Cigarettes, while harmful, don't result in instant death. Banning cigarettes would result in the same problem banning other drugs has created.
The only things that should be "banned" are those that are so intrinsically harmful they cause severe, immediate, measurable harm to both the abuser and society.
There aren't many drugs that people consume that qualify for this standard since to be able to continuously abuse something it can't kill you the first try.
I agree with the spirit of your argument, but for reference 30mg of nicotine is fatal. It's a potent neurotoxin and is actively used as a pesticide. It would easily qualify as something "so intrinsically harmful [it] cause[s] severe, immediate, measurable harm."
True; it seems there's some more fuzzy element involved, involving how the substances are used rather than their intrinsic potency. For various reasons, turning nicotine into a more potent drug hasn't become popular. And, tobacco leaves smoked as-is are not acutely dangerous (only chronically dangerous). But, the same is basically true of coca leaves. The difference seems to be that coca leaves are refined into more potent/dangerous recreational drugs, but tobacco leaves aren't.
Firstly, substances can be used without 'abuse'. Alcohol is a good example of this, you probably know many users who never abuse it. Alcohol most certainly can cause severe, immediate harm to the abuser an society.
Why ban substances based on harm? Why not just enforce the rules around the actual harm?
For example, enforce driving under the influence and don't ban alcohol.
Is there really a need to ban things like heroin which have a high rate of causing harm to the user? It seems like it is more of social and community issue. Throwing that person in jail is hardly improving their life.
Managing harm, as you suggest, is the best way to handle things going forward. It also covers a lot of things beyond drugs, things that are addictive for some people like gambling.
In terms of priorities it should be avoiding harm to others, such as not driving under the influence as you suggest, and then avoiding harm to the individual, as might be the case with a chronic alcoholic.
As a note, heroin isn't as inherently harmful as it's made out to be, but, like other things, so long as it's illegal it will really only be popular with the more hard-core drug users. It was legal before, after all.
I have never liked the line of argument where 'but alcohol or cigarettes are worse than cocaine'. they should all be legal and people should decide for themselves what is more dangerous
Even if LSD were legal, it would remain illegal to drive while under the influence of it. But more importantly, do the laws prevent someone who wants to drive while consuming LSD stop anyone from doing it now?
I'm not sure about the USA, but in Canada, the number of people who use marijuana and the number of people who use tobacco are almost equal, despite only one of those substances being legal. That seems to indicate to me that the laws have no impact on consumption or the limitation thereof.
If you are worried about the effects of people using drugs, you are already witnessing them.
I agree, and feel the same way about people on alcohol -- which, incidentally, has a much greater risk of toxicity than LSD if you overdose. Which of these substances, if any, do you think should be illegal?
And the current War on (some) Drugs isn't having a massive negative impact on you? Do you not pay taxes? Do you own nothing at all of value and never go outside?
Because there's always the risk that someone will try it out of curiosity. And since it's a highly addictive drug you might end up causing more problems than you intend to solve.
Society 1) Drugs are regulated in pretty much the same ways they are in the US, and because of this prices are high. The addict may have a family or maybe not, but has bills to pay. He spends all his money on drugs leading to neglect of his bills. He gets arrested and is now unable to hold down a job. This leads into other problems after he gets out of legal trouble. He now has to steal to obtain the drugs.
Society 2) Drugs are largely decriminalized and cheap enough that a days supply for any addict don't break the bank. He doesn't lose his job because of legal ramifications and he just spends all his free time doing cocaine. He doesn't have to steal to obtain the drugs.
I think you might have an exaggerated idea of how addictive illegal drugs tend to be compared to alcohol and tobacco. Heroin and Meth actually are more addictive[1] than legal drugs, but not magically so. Still, banning just those two drugs would be a coherent policy, unlike our current laws that also ban Cocaine, Marijuana, normal Amphetamines, LSD, etc.
Like tens of thousands dying in the global drug wars annually, mixed with the cultural destruction we see in America's inner cities and with two million people in prison from drugs?
I don't see how you're going to stand any chance of causing more problems than that.
Cocaine has gotten cheap enough that anybody can try it if they want to. In the 40 year war on drugs, they've had a nearly unlimited budget and all the time that could ever be needed, things have only continued to get worse. The Cartels have already taken over every city in America, and they literally control portions of the south west. It's time to neutralize them, and the only way to do that is by destroying their profit centers with 'free market' competition that they can never beat (government regulated ala alcohol).
Only the government can create organized crime. And it's always through prohibitions of activities that should be legal.
Bah, there is plenty of slavery without complicit governments.
Typical example: Criminals lure naive poor country girls with prospects of lots of money and a job elsewhere. As soon as they arrive to the destination country, they are held captive (they steal everything they own, and use violence) and then used as prostitutes. I fail to see government help in this scheme.
I don't know about the US, but in other countries, slavery prostitution outlets are indeed persecuted and closed once found. Other prostitution outlets are tolerated (or encouraged.)
My point is even assuming incorruptible law enforcement, these outlets would still exist, might last less if you wish.
From there to saying it's a government sponsored slavery is a big step.
The government is complicit by keeping it illegal.
If it were legal, it could be taxed and regulated like anything else. Most people are OK with letting others do what they want with their own body. It's certain puritanical, tyrannical, authoritarian and powerful government factions that don't allow that.
I think it depends on the government. If the taxes or regulatory fees on legal prostitution are too high, it can create a black market similar to that of tobacco or pharmaceutical drugs.
