Milton Friedman - Why Drugs Should Be Legalized

StopFear Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - So, on a bag that contains meth, cocaine, heroin etc. there is a warning "don't ingest, inhale, inject"?

bachjupp Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - should just have a lable of how addictive it is, that it leads to cravings, and thats all.. if you're still dumb enough to do it, why should we pay into the government to protect grown adults? Dont mistake me allowing it to be legal for excusing them from crimes that they may commit under them. If they took it with the lable (like the cigarettes) and commit crimes, or drive under the influence, then it's jail.. But merely smoking it on a porch, a park, shouldnt be illegal at all. This = freedom

StopFear Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - ok, I understand your point, you mentioned "grown adults" but what about non-adults, lets say people under 18? If a child touches a hot stove it learns that it is hot and doesn't touch it in the future, develops an instinct. I doubt that can always be the case with drugs. Possibly you're implying that some organizations should have the responsibility to educate people about drugs so that they wouldn't say "its not my fault?"

bachjupp Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - First of all, kids shouldnt be drinking under 18. yet they do.. We would try our best, in this free society, which would expand even to freer dimensions if we legalized drugs, by not allowing anyone under 18 to purchase such products. If an adult gives the child this, they will be helpd responsible. And brochures would also be in the "opium dens" if you want to call them that. Im only for this because I am for ultimate freedom of man, and we wont get it as long as we think the govt should decide

StopFear Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - well no one under 18 is allowed alcohol or other drugs now, yet they get it, just like you said. People who provide them the drugs or alcohol, currently, are guilty and will go to jail. How different can it be then if drugs became legal to those over 18? Would be easier to enforce this? I dont think so, probably even harder.

bachjupp Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - so i say legalize it

dfreemanhyatt Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - Nicotine/Tobacco IIRC is the most addictive drug known to man, if not in how quickly you get addicted, its the most addictive drug. Alcohol along with Tobacco is the most toxic.

awesomeville26 Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - Milton Friedman is an ass...having drugs become legal will not solve anything. In fact it would just make these things worse, if people kill for drugs they'll still do it even if it is legal. Money is legal and people still kill for that...

ZDWmiamicane Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - How can you say that man? His analogy of the drive by shooting just killed your argument. The Feds are putting an undo cost on you and me [the clean people].

awesomeville26 Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - So are you telling me if drugs become legal there will no longer be drive bys? Well I dont believe that, people will get it either way and do whatever it takes to get it but why make it readily available to everyone? Just to increase the amount of violent and druggies.

vegasfloyd Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - when is the last time you saw one liquor store owner shoot up another liquor store owner in a drive by?

Dirge987 Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - Personally, I'd prefer not to live in a Nanny State. I don't want the government to say to me "you're not smart enough to know what to do, so we'll tell you". Liberty means owning your own life, and being able to make decisions for yourself, and reap those consequences. The problem here is that people will do drugs if they are legal or not, but if they are illegal, the money from buying drugs goes to criminals. Preventing drug abuse comes from families and the community, not the government.

jahgrizzly Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - you obviously didn't listen to a single point made by this good sir, arguably history's most respected economist since Adam Smith and David Ricardo

nexus411 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - what is your definition of drugs? a mind altering substance? tobacco? alcohol? marijuana? cocaine? he's right. u can't deny some of these without denying all of them, or none of them. u can't tell a person to not do marijuana, and at the same time be indifferent when they eat themselves to death. he has made crystal clear sense. anyone who defends the war on drugs after watching this is the child of a wannabe dictator who believes they know best for society. repulsive.

modmastermind111 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - How did he get so smart?

pretorious700 Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - Your grasp of the big picture is woefully inadequate...and your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

python208 Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - YAY POT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pinkithinks Says:

Nov 14, 2009 - have to agree with Dirge987 on the money going to criminals when drugs are illegal and nexus411 about the definition of "drugs" but all of these arguments i've heard before

guycallens Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - LONG live the FREE MARKET!

barrywilliamsmb Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - Milton Friedman is my new God! Wow, he makes some excellent arguments for ending drug prohibition. I ended my own prohibition some time ago but I don't think it's fair for others to have to suffer under these witch hunting regimes. Thanks Milton and muchas gracias LibertyPen.

twikiriwhi Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - Nice one! Libertarianism to the end. Cheers to Milton.

Nintendomanwill Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - It's all correct and I'd like to draw special attention to his point about arresting and imprisoning peopel for taking drugs even though it generally harms noone else. Because think about it like this: if somebnody nearly commits suicide, but someone forcibly prevents them from killing themselves. Should that perpetrator of attempted suicide be treated as a criminal? The drug argument is valid therein because it doesn't even kill-clandestine drug business kills and that is an effect of the ban.

ultralaundrydetergen Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Sounds very nice, but there is one problem: Advertising. What if big drug company's start producing drugs and advertising them because there is profit? Would this cause more drug use? Would this cause our society to turn into a drug society? Maybe. And that does not sound good. Just think of big corporations mass producing drugs and advertising them to children. I am already smelling the "Freedom" there.

aussieconservative Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Its a valid point you make. We dont have ciggarette advertising in my country at all because of government regulation, I would have loved to see what milton freidman would have said about that ban. however I have great difficulty arguing against a position that he just took then without extending the conversation beyond its inital scope.

gramke Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - thats a bad argument. what if mcdonalds advertises a big mac because there is profit? would this cause more heart disease and obesity and deaths? obviously theyre going to promote it. its in their business to promote it. children already use drugs whether its prohibited or not, and mostly due to the fact that its "cool," almost solely because its illegal. nothing gets a teenager off more than bragging that he did some illegal shit with his homies.