MovieChat Forums > Scarface (1983) Discussion > seriously, why is coke illegal?

seriously, why is coke illegal?


i mean it's tons of fun and if legal, take crime right out of it. how cool to roll up to walgreens drive thru and say "8 ball of your finest colombian...oh and i have a walgreens value card also"!!!! ok sir, with your discount, the 8 ball comes to 55 dollars, normally $180..have a good day sir :)

reply

I kinda agree. If it doesn't involve violence or theft of property, then stop criminalizing it! In fact, the worst part about most drug addicts is that the drugs are illegal and expensive, so they will do anything to get another hit. Drunks aren't like that. They hang out at the store asking for change or a dollar. Then they buy a drink and disappear. I bet that drug addicts would be the same way if it was legal and relatively cheap.

No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on.

reply

Plus us responsible adults that can handle such substances in moderation shouldn't be punished for doing so. Like George Carlin said, it's all bulls*** and it's bad for ya!

No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on.

reply

I've developed a small coke habit since college and I'm a perfectly functioning human being now with a career. I use it 1-2 times a month, on weekends. I've never had the urge to take anymore (although in my college days I did use it multiple times a week, every week - but always stopped myself if I felt it was getting out of hand). Honestly, the war on drugs is stupid and a waste of money. The government should legalize (or decriminalize) recreational drugs and focus more on rehabilitation than persecution. I'm not saying taking heroin or meth is good, but the government is going about this the wrong way.

reply

What is needed here is empirical evidence that people on cocaine can manage to live normal lives. Right now the evidence from Colorado is terribly confusing; it is necessary to review all the facts there in order to ascertain whether legalizing marijuana was indeed a good idea.
I myself have nothing to gain or lose in this issue: I don't smoke, I don't do any drugs, and I only occasionally drink a schnapps or some other dessert wine.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

reply

The results of the so-called war on drugs speak for themselves, but legalizing drugs is far from the panacea its advocates claim it is. There are no perfect solutions here, only lesser evils.

----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/

reply

I've developed a small coke habit since college and I'm a perfectly functioning human being now with a career. I use it 1-2 times a month, on weekends. I've never had the urge to take anymore (although in my college days I did use it multiple times a week, every week - but always stopped myself if I felt it was getting out of hand). Honestly, the war on drugs is stupid and a waste of money. The government should legalize (or decriminalize) recreational drugs and focus more on rehabilitation than persecution. I'm not saying taking heroin or meth is good, but the government is going about this the wrong way.


Problem is, not everyone could do it the way that you can.

"I'm leaving, i've assessed the situation, and i'm going".

reply

Yes, but people are going to do drugs anyways... it's just a huge waste of money and it would be a lot safer (the product would be cleaner) if the government made drugs legal and there would be a lot of money to be made from taxes. They could put that money into rehabilitation and medical care rather than the police. It's also not like everyone will become a drug addict once it becomes legal/decriminalized- Portugal decriminalized personal drug use and deaths by overdose and drug violence have gone down sharply. Addicts aren't being put into prison, they're going to treatment centers and learning how to use drugs safely/coming off of their addictions.

reply

The people that want to do it are doing it anyway.
If illegal drugs users were marginal, I could see that reason being ok, but they're not, so the current situation is pointless and dangerous.


And what about alcohol, caffeine and other legal drugs that also do create problems? they're all legal.

I believe some countries that have legalized some strong drugs find out that after a while the usage drops, as once it's legal it's less cool to do...

reply

It's not. I had some the other day, they're selling it at supermarkets and even restaurants now. They even have diet and flavoured versions. It's not even expensive so I don't see why it's such a big money maker for drug dealers.
Besides, Pepsi is better. Yeah I said it.

reply

How do you like Pepper and Pibb?
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

reply

Neither is common here in Aus. I would have to go out of my way to find them. Can't comment sorry!

reply

[deleted]

Easier solution than the futile war on drugs is to let the government take a more aggressive take on it. If you really want to win the war, you have to either eliminate the supply (impossible), distribution (at best marginally effective), or demand.

If the federal government simply produced illegal drugs and sold them (covertly). They would sell it at a reduced price so the overseas producers go out of business and/or lose their profit. Ensure they had a slow acting poison that as only lethal after prolonged and repeated uses, you would essentially kill the demand. Roughly 90% would be dead in 18 months while the others who only used it recreationally would only get sick.

With little demand, the suppliers lose any profit and business dries up. The few remaining get off the junk out of fear of a tainted supply. What are they going to do?... say they got sick when they bought an illegal product? In the end, a little is lost but a lot is gained.





"Treasury throws founder of the Democratic Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting Republican"

reply

This is an unusually civil thread considering the topic. Congrats to all the contributors. Too bad we can't bottle it.

I'm no expert, but . . . .

reply

[deleted]