The Role of Government: Drugs

For the moment I would like for you to consider any and all drugs. Which ones are legal, illegal, and why. The reality is that it all boils down into something much greater, the role of government.

Now I may do this with other issues but I decided to start with drugs. If anyone feels the need then feel free to make other Role of Government threads on separate issues if you wish but this one is for drugs.

Simply put it is my belief that in the United States the role of government in terms of drugs is to provide the citizens with what they want and need. In this sense there should be no middle ground in my opinion.

Before I touch on drugs I think you have to look at food first. It is considered a need, and based on that need there are few restrictions. Obesity is a serious issue and according to Wikipedia, the number one killer worldwide in 2002 was cardiovascular disease. According to the CDC this was still the case in 2009. I do not know the statistics for sure but I can bet that heart disease has been the number one killer for a long while now with cancer being its closest competition. We all know that the greatest contributing factors to heart disease, and sometimes even cancer, is poor exercise and a poor diet. Let's also not forget that diabetes is high on that list. Despite these facts the U.S. government has done little to put restrictions on the restaurant and food distribution industries. I believe this is primarily due to the fact that food is a necessity and the free market system. Whatever the case may be, it still remains that the food industries essentially get to be overwhelmingly unhealthy. Is it the role of government to dictate how unhealthy food can be for our protection or is it the role of government to simply keep poison out of our food?

Now we look at drugs/medicine. I will be referring to all drugs. Caffeine, Tobacco, Alcohol, Marijuana, Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, Tylenol, Aspirin, DXM, DMT, DPH, PCP, LSD, the list goes on. Before I go on I will say that my statistics on drug related deaths will all likely be approximations and not 100% accurate. This is mostly due to a lot of my findings on the matter being skewed and/or biased, such as lists stating number of drug overdoses rather than actual deaths and attempting to play on peoples ignorance hoping that they do not realize that overdose only means that the amount taken was ANY amount greater than the recommended dose. Of course statistics like these also included alcohol poisoning which tends to skew the results. The good news is that accuracy of the statistics is not what is important here, we just need a general approximation to see where things stand. It is unlikely that they are so far off as to be keep them from being useful.

Now then, some statistics. Do keep in mind that these were gathered early 2008.

Deaths in the United States in a typical year are as follows:

Tobacco kills about 400,000
Alcohol kills about 80,000
Cocaine kills about 2,500
Heroin kills about 2,000
Aspirin kills about 2,000
Marijuana kills 0

Some other statistics:

There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history. All illegal drugs combined kill under 20,000 per year, or a small percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last one hundred years.

With all of this in mind, ask yourself what the role of government is currently in terms of drugs and ask what the role of government should be in terms of drugs. At the moment I believe that the government does not want to make it clear as to what their role in drugs is or should be as no matter what they say they would have to change.

First lets try to figure out what their current role is. Is it their role to keep the people safe when it comes to drugs? That can't be the case since the deadliest drugs are legal. Obviously it can't be their role to provide us with what we want or there would be no illegal drugs. Perhaps it is their role to try to go with the middle ground and give us some things we want while keeping others illegal. That may seem the most likely but would it not be logical to try and conform to each side as much as possible? If that were the case then it would only make sense to give us the safest ones while keeping the least safe illegal, thereby giving us some that we want and keeping us somewhat safe. That isn't the case either. With that in mind does this mean that they are attempting to maintain the middle ground when it is obvious that could be done in a better way? If that were so then it would mean the government is incompetent in this matter and should have no part in it. This seems the most likely. The reality in my opinion is that they are attempting to maintain a middle ground while under the facade of having a role to keep us safe in the matter of drugs. I have seen it far too often where a politician will be confronted on the matter of tobacco, alcohol, and OTC/Prescription med related deaths in comparison to illegal drug deaths and then ignore it or act as if such issues do not exist or they will even act as if they are doing something about it when it is apparent that they are not. Clearly fear is also a large factor. Too many politicians avoid the matter of drugs altogether for their to be a solid role of government in the matter.

As for what their role should be, I will be brief as I would prefer to hear others opinions.

I believe that their role in drugs and food should be equal. Food is a need but a quadruple baconator with a large frosty from Wendy's is not. Medicine for patients can be considered needs at times but an 8-ball of coke is not. If they are going to allow the former then so too should the latter be allowed. The current policy on drugs in the U.S. is ridiculous. I can honestly say that a quadruple baconator and large frosty is likely to be deadlier than a lot of illegal drugs and definitively deadlier than marijuana. I do not think that the government should be allowed to take a middle of the road stance. Make safety the primary focus and outlaw unnecessarily unhealthy foods, tobacco, alchohol, and a large portion of currently legal drugs or make personal satisfaction the primary focus and legalize all drugs. It has been made clear that the former is not favorable in the eyes of the public. It is my belief that a middle of the road stance in this matter is a stance of intense hypocrisy, which I cannot condone of my government. The only logical middle of the road stance would also fail as it would require the criminalization of alchohol and tobacco, which again can't happen. All that remains is the stance of legalization.

I would like to apologize to anyone I may have offended and I will edit what I can if need be.

[color=#2e1a6b]Glad to see you're back. It's been boring here since Fiery_penguin_of_doom hasn't been around lately.

The Government is doing a horrible job at protecting us from drugs. We have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Most of our prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Clearly, whatever the government's doing is not working, but (I assume) this thread is for us to explain what the role of government should be regarding drugs:

The role of government (regarding drugs) should be to prevent you from hurting other people because of drugs; not to prevent you from hurting yourself with drugs. What that means is that, if you have to go to the hospital from an overdose in drugs, the government would not get involved. But, if you get high, attack someone, and send that person to a hospital, then the government should get involved, probably by restricting you from drugs. But as long as you don't hurt other people, the government shouldn't restrict you from drugs

In regards to food, I'm not really sure. I think the government should step in if someone put poison in food, but when does a substance stop being poison and become edible? this is a very blurred line, so it's difficult to say whether the government regulates it or not. This would be a great chance for lobbyist to outlaw their competitor's ingredients, so we should be careful with our approach. If government must regulate food health, I think state governments should regulate it, as it makes lobbying much more difficult.

First there's something really important you need to know , the us governement already prohibited alchool . The reason why it's legal today is because proebition doesn't work . Same with other drugs , it's not because it's illegal that people stop taking it , it's even more dangerous because it's illegal . Your numbers also doesn't mention kills related to the drug wars .

What i mean is that the governement should not and cannot have a role in drugs . They do not have the right nor the power to stop people from hurting themself .

To answer the topic :

I believe in individual rights , every humans own their body , it's their property and it's their freedom to do whatever they want with it as long as they don't break the freedom from someone else . So the governement should not have any role in drugs since drugs are rarely hurting others .

If americans are fat and dies from it , it's because 1 they didn't care to die from it or 2 they were retarded and didn't know that a quadruple cheezburger would make them fat . They used 2 freedoms here , the individual freedom and the freedom to be stupid , in both cases the governement does not have a role to play .

>Tylenol
Do people not say acetaminophen anymore?

You can ramble on and on about freedoms and you'd be right, but there are plenty of people who profit off of corruption to care about your neighbors' and your freedoms.
It is no longer the job of the government to do what you and they think is right.
It is to do what is more profitable for the companies that bribe and fund them.
Put simply, this government is very terrible and won't be changing anytime soon.

[sarcasm]
Hooray for high fructose corn syrup.

I think the government overregulates enough as it is. If you get fat, the government should warn you your shortening your life and it's unhealthy. But it should be a persons choice to be the way they are, even if it's killing them.

Meth deserves to be illegal. That shit is just plain scary. Anyways, I think those statistic numbers on the other drugs are low because of how hard it is to access them in comparison to tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure if those drugs were legal, then the fatality rate would sky rocket (excluding pot).

[color=#2e1a6b]That is a lie that supporters of drug enforcement continuously spout out without any historical evidence. There actually have been countries that legalized drugs, Which FPoD already explained



[color=#2e1a6b]After thinking about it for awhile, I decided that the government shouldn't regulate food. The only thing the government should do is require that all food products publicize their ingredients. Apart from that, it's our choice whether we eat it or not.

It's all about the payola. the government* doesn't really care what is good or bad for the people unless it affects the majority enough to be noticed(as in kill off the voters/tax payers) or risk their personal income. if it did, the EPA would be stopping poluters, and the FDA would care about more than mad cow and eccoli.

look at the countless perscription drugs that are advertised like any other consumer product. they cause more side effects than benifits. "does your ass itch? take skratchyerhol!(side effects include exploded liver, perpetual flatulence, loss of higher brain function, and death)". even death has become an acceptable side effect of a drug that treats something that used to be considered a minor inconvieniance, so long as there is a disclaimer in tiny print somewhere. these dangerous and easily abused drugs are readily available because many doctors are also getting kick backs from the manufacturers for handing them out like candy.

if pot heads got off their asses, pooled their resources, and lobbied(payola'd) the politicians like every other 'special intrest group', weed could be made legal too.




*politicians

I'm actually making a high quality eroge dealing with lots of drugs.

I like hearing the view points of the issue, because I honestly believe the basis for the drug war has nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting" us.

Since we're practically a nazi society towards drug users, treating them as inferior, second-class citizens, and subjecting them to slave-labor in prisons (Or cruel medical experiments they don't tell the public for about 50 years), I wonder if I will get in trouble for writing my eroge around drugs? :p

That reminds me of something I heard before. They don't want you doing your drugs, they want you doing their drugs. That's why every night on tv you see a weird ass drug commercial. Are you sad, are you lonely, do you have athletes foot, do your teeth hurt, and they keep naming symptoms till they name one you've got. I know I heard that somewhere but I don't remember where.



Well there is NORML, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

[color=#2e1a6b]That was from the video you posted in this thread, back in November... 17th... oh, on my birthday

All things considered, we also have to look at regulation of Marijuana. As of now, in several states, it's regulated as a prescritpion medicine, which means you really can't just go to a dispensary and say, "I'm in pain, I need weed." A doctor has to determine whether or not Marijuana is even suitable for YOU before he/she can write the prescription for it.

If it is legalized for recreational use, then I pray to the powers that be that it's regulated as much as tobacco is and carries the same 18 or Older requirement to buy and use. With that, trying to buy Marijuana for someone that isn't old enough to buy it legally would carry the same punishment as buying tobacco for underage users. Where I live, in addition to a rather hefty fine, you could also lose your driver's license.

Nothing wrong with wanting to legalize Marijuana, but you do have to be reasonable AND realistic about it.

Oh yeah I can't believe I forgot that.

That reminds me. What will it take to cause a policy change? Clearly prison overcrowding is an issue but is that enough to cause policy change? Is it not a concern to our government that we are the leader in incarceration with Russia the next closest? One of the criticisms of the United States system is that it has much longer sentences than any other part of the world. The typical mandatory sentence for a first-time drug offense in federal court is five or ten years, compared to other developed countries around the world where a first time offense would warrant at most 6 months in jail.


After the passage of Reagan's Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, incarceration for non-violent offenses dramatically increased. As of 2008, 90.7% of federal prisoners, or 165,457 individuals, were incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Drug offenses account for two-thirds of the rise in the federal inmate population since 1985; approximately half a million people are in prison for a drug offense today compared to 40,000 in 1981—an increase of 1,100 percent.

When I think about it, it's disturbing how many politicians can ignore these numbers.

All drugs should be legal.

And by that I don't mean everyone should be on drugs. I think that's important to say because every time I say that people tend to give that implication to me.

When something that people want to take is illegal...that...doesn't stop them from finding a way to obtain it. See Prohibition. In fact, making it illegal only makes it MORE dangerous, because then it's regulated in a free market manner, which causes the prices to increase however much the distributors desire. And as such, the drugs become expensive, and as a result, people resort to crime to increase their income so that they can afford the drugs.

Instead, if we regulate drugs it becomes just as regulated as any other capitalistic product. As a result the illegal non-licensed distributors lower their prices, and at the very least the legal distributors contribute to the overall tax distribution into the government.

Not only that but there are plenty of legal drugs, as pointed out by the original post, that are worse than the illegal drugs as far as lethality rate.

Now...what purpose does the government have in getting involved in drugs? None. Far as I'm concerned in accordance to either Article I, II, or III, none of the branches of the government have the right to ban anything that infringes on human self ownership rights(which drugs are a part of). Of course I don't think it should be regulated by the states either, it shouldn't be banned or legalized by ANYONE. It should simply be legal, and taxed, just like tobacco and alcohol.

Just something I've noticed, but a lot of the debate amongst "Sheeple" about whether drugs should be legal or not is for some reason debated whether or not drugs have side effects or not. They completely miss the point!

All I can say about this is that there are drugs out there that are legal but shouldn't be and illegal drugs that should be legal. DXM? that shit should be illegal it's pretty much put me through 6 months of shit. Diphenhyramine ( benadryl ) that was the scariest trip i've ever had and don't get me started on what I think about alcohol. All I can say is alcohol is much worse than weed.

Hmmmn, good topic if I may say so my self. My opinion on drugs is that as long as people are taking them and not forcing others to take them they should be legal! But I have found the government doesn't like to give up any control it has. So it should be noted I think the law in this case is rather unneeded, but the government will do what it wants until we change that!