhetoric: "Were drugs legal tomorrow, how many of you would honestly get high?" over drugs, where the only victim is onself. To ask that of murder, where the only victim is the murder victim, leaves itself open to far more cries of yes. People would kill each other given opportunity. But they will not neccessarily kill themselves. Which is where responsibility comes in to drug use. People will not destroy all capability by excessive use given legalisation. Only a minority would, I minority I argue is irresponsible to the point they probably have done this despite illegal status granted to narcotics.
Now, I wish to introduce something sent to me by another poster, "Kali la fae", a series of statiustics to tge reported deaths per year by use of various drugs: The numbers are of great interest, and whilst I admit a flaw and fallacy existsi in that these medical drugs will be far more widely used than your typical narcotic, to the point narcotic death/use proportions are far higher, a point exists. The point is that even though these drugs are legal, they do kill people. Thus surely, it would be a positable need to legalise these for the use of the general public? In fact, given medical applications that exist for some drugs, surely an argument can be made for their legalisation? We must also make example where a problem exists with how they are produced/distributed. As I said before, no vendor is neccessarily going to act in honest practise but at least a business is watchdog-accountable. Even then, if legalised, narcotics will find research into safer use methods more widespread. Heck, i'm fairly sure there would not have been the research that lead to Nicotine patches were tabacco illegal. Nor into safer drinking were prohibition to have survived. Therefore, an argument exists in that we need people to kill themselves so we can stop other people killing themselves. Thus, actually - not only is government encroaching beyond it's call to protect us in such a manner but is also doing so badly, it is a nanny that needs replacement or a change in technique. A child introduced to alcohol at a yougn age with responsibility will invariably be more mature about it's use at older ages. They will be safer than those kept in mystery who then binge when they gain the chance. Free reign must be given to a man so that he will shackle himself.
Now, as to cost since we have thus far argued morality. I see it as not too implusible that it could be a taxed commodity. One sold upon markets. Consider how people do overuse and abuse, people who do become a cost to teh state as opposed to a productive member who merely uses a narcotic every so often. At least, if the money is not in criminal circulation, the economy propers by their wastage. Call it cold and perhaps ghoulish, but it is an argument nonetheless that illegalization is not beneficial. And then we find those who are responsible. Whom only make occasional enjoyment and cause no harm. These people may be taken off the street and imprisoned? How is that fair or right? Even if you can posit that (or that it doesn't matter), how is it useful? A productive person is not a harmful person so society does not need protection from them and burdens itself by paying for them to be imprisoned citizens as opposed to working citizens that pay for themselves.
Sadly, although I wished to be more comprehensive on this, am exhausted in my writing here. But I hope it adds more for the legalisation crowd than brief and sporadic blaring of small arguments and statements in perptuity.
