*: What's a mind-altering substance, anyway? Why draw the line at marijuana or cocaine when caffeine and many sugars have negative effects on the brain's processing ability - mind-altering in a negative sense - as well?

Re: *
Because politics is about what's possible, and banning caffeine and many sugars simply isn't among the viable options. As Dalrymple puts it:

"Analogies with the Prohibition era, often drawn by those who would legalize drugs, are false and inexact: it is one thing to attempt to ban a substance that has been in customary use for centuries by at least nine-tenths of the adult population, and quite another to retain a ban on substances that are still not in customary use, in an attempt to ensure that they never do become customary."

And I also had a hard time going through the philosophy part for the same reasons as you did, PE, but as a conservative I'm part of the political group that is probably the least interested of all in philosophy, while many of the arguments in favor of legalizing drugs, as TD points out, are philosophical.

Tl;dr
Drugs 're bad, 'mkay?

How can anybody seriously act as though banning drugs is feasible? There's an epidemic in spite of the largest domestic crackdown on any one activity in American history. Prohibition *isn't* working and has *never* been a viable option.

It's just like the copying of copyrighted stuff. It's forbidden, but it's done by everybody who feels like it. So discussing "legalization" is a moot point.

So wait, what is your stance then? If you're not really interested in the philosophical argument, fine, but then that would mean your argument is pragmatic in nature. Maybe it's different in the Netherlands - much smaller country geographically, probably easier to conduct a ban - but here in the US I can't really fathom a functional method for guaranteeing that people don't do something that doesn't essentially involve the dissolution of fundamental property and personal rights.

Hey, something redhouse and Putin agree upon! Who woulda thunk it?

I don't have access to the papers now, but at my previous university I had access to studies that showed that while supply-side methods of controlling cocaine use/trafficking (interdiction, border-control, etc) consumed around 97% of the anti-cocaine funding in the 80s and 90s in America, the price of cocaine dropped and the quantity of use rose. The three percent given to demand-side controls (therapy, etc) that a much better rate of success as compared to funding.

I strongly disagree with you there, Zmaj. An arrest for drugs in the American prison system is extremely damaging to a person. If use of drugs truly isn't wrong (which - at least to some - is debatable), then at least here in the States, we absolutely should work to stop throwing people in prison for them. Plus we're shelling out a LOT of money on enforcement AND, through keeping people in prison, losing a lot more money on lost economic productivity - all when facing a debt and deficit crisis unparalleled in our history. Copyright law enforcement is far less damaging to individuals, far less frequent, and far less costly than drug law enforcement.

Wait, all of you.

No. I shall not wait.

PE, you're right, it does have harsher consequences. But I don't think the status quo will change. Anyone who had anything to do with serious addicts will be strongly against legalization. Parents will be against legalization. I don't see how the public opinion could be swayed the other way.

So, to avoid some confusion: there's a world of difference in an anti-drugs-policy that combats supply, and one that combats demand. I believe the US is pretty tough on demand (users) whereas the NL is pretty tough on supply of hard-drugs (sellers). Before we get into an endless confusion, I want to say that in fighting drugs, you should fight supply and not demand. Glad to have that off my chest =)

Re: something rh and Putin agree upon.
There's actually *a lot* we agree upon, but Putin would never admit it. Lol.

Re: my stance is that all drugs should be illegal, but not for philosophical reasons, but more for the rather down-to-earth practical examples Dalrymple mentioned.

"One of the most striking characteristics of drug-takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption; and their journeys into inner space are generally forays into inner vacuums."

-I can tell you from experience that the above is very true.

There's no legitimate, convincing argument against the prohibition of so-called soft drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy, and there are only the thinnest ones for prohibiting harder drugs like cocaine or heroin.

All the practical arguments are in favor of legalization -- the police corruption, the creation of more dangerous drugs as a result of the difficulty of getting safer ones (nobody would take meth if better drugs were available), the high costs of drugs related to prohibition, and so on. The only good argument for drugs being illegal is that they're frequently harmful, but a. much of this is the result of drugs being illegal in the first place and b. lots of legal things are harmful, but we don't outlaw them because you can't just make everything that's bad illegal.

(I only skimmed the article after the first page because it seemed so free of a convincing argument, so someone correct me if this has been previously addressed.)

Redhouse, regarding this part,

"""Re: my stance is that all drugs should be illegal, but not for philosophical reasons, but more for the rather down-to-earth practical examples Dalrymple mentioned.

"One of the most striking characteristics of drug-takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption; and their journeys into inner space are generally forays into inner vacuums."

-I can tell you from experience that the above is very true.""""

Are you willing to imprison and if necessary kill people to make sure that drugs users avoid self-absorption? Is drug use so bad that you're willing to kill to stop it? Because, ultimately, that's what you're calling for if you're enacting prohibition.

In two words, so what? Drugs are a "foray into inner vacuums" about as much as watching Honey Boo Boo or Jersey Shore. If you don't want that to be you, don't do it. If you don't want to be around people like that, don't associate them. Nothing in there justifies banning drugs.

I'd also like some more detail on the "intense and tedious self-absorption." I notice this a lot in both drug users and drug non-users, simply because I live in a society that is completely disconnected from person to person. It is utterly devoid of consideration for others and empathy and completely welcoming of violence. I happen to think that the state's use of violence, particularly in combating victimless "crimes" like drug ownership, further exacerbates the problems and cannot be a solution to them. But I haven't noticed that drug users are any more self-absorbed than drug non-users, and I strongly suspect that the notion that they are cannot be empirically supported.

@President Eden
I made a telephone call to the local psychiatric center, and they told me that the number of patients that were handed over to them by the police for "stealing TVs because they need to watch Jersey Shore every couple of hours" was surprisingly low. :S

The fact is, most people are afraid of drugs because they are convinced that drugs take away one's free will. They combat drugs as they would combat slavery. Why don't they rise against alcohol or smoking in the same way? Because they're convinced that drugs create a much greater addiction. I'm saying that it's true, I'm just describing the current state of affairs. No idea how to change it or if it should be changed.

*I'm not saying that it's true*

"I made a telephone call to the local psychiatric center, and they told me that the number of patients that were handed over to them by the police for "stealing TVs because they need to watch Jersey Shore every couple of hours" was surprisingly low. :S"

So what you're really saying is that people who do drugs are more likely to commit other crimes, not any of the stuck-up posh nonsense about "self-absorption" that I'd expect to hear out of King Atom or some other high-culture snob that didn't realize the world has moved past 1910. Got it.

That's a far more valid argument. Unfortunately, it still falls flat. How many men have had psychiatric evaluations because they killed another man they caught in bed with their wives? Shall we ban marriage and romantic love as well? Of course not. We should punish for the crime of manslaughter or, as it were here, theft.

Both.
The upside of doing drugs is really limited. I'm a pretty equilibrated and intelligent person, so after my first ventures into the world of drugs this was how deeply impressed I was with the experience:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/21/article-1296543-0A853D87000005DC-270_468x286.jpg

However, a lot of stupid and unbalanced people don't know how to deal with drugs and it makes them stupider and unbalanced. I feel they should be protected against it with force.

Tl;dr the downside of drugs vastly outweighs the upside, so ban it.

Re: cigarettes and alcohol
See my earlier posts and what Dalrymple has to say about that.

PS: PE, you really strike me as the kind of person who could use drugs as well, and then follow that up by not using it and living a happy life all the same.

Wait, you think that being unimpressed with drug use is a good reason to destroy people's lives, break up families, and take lives from human beings? I'm unimpressed with Michael Bay movies, but I'm not going to kill people to stop the next Transformers movie.

Lots of things have a limited upside: tattoos, adultery, masturbation, writing fan-fiction, the choking game. I wouldn't outlaw something just because it has a limited upside. In fact, I can't even imagine why you think you'd have the right to ban somebody from doing something just because, in your opinion, the downside for them outweighs the upside.

Your arrogance never ceases to astound. So again, because you don't enjoy something, and that something can possibly harm other people, it should be banned? I repeat: how many people have been hurt because of expressions of romantic love, a feeling triggered by some of the most powerful biochemicals in the body? Your argument logically equates to an unhappy single declaring a ban on romantic relationships because for them, the downside of romantic love vastly outweighs the upside.

This board's absolute worship of the use of force to control people is disgusting sometimes. Perfect example. Let's ban drugs, romantic love and anything else that someone doesn't like that could hurt someone else! Yay violence!

"PS: PE, you really strike me as the kind of person who could use drugs as well, and then follow that up by not using it and living a happy life all the same."

You're correct. I rarely drink and have had very few experiences with illegal drugs. I'm not impressed by it either, but that's completely and utterly immaterial to the argument.

@ckroberts

"Wait, you think that being unimpressed with drug use is a good reason to destroy people's lives, break up families, and take lives from human beings? I'm unimpressed with Michael Bay movies, but I'm not going to kill people to stop the next Transformers movie."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg

Please put Michael Bay movies in this graph.

"Lots of things have a limited upside: tattoos, adultery, masturbation, writing fan-fiction, the choking game. I wouldn't outlaw something just because it has a limited upside."

-I'm saying we should ban it because of the huge downside to limited upside ratio, not because of the limited upside.

"In fact, I can't even imagine why you think you'd have the right to ban somebody from doing something just because, in your opinion, the downside for them outweighs the upside."
-Living in a democracy, I can support a ban on the use of plastic forks if I believe them to be dangerous for other people.

Before we go on I should note that I'm pretty much a single-issue voter on the issue of drug legalization. I don't think we will fully comprehend the harm it has done to America until decades after it ends. It's everything from individual tragedies like cancer sufferers in pain because they can't get medical marijuana or somebody with a broken back unable to find a doctor to prescribe sufficient pain medication, all the way up to enormous, society-wide impacts like the militarization of police, continuing racial disparity in the legal system, the empowerment of murderous drug cartels here and abroad, and the harm it creates in foreign policy.

But maybe worst of all is this easy, everyday cruelty of people who would end a man's life for smoking a joint or a line of cocaine. You've just said you would kill a person (and, presumably, harm the lives of many others in that person's family etc) for doing something that directly harms no one else. This is a perfectly acceptable mindset in modern America, and it's simply evil.

@PE in the case of Romantic love, it has the enormous upside of, you know, sustaining civilization itself.

"It's everything from individual tragedies like cancer sufferers in pain because they can't get medical marijuana or somebody with a broken back unable to find a doctor to prescribe sufficient pain medication, all the way up to enormous, society-wide impacts like the militarization of police, continuing racial disparity in the legal system, the empowerment of murderous drug cartels here and abroad, and the harm it creates in foreign policy."

-I'm all for medical marijuana. As far as I'm concerned we've been spending this whole time about recreational drugs, not about medicinal drug use.

What is that graph from? Why should I care what it is? But even taking it as God's own truth, I see a lot of drugs below alcohol and tobacco on the harm scale. Would you support legalizing them?

"Living in a democracy, I can support a ban on the use of plastic forks if I believe them to be dangerous for other people."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.