Should crack cocaine be legalized for recreational use?

[Zarn]

No to legaliation
Yes to rehibilitation, but they themseleves have to pay society back for their rehibilitation.
Screw the dealers.

 

[MobBoss]

My libertarian nature wants to say yes, but I can't in good faith favour legalization of something like crack. Mostly because it's a black people drug.

... okay seriously, because it's a much more destructive drug than pot or alcohol. But being an addict shouldn't be a crime, so decriminalize for users not dealers.

If you think this thread is controversial, just wait for the 'legalize meth' thread.

 

[emzie]

No to legaliation
Yes to rehibilitation, but they themseleves have to pay society back for their rehibilitation.
Screw the dealers.

Rehab is far cheaper than prison / law enforcement. Not wasting the money there alone is saving society money. Returning to be a tax-paying member and not a money sink in prison is just icing.

 

[Zarn]

They still should have to pay for it, even if not all at once.

 

[emzie]

They still should have to pay for it, even if not all at once.

In principal, I agree with you. In practicality, the money saved by not locking them up + the money saved in law enforcement + the money in taxes they'll continue to pay is about as good as you can get, I thinks.

 

[Miles Teg]

The amount of people in this thread who voted yes, (minus fifty) is truly scary/pathetic.

 

[Arwon]

If you think this thread is controversial, just wait for the 'legalize meth' thread.

Well, exactly the same quality/affordability argument applies there.

As far as amphetamines go, Ice, ie methamphetamine, is by many accounts not particularity fun and can induce psychosis - however, it's cheap and you don't need much, so people who start out with other types of drug end up there through it being all they can afford.

If, under a decriminalised model, we have a situation where the users aren't taking the psychotic drug so much (because other less dangerous amphetamines are cheaper, less dangerous, have some sort of quality control, etcetera), isn't that a clear benefit over a situation where more addicts end up taking the most dangerous drugs?

But how dangerous would the hypothetically least dangerous and most accessible forms of cocaine be?

Alternative answer: I dunno. Ask some rich white dude.

 

[Theige]

Thought this was pertinent.

Moderator Action: Wrong, that was inappropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Alpine Trooper]

85% of all American bills have cocaine on them.

 

[CaptainF]

85% of all American bills have cocaine on them.

Dollar bills are a great drug accessory, not just with coke.

I wonder if Euros can measure up?

 

[Elta]

Before I comment or vote I need to no something. (not that it's a deal maker or killer or anything I just need to know.)

Is making crack as dangerous to say the baby in the next apartment over as meth?
I know that meth labs explode out here all the time and that the fumes they produce even when unscented can get out into other apartments/ trailers and really scramble a developing brain or any brain for that matter.

Anyone have any idea how it's done. I've gathered you need baking soda, tin foil, coke and fire. And that was from a Dave Chappel sketch so I may have no clue :cringe

 

[holy king]

Dollar bills are a great drug accessory, not just with coke.

I wonder if Euros can measure up?

opiates may be used a bit more frequently than coke in europe...

 

[LucyDuke]

... okay seriously, because it's a much more destructive drug than pot or alcohol. But being an addict shouldn't be a crime, so decriminalize for users not dealers.

Why should being a vendor be a crime?

The amount of people in this thread who voted yes, (minus fifty) is truly scary/pathetic.

My yes had a footnote.

Before I comment or vote I need to no something. (not that it's a deal maker or killer or anything I just need to know.)

Is making crack as dangerous to say the baby in the next apartment over as meth?
I know that meth labs explode out here all the time and that the fumes they produce even when unscented can get out into other apartments/ trailers and really scramble a developing brain or any brain for that matter.

Anyone have any idea how it's done. I've gathered you need baking soda, tin foil, coke and fire. And that was from a Dave Chappel sketch so I may have no clue :cringe

Nothing like meth. It's about as dangerous as frying bacon.

 

[Formaldehyde]

All victimless crimes should be legalized. This one is no different.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/alston6.html

"Of course, per the AMA's data, all of these drugs combined are less deadly than a number of different common health hazards, including prescription drugs and risky sexual behaviors."

"There is a war on drugs because the people who control the State do not want to be stuck answering the phone, they want an excuse to break down your door. In other words, they don't want to be limited to providing dispute resolution services, they want an instrument of social control that they can extend. Real dispute resolution has to serve the requirements of the customer (a member of the public calls up and says that someone has stolen his car, requiring you to try and find it). The state in this role is at the beck and call of the public. If the public just goes about its own business, the state has nothing to do. However, victimless crimes offer a whole new opportunity for actively interfering in peoples lives: now the state is truly following its own agenda and can try to arrest people without the pesky problem of needing a complainant."

 

[eastsidebagel]

No to legalization or even decriminalization!
This stuff is too dangerous and addictive and you're likely getting dependant more or less even after your first try.
IMHO, the penalties for dealers and users should also getting raised for distributing such crap to our society. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill but thousands of people's lifes are ruined every year for hooking up to those drugs and that should be avoided and decouraged by the laws.

 

[LucyDuke]

"There is a war on drugs because the people who control the State do not want to be stuck answering the phone, they want an excuse to break down your door. In other words, they don't want to be limited to providing dispute resolution services, they want an instrument of social control that they can extend. Real dispute resolution has to serve the requirements of the customer (a member of the public calls up and says that someone has stolen his car, requiring you to try and find it). The state in this role is at the beck and call of the public. If the public just goes about its own business, the state has nothing to do. However, victimless crimes offer a whole new opportunity for actively interfering in peoples lives: now the state is truly following its own agenda and can try to arrest people without the pesky problem of needing a complainant."

It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom is what it is, okay? Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you.

No to legalization or even decriminalization!
This stuff is too dangerous and addictive and you're likely getting dependant more or less even after your first try.
IMHO, the penalties for dealers and users should also getting raised for distributing such crap to our society. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill but thousands of people's lifes are ruined every year for hooking up to those drugs and that should be avoided and decouraged by the laws.

Unfortunately the laws don't work.

 

[eastsidebagel]

Never said that we're a part of a perfect society.
Just stay off those drugs, the hard part begins when you're sober and start to fell this tickling urge to have another dose. It's bad and destructive, that's all. I would consider ecstacy or LSD less dangerous drugs than crack or cocaine in regard of addictiveness or potential of dismantling your social life.

 

[El_Machinae]

I would be okay with registered dealers and an understanding that crimes "under the influence" would be dealt with normally. I would continue to criminalise non-registered dealers.

edit: since the topic is "crack cocaine", there will be no need for a meth thread.

 

[warpus]

Doesn't pretty much everyone who tries crack turn into a crackhead? From my understanding of the drug, the stuff's so potent and addictive that.. once you go crack, you never go back. Right?

I don't see why you'd want to legalize something so dangerous. (unless I'm wrong about my "once you go crack you never go back" theory)

 

[eastsidebagel]

I would be okay with registered dealers and an understanding that crimes "under the influence" would be dealt with normally. I would continue to criminalise non-registered dealers.

So you think that this would cause a limit or a certain kind of control over the usage? IMO it would just worsen the whole situation and quickly the registered dealers, now free with the risk of getting arrested, would sell their stuff with a drastically increased frequency because the market would be now an open and riskless bussiness and even a kid could get relatively easy his/her first dose of what it would be it's downfall. Dunno how you perceive such a danger but the current law situation in Europe or the States is actually pretty fine (on contrary to the laws referring to MJ).