Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

YOU solve America's Drug Problem !

  1. Jan 11, 2006 #1
    YOU solve America's "Drug Problem"!

    For the past few decades, many attempts at stopping drug trades have been attempted, most failing.

    So, if you had full control of the government*, what would you do to stop the drug problems, assuming you'd even want to?

    *(Within reasonable bounds, aka no enslaving the druggies, mass-murdering the druggies, etc.)

    I'll tell you my own ideas later.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 11, 2006 #2
    Easy. Legalise and tax it. Let people enjoy the freedom they should have. Trying to stop people from doing drugs is like trying to stop the expansion of the universe. Aint gonna happen.

    The goverment might as well make some money out of the drug users, instead of wasting tremendous ammounts of money on harassing people that do nothing more wrong than those that drink alcohole or smoke cigarettes.
     
  4. Jan 11, 2006 #3
    The problem with the drugs (excluding those already legal) are that they are illegal. No surprise that I wake up everyother morning to read somewhere in the chronicle about Mexican officers found dead in a river, oil drum, abandon warehouse, etc along the US/Mexican border. Or US officers, civlians, etc...

    Simple as this: making the drugs illegal and sending guys with guns to hunt down those with the illegal drugs is going to cause a problem.
     
  5. Jan 11, 2006 #4
    People do not have a freedom or right to enjoy illicit drugs, as long as tax money goes to support their health care. Taxing those same drugs won't come close to paying for this.

    Why do you think cigarettes are a fundamental right? How does the right of a smoker to enjoy a small 'high' on nicotine outweight the economic damages caused by thousands of middle-aged people dying of emphyshema? Social rights like health care are a doubled-edged sword. If the government is obligated to pay for health care, then it logically has the right to enforce laws to protect public health. Hence laws on dangerous drugs, minimum age laws for cigarettes and alcohol, helmet laws, infectious disease quarantine laws, etc.

    The current annual budget of the DEA is around $2 billion (wikipedia). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/406901_4" in the Am. J. of Health estimates the 1984 annual health cost of smoking to be $53.7 billion. Drug enforcement is cheap and at least somewhat effective. Health care costs are cripplingly expensive.

    Slightly off topic, the epidemic of preventible type-2 diabetes was the front-page headline of the New York Times on Monday: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/n...eases, Conditions, and Health Topics/Diabetes
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  6. Jan 11, 2006 #5
    well legalising softer drugs like mdma or cannabis wouldnt make much of a impact on health care. No where near the strain alcohole and tobacco puts on it.

    But I agree people need to take responsibility for there actions. If you get lung cancer and its proven its from cigarettes "tough luck, next patient plz". Im not that fond of paying for other peoples stupidity, nor do I want people to pay for my possible stupidities.

    If this takes the thread to much offtopic just ignore to reply. But where do you draw the line. Fatty foods probably cost the state more then anything nowdays.
     
  7. Jan 11, 2006 #6
    :bugeye: MDMA is a soft drug in your opinion?! I know that street X isn't MDMA but they illegalized MDMA for a reason didn't they?

    I agree on cannabis though. I don't really see the point in it being illegal.
     
  8. Jan 11, 2006 #7
    I cant claim to be a expert or anything but I have yet to se any real evidence(not that I have looked that hard) that pure MDMA is very dangerous. Most of the first studies done on it seemed to be biased to make it look bad with tremendous od's ect. I might very well be wrong. But I wouldnt consider it half as bad as meth. Atleast MDMA doesnt make people paranoid or dangerous so I wouldnt consider MDMA users a danger to society like a PCP user or amphetamine addict. Seems to be a hard drug to get addicted to aswell since apperently it wont work if you take it several days in a row. So if people want to use it instead of alcohole when clubbing I dont se a reason why not. Alcohol is probably the number one cause for violent crimes.

    Usualy I have a very hard time figuring out the reason why some things become illegal:confused: most idiotic was the schedualing of steroids in the 80's(or was it in the 90's).

    But this is getting the thread severly of topic. So lets get back to the original posters question(I mod at a fairly large board so I know how anoying this can be:yuck: ).
     
  9. Jan 11, 2006 #8
    I'm looking around since I'm not really sure myself. I have a friend who told me all about MDMA once because he had researched it before doing it himself. I don't remember much of what he told me but I was pretty sure that there are severe side effects that come with abuse.
    So far Wiki says that the long term effects seem rather inconclusive but emedicine seems to think otherwise.
    http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic927.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Long-term_effects


    And really we're supposed to derail the threads in GD. It's been mandated by Evo.
     
  10. Jan 11, 2006 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Catch 22.

    Only way to stop it is to pretty much go nuts. The idea that you need to legalize drugs is silly. Why not legalize murder? You can't stop people from doing it so might as well make it legal. Stealing? Legalize it. Public sex? Legalize it. Driving drunk? Legalize it. It's your right to drive drunk and have sex in public too!

    What kind of logic is that? This topic has been done to death before with very little supportive arguments for legalization of even the softest drugs.
     
  11. Jan 11, 2006 #10

    what is the logic behind having soft drugs illegal? who does a pot smoker or clubber hurt? A equaly convincing case can probably be made to ban fast food, or mountain climbing, or any dangerous sport. Who does a pot smoker hurt so bad that he must be put in jail?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2006
  12. Jan 11, 2006 #11
    Im not one to fall for myths that easily. Look at holland they havent had a problem since legalising cannabis. The heavier drug use has accutaly been lowered.

    Driving if high should offcourse be as illegal as driving while drunk. But just because people drive when high doesnt mean it should be illegal to be high. Or do you suggest alcohole should be illegal because some people cant handle it?
     
  13. Jan 11, 2006 #12
    Eating fast food impairs your judgment? Fast food gives you audio and visual hallucinations? Man where have you been eating at?

    I am fine with people smoking weed at their house, it is when they drive high that I have a problem.
     
  14. Jan 11, 2006 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hell I'd be the first to sign a ban for alcohol. Ever talk to some idiots when they're drunk? What pisses me off the most is that they think its not fair when you yell at them for something they can't remember doing because they were piss drunk. Idiots. I hate people. I want people banned.

    oops starting to go off there....

    Well do a search and im sure I made the same case back in this other big ol drug thread... probably PW&A thread... this'll just be a repeat of that thread.
     
  15. Jan 11, 2006 #14
    It will be impossible to make alcohol illegal in the US, but I bet if alcohol was illegal drinking and driving would be way down.
     
  16. Jan 11, 2006 #15
    But isnt it kind of ****ty to ban something for everyone since you personaly dont like it? I hate alcohole and what it does to people, but I consider them mature enough to decide for themself if they should drink or not.

    Il do that, sounds like interesting reading. Is the thread name "PW&A"?

    Well eating fast food makes you fat, clutters up the healtcare, parents that buy fast food teach kids poor habits and they get fat, bullied ect ect ect. Im obviously exagerating in the same manner as soft drug opponents. You could probably make a case to make drinking water illegal because some idiots have drunk themself to death.
    Basicly there is always people that cant handle stuff. But I dont se the point in restricting something just because a small minority cant handle it. Il rather live in a free society than in a society where my freedom is totaly restricted so I cant "hurt myself".

    I agree though people that drive when stoned, drunk or under the influence of anything else should be jailed.
     
  17. Jan 11, 2006 #16

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    People do it all the time, it's been done to death. Just take some time to sit down and think to yourself "What can't I do simply because someone else in another state or in another time period doesn't want me to do it". The list goes on and on. That is how societies work, some things must indeed be restricted. I personally want an M-240 machine gun but hey, I can't have it and although its hard to accept, I must realize that unless we want to live in chaos, some things must be sacrificed.

    Damn i want that machine gun.....


    I meant its probably in the politics and world affairs sub-forum (oops, that & should be betwen W and P). It's pretty much the same arguments here and same responses and probalby will mirror the future of this thread.
     
  18. Jan 11, 2006 #17
    the nature of all these debates. Same **** repeated a million times and no one ever changes oppinion but yet we all keep on cause its fun :)
     
  19. Jan 11, 2006 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The reasons for drug and alcohol abuse are social, psychological, and even physiological. IMO this is not a problem that laws can solve, so in principle I oppose all drug laws; obviously with some exceptions in the case of minors, and due to other practical considerations.

    Drug use predates our very existence as humans. Drug use in animals is common - kitty on catnip, for example - so fighting drugs seems to me a bit like fighting the ocean tides. Until we understand why and can affect the reasons that people desire drugs, nothing will change except perhaps that drug problems will be used as an excuse to eliminate our Constitutional right to privacy - a far more important issue AFAIC.

    Has anyone read the short story by Hemmingway...? I don't remember the name but it was a conversation between a young and a middle aged man, about an old alcoholic gent, with all sitting around in a bar.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2006
  20. Jan 11, 2006 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Note that hard core drug users and alcoholics are fully aware that they are killing themselves. What good will laws do when one is knowingly committing suicide anyway.
     
  21. Jan 11, 2006 #20
    I don't like you any more Pengwuino!
     
  22. Jan 11, 2006 #21
    I would also want to raise the question on why drug use is even a undesirable behavior. Why is it seen as a problem we need to fix. I have seen first hand the suffering it brings upon some people. But in those people the drug use is most often a symptom of a illness not a cause so without they drug they would be equaly miserable in some other way.

    Im afraid I have never heard of that Hemmingway story but if you remember the name be sure to post it.


    Exactly. Those that can handle it are punished and those that cant do it anyway and doesnt give a damn.
     
  23. Jan 11, 2006 #22
    If the government's going to stop drugs, they need to make it so it's both

    A: Not easy to acquire, and
    B: Not profitable to produce.

    Huge "drug taxes" would solve problem B, and since problem B is solved, problem A will go with it, since most people sell it for profit.

    Discuss?
     
  24. Jan 11, 2006 #23
    I don't understand this reasoning. AFAIK there's no significant way the federal government can effect change in the social and psychological roots; their various programs and such only go so far. But there is a great benefit in attacking the symptoms of the problems - the drugs - even with partial success. Obviously, the health care savings. And a reduction in drug-related crime. I don't really see how privacy is involved here - wiretaps on drug dealers involve court orders, the illegal NSA stuff isn't used for this.
     
  25. Jan 11, 2006 #24
    wouldn't a black market for drugs just be created if drug taxes got out of control? thus gov't regulations of the drugs would be obsolete and we're back to where we began.

    how about we make selling drugs illegal, but growing or producing your own, and using/sharing it legal? now there's no profit to be made from drugs, because everyone is capable of producing their own, and bartering with a neighbor.
     
  26. Jan 11, 2006 #25
    How I would solve is get tougher on the durg dealers espically the people who make.I would try send in the Army to the counties where they gorw them shoot the people who grow(I know the countries that there won't like it but if there not going to anything about we will).Then I would get some goverment scientist to make a virus that attacks the plants(FDA apporve)then realse it and into the countries so that there drugs supply whould go down.Then try find as many drug smuggling rings as possible and have undercover agents go in and try to find out who's smuggling durgs so that's less durg smugglers.Then I would make all the durgies go join the milltary and go to Iraq.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook