Legalisation

[Undesired Walrus]

The legalisation of drugs is arguably resisted mostly by the fear of rampant drug-use once heroin, cannabis and crack are made available to buy.

Would that actually be true? Is there any evidence to suggest that the legalisation of drugs would lead to a huge increase in the number of users and addicts?

That said, even if there was a huge increase, it may be an easier problem to treat than what we have now (In places such as Britain and America), as it would be a health issue, not an issue of crime.

But if all the evidence suggested legalisation would be the best option, how would one ever be able to sell this idea to the general public?

[Lonewulf]

Well, arguing from the base of common sense, of course it would be true. There's a demand for these kinds of drugs; black markets are harder to run than legal markets (unpredictable, more likely to contain crime, threat of imprisonment and legal punishment), yet demand is high enough that these black markets exist practically in every city and town throughout the nation, albeit in various degrees. If there's demand for the illegal stuff, then by common sense, there would be demand for the legal stuff (which, if made available legally, gets rid of many of the disadvantages of selling or buying on the black market).

Reality doesn't always play along with common sense, however, and like is not always equal to like; heroin today vs. heroin sold before it was made illegal, for instance, shows that the dosage is more powerful, and more risky than ever before (as it could easily be cut with something else to save on money). So the drugs might not necessarily be as life threatening when made legal.

Penn and Teller argued that the price level actually decreased for such "hard" drugs, but I think that they miss the other disadvantages on dealing in the black market...

[Undesired Walrus]

Reality doesn't always play along with common sense, however, and like is not always equal to like; heroin today vs. heroin sold before it was made illegal, for instance, shows that the dosage is more powerful, and more risky than ever before (as it could easily be cut with something else to save on money). So the drugs might not necessarily be as life threatening when made legal.

May be an argument to prescribe drugs such as heroin to addicts. In the UK this is possible, but hardly any GP does it (Out of concern that they will become known as the GP with stacks of heroin).

Penn and Teller argued that the price level actually decreased for such "hard" drugs, but I think that they miss the other disadvantages on dealing in the black market...

Well, they tend to miss a lot of stuff (such as reason), so it's hardly surprising.

[Lonewulf]

I can see prescribing heroin to drug addicts, but the question is, when do we stop? Or is the assumption that we do this along with rehabilitation?

[Policenaut]

We should legalize them. I don't think it will lead to a mass of new drug users. As I said before pretty much anyone now who wants to use drugs can and will get their fix. I don't believe there are hundreds of thousands or millions of people out there who want to try drugs but don't because it's illegal. Also though I don't think legalizing it will have as big an effect on gangs as you might think. These gangs are all violent and are only out there for money (and respect). If you think this is going to shut them down and they are going to go without a fight you're wrong. Maybe it'll make all the suburban recreational drug users go buy it legally but it will be business as usual in the poor areas of the country.

[Bikewer]

If, as most studies have indicated, drugs are generally available to nearly anyone and at what are considered reasonable prices....

It does not seem likely to me that legalization would result in a massive increase in use. You have to wonder if we are not right now at a level of saturation, or at least close to it.

I see that a number of folks I've listened to on NPR shows lately have begun to come to the opinion that I've held for a while; that much of drug use is essentially self-medication.
That various sorts of depression are more widespread in the population than acknowledged generally, and that these people are not being served by the mental-health establishment.

[Undesired Walrus]

Also though I don't think legalizing it will have as big an effect on gangs as you might think. These gangs are all violent and are only out there for money (and respect). If you think this is going to shut them down and they are going to go without a fight you're wrong. Maybe it'll make all the suburban recreational drug users go buy it legally but it will be business as usual in the poor areas of the country.

How could drug gangs continue to function if drugs are legalised? Violence would still exist, most likely over something else, but I don't see how they could continue to be so heavily involved in drugs.

[Darth Rotor]

One step at a time.

Legalize dope first. No need to do it all at once. Also, people on cocaine are a bit less mellow than people on dope.

As to heroin, let the addicts have all they want, but make sure they get full strength stuff. In time, they all self destruct. Low cost option. Allows the gene pool to cast off that exceptionally weak strain.

DR

[Policenaut]

How could drug gangs continue to function if drugs are legalised? Violence would still exist, most likely over something else, but I don't see how they could continue to be so heavily involved in drugs.

They have a stranglehold in the ghettos and rule by fear. Would you take the chance of buying drugs in a store when a gang member or lookouts could see you and take out revenge for not buying drugs from them? The gangs might dry up in certain areas but I have no doubts about their survival in other areas. At the very least they would live on for years if not decades after legalization and they would step up their game of violence and intimidation because they know that if they don't they are out of business. What are these guys gonna do if their drug money dries up? Go work at Wal-Mart?

[MikeSun5]

Gangs aren't going anywhere. Ever. Legalization wouldn't stop gangs from stealing drugs and selling them cheaper. Either that or they'll go back to robbing trains and stagecoaches. :USA: We LOVE gangs, are you kidding?

I like the Netherlands' approach. To start, they make a distinction between hard drugs (heroin, meth) and soft drugs (cannabis, mushrooms) and each are regulated separately. Drugs are not legal, they're just "decriminalized" and therefore aren't prosecuted as aggressively. That's a better tactic, IMO. Spend money on prevention and treatment rather than filling jails with potheads.

[Lonewulf]

As to heroin, let the addicts have all they want, but make sure they get full strength stuff. In time, they all self destruct. Low cost option. Allows the gene pool to cast off that exceptionally weak strain.

You know when Creationists say that "evolutionists" can justify killing people through evolution?

Yeah, they were thinking about arguments like this.

Do you have evidence that picking a particular drug is genetic-based, and not social-based? Until you can empirically prove this, I don't see why we should enact your idea into policy.

[gumboot]

The legalisation of drugs is arguably resisted mostly by the fear of rampant drug-use once heroin, cannabis and crack are made available to buy.

Would that actually be true? Is there any evidence to suggest that the legalisation of drugs would lead to a huge increase in the number of users and addicts?


The obvious way to address this is to look at two legal products which are addictive, damaging to your health, and harmful to society. Tobacco and alcohol. Both of these are hugely popular - in the west about 90% of adults drink alcohol and 1 in 5 adults are current tobacco smokers.

So I think the fear is pretty reasonable, frankly. Tobacco and alcohol cost society horrendously both in terms of money and human lives. Some drugs (such as Methamphetamine) are likely to cause more harm. I honestly can't think of a reason that would stop people taking up these drugs.

[Lonewulf]

Were people ingesting drugs at the same rate as alcohol and tobacco before they were made illegal, though?

[gumboot]

Gangs aren't going anywhere. Ever. Legalization wouldn't stop gangs from stealing drugs and selling them cheaper.


Like how all those alcohol-making gangs during prohibition now steal alcohol and sell it cheaper... oh wait.

Legalising drugs probably wouldn't have an affect on gangs that make them, but if you legalise the drugs companies will begin investing in mass production with high quality equipment, and the superior quality product, being sold cheaper, would quickly bring ruin to drug-based gangs.

[gumboot]

Were people ingesting drugs at the same rate as alcohol and tobacco before they were made illegal, though?

Most of them seem to have been made illegal shortly after they appeared, and before they could establish themselves. Those that were around for a little longer appear to have been widely popular - cocaine for example. Elsewhere, if we look at the few places where these drugs are legal we see a steady increase since they became legal - Amsterdam for example.

[kevinquinnyo]

One step at a time.

Legalize dope first. No need to do it all at once. Also, people on cocaine are a bit less mellow than people on dope.

As to heroin, let the addicts have all they want, but make sure they get full strength stuff. In time, they all self destruct. Low cost option. Allows the gene pool to cast off that exceptionally weak strain.

DR

Is this a joke?

You sound a bit like that guy, what's his name? The one that talked about systematic elimination of weak strains in the genetic pool?

[Laeke]

Hello everyone, new there and English is not my first language, please excuse any weird wording.

Isn't there some sort of loophole problem with legalisation? Let me explain.

There are currently a lot of drugs/chemicals which are legal, medical ones, but are only available to your average person via prescription.
My understanding is that those are restricted because they can have powerful effects on human consumers, including dependency or strong side effects. Thus there is some sort of medical control for users to avoid abuse.

Illegal "recreational" drugs are said to be powerful (at the very least the hard ones), including dependency and side effects, even moreso than medical drugs. Since they are "recreational", a doctor cannot of course decide if they serve a specific purpose.

My point is, even when leaving "moral" issues aside (should the governement sell potentially dangerous products to its people which serves no "useful" purpose), it seems highly unlikely that legalisation would consist of "simple grocery shop" (if you get my drift...) if we want to tackle this "realistically". At the very least some sort of monitoring to avoid abuse should be in place?

Maybe my logic is faulty: please point any mistake in my reasoning.

[Lonewulf]

Is this a joke?

You sound a bit like that guy, what's his name? The one that talked about systematic elimination of weak strains in the genetic pool?

Kevin, this is one subject we can definitely agree on.

[Euromutt]

Laeke, welcome to the forum, and don't worry about your English; you're more comprehensible than quite a few native English speakers around here.

Your points are reasonable, but I'm inclined to say the answer (as usual) is "alcohol." Alcohol is actually one of the hardest drugs out there in terms of possible damage to health, and dependency to it even has its very own word. Tobacco is also extremely habit-forming (more so than heroin, according to some studies) and while the health risks associated with it are less immediate, over a longer term they can be more lethal.

And yet, most countries permit the sale of alcohol and tobacco, albeit restricted to licensed vendors, allowed to sell only to persons above a certain age, and possibly limited at what times they can sell the product. Nobody requires a doctor's prescription to purchase alcohol or tobacco, or restricts the amount you can buy at one time. I really can't see any compelling reason to treat recreational drugs much differently from hard liquor, or perhaps over-the-counter (non-prescription) medications.

[calebprime]

Is this a joke?

...


yes

[Euromutt]

Regarding the questions posed in the OP, a point that needs to be made is that there is a fair amount of research out there that indicates that chemical dependency is more a function of the user than of the drug. Research for the Dutch ministry of justice, for example, found that there are chronic, heavy users of cannabis, who could, for all practical purposes, fairly be described as addicts. However, the study found that such persons also tend to be heavy and chronic users of other vices; alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc.

Another study found that patients recovering from surgery who were allowed to self-administer morphine to treat post-operative pain were overall quite capable of stopping the use of morphine once they had no more pain. This in spite of the fact that morphine (like most opiates) is widely regarded to be highly addictive.

If drugs are legalized, will more people start using them? Most likely, yes. But these are the people who are currently not using them because of their illegal status, and it seems reasonable to surmise that such people are unlikely to become problem users. People who abuse drugs as a means of coping with psychological problems, or are inclined towards addictive behavior, are in all likelihood the ones already using.

Very likely, moreover, these new drug users would shy away from the more physiologically harmful drugs like crack and meth. Indeed, we have to wonder whether crack and meth would retain their appeal, since these are cheap drugs that primarily appeal to people who can't afford the good stuff, or don't have the connections to get it. But why would you keep buying crack if you can get quality-tested cocaine at the liquor store for the same price that crack commands now?

[Laeke]

Thank you Euromutt for the welcome.

Ah those pesky alcohol & tobacco. Quite a thorn on the side of any anti-drug stance, isn't it.

When I typed my first reply, I left them out of the equation because I tend to consider their legal status as "anomalies". Basically, one would say they are legal out of tradition or force of habit. "I was there first so I'm special"... but even that doesn't make much sense, as tobacco has not been around that long (as a massive consumption item).
We gave up on fixing those, which I guess is a good example of how incoherent humans can be.

I am by no mean a specialist (you will hear that often from me), so I cannot argue about studies regarding the effects of different drugs. As a regular Joe, I grew up in a world where illegal-drug addiction has been portrayed as stronger and more spectacular than your regular legal-vice stuff. Of course, I know this has been heavily mis-represented, anti-drug messages favoring the blunt force of a gross simplification over long detailed sensible approach to the question.

So I make perfect sense, if you consider alcohol and tobacco do not exist.:D

I would tend to agree with gumboot about the worries about rampant drug usage that may be justified, if one looks at current legal drugs (including medication).

[Euromutt]

Like how all those alcohol-making gangs during prohibition now steal alcohol and sell it cheaper... oh wait.There are still moonshiners in the US, of course, and their product is run from the backwoods to the inner cities, where it sells at half the price of legal booze. Meanwhile, in Britain, cigarette smuggling has been a political issue for a while. Both of which go to show that "sin taxes" have a threshold above which would-be users will resort to the illicit stuff.

But to my knowledge, there's no violence involved in the black alcohol and tobacco markets to the extent that there is with drugs.

[MikeSun5]

Like how all those alcohol-making gangs during prohibition now steal alcohol and sell it cheaper... oh wait.

Legalising drugs probably wouldn't have an affect on gangs that make them, but if you legalise the drugs companies will begin investing in mass production with high quality equipment, and the superior quality product, being sold cheaper, would quickly bring ruin to drug-based gangs.

Seconding what Euromutt said about moonshiners, and if you go pretty much anywhere in Holland today, there are still guys who sell weed on the street.
Anyway, my point is that gangs are not going anywhere, because gangs are not in business to make and sell drugs. Gangs are in business to make quick money. If drugs were legalized, the "drug-based" gangs would just find new ways to do that.

[Undesired Walrus]

There are still moonshiners in the US, of course, and their product is run from the backwoods to the inner cities, where it sells at half the price of legal booze. Meanwhile, in Britain, cigarette smuggling has been a political issue for a while. Both of which go to show that "sin taxes" have a threshold above which would-be users will resort to the illicit stuff.

But to my knowledge, there's no violence involved in the black alcohol and tobacco markets to the extent that there is with drugs.

See, this is the thing about legalisation. Even if there is a huge increase in drug use, and a higher % of the population are addicts, it can still be treated as a health problem, rather than a crime problem. It may be a debate on which the government can control better, but I dare say it is the former.

Seconding what Euromutt said about moonshiners, and if you go pretty much anywhere in Holland today, there are still guys who sell weed on the street.

In my experience they have only been selling crack or pills, not weed (I should know, I had to stop one to ask for directions once!). But they do seem to be everywhere.

[Euromutt]

Seconding what Euromutt said about moonshiners, and if you go pretty much anywhere in Holland today, there are still guys who sell weed on the street.True, at least in major cities. But while your average street dealer sells cannabis cheaper than the established "coffee shops" there's no quality control; you might be getting a real deal, but it could be adulterated crap. Even so, there's no turf battles over the street cannabis trade, unlike other drugs.

[Praktik]

As a long time pot smoker I have yet to come across adulterated pot.

Now I don't doubt it happens but issues of cost always arise: what would you adulterate it with? Cocaine/crystal and harder drugs would just add to the cost. Plus you can tell right away from the taste if someone has put a chemical powder in with the weed: it tastes and smells completely different (I know this from having "adulterated" on purpose in university).

My cousins in winnipeg were talking about kids spraying their weed with RAID for a better buzz - which may have been a country thing cause they lived out in the stix.

But seriously - I'm just not sure how often weed is adulterated with anything in Canada.

Is it more common in the states?

My hunch would be that it is imagined to have been done a lot more often than it really has been. Other drugs - heroin/crystal/coke even hash - because of the nature of the substances and for financial incentive they're "cut" a lot more often, but usually this is to dilute and profit. Ecstasy may be adulterated with crystal for a bit of extra "pep".

So maybe its the fact that its common with these substances that people assume it is done with pot to the same degree?

[gumboot]

If drugs are legalized, will more people start using them? Most likely, yes. But these are the people who are currently not using them because of their illegal status, and it seems reasonable to surmise that such people are unlikely to become problem users. People who abuse drugs as a means of coping with psychological problems, or are inclined towards addictive behavior, are in all likelihood the ones already using.


I fail to see how you could possibly claim the above assumption is reasonable.

There's quite clearly a large number of people who abuse drugs as a means of coping with psychological problems, or are inclined towards addictive behavior, who restrict their consumption to legal products.

[gumboot]

We gave up on fixing those, which I guess is a good example of how incoherent humans can be.


It's probably worth pointing out that in most of the world the use of tobacco is increasingly being restricted, and I can see a time when some places will ban it outright.

[Laeke]

It's probably worth pointing out that in most of the world the use of tobacco is increasingly being restricted, and I can see a time when some places will ban it outright.

Good point.
For some reason, those bans-from-certain-places are not so bothersome as you would think (Yeah I'm a nicotine addict). Still don't see tobacco banned completely in our lifetime (or peace, for that matter). Alcohol is here to stay though.

I think there might be other practical problems out of legalisation we might miss. Is violence linked to drugs just a mere consequence of their illegal status? Addicts looking for money to buy off drugs? Should there be limits and regulations of what you could buy? A monitoring system? Driving offenses maybe, which are already bad as they are with just alcohol and prescription drugs? Risks of bad mix-up (alcohol + certain medecine)? And what about the thermite? I'm just asking questions

[Sidenote: I don't except anyone to answer all of that thoroughly, just pointing out some things that were not brought up, if i am not mistaken]

I know the argument is that illegal users are already driving or being aggressive, but I definitely agree with gumboot that legalisation would largely increase the number of users. And no matter the amount of prevention and pedagogy applied, I have little faith in all users acting responsable. I mean... I have a big "SMOKING KILLS" on the pack standing at my right. Those signs bothered me maybe two weeks, but it sure didn't stop me.

[MikeSun5]

I think there might be other practical problems out of legalisation we might miss. Is violence linked to drugs just a mere consequence of their illegal status? Addicts looking for money to buy off drugs? Should there be limits and regulations of what you could buy? A monitoring system? Driving offenses maybe, which are already bad as they are with just alcohol and prescription drugs? Risks of bad mix-up (alcohol + certain medecine)? And what about the thermite? I'm just asking questions


You bring up some interesting points. I personally think that the violence surrounding drugs is most definitely linked to their illegal status. Look at the prohibition of alcohol in the US. Violence and corruption over alcohol subsided after the laws were repealed. The gangs didn't subside - they just found different ways to make their money (what happens in Vegas...)
I think the legalization of all drugs would probably not be a great idea. Criminals would just look elsewhere for money. Some stuff needs to stay on the street where it belongs. I say they distinguish between hard and soft drugs like the Netherlands, regulate and sell the soft drugs, and treat addicts of the hard ones. Punish those who make and sell crack, meth, and the like, but quit filling up prisons with lowly addicts who need treatment.

[Euromutt]

I fail to see how you could possibly claim the above assumption is reasonable.

There's quite clearly a large number of people who abuse drugs as a means of coping with psychological problems, or are inclined towards addictive behavior, who restrict their consumption to legal products.Okay, let me rephrase that: insofar as new users of currently illegal drugs would be problem users, they are people who are already inclined towards substance abuse, and whether they abuse cocaine or heroin, or instead abuse alcohol or some other legal product makes little difference. So the point I'm trying to make is that legalizing recreational pharmaceuticals may cause new users of those drugs, including problem users of those drugs, but it won't create a significant number of problem users who weren't already inclined to abuse something.

[gumboot]

I think there might be other practical problems out of legalisation we might miss. Is violence linked to drugs just a mere consequence of their illegal status? Addicts looking for money to buy off drugs? Should there be limits and regulations of what you could buy? A monitoring system? Driving offenses maybe, which are already bad as they are with just alcohol and prescription drugs? Risks of bad mix-up (alcohol + certain medecine)? And what about the thermite? I'm just asking questions


This is quite true, and your first point is a good one; much of the negative image of drugs relates to the illegal underground activities associated with drug production and selling. Presumably if it were legal this sort of thing would stop to some degree.

However it does raise another point. Often in these sorts of discussions I see people simply talking about "legalising drugs" and referring to all banned substances as a single entity. Often the least harmful of drugs will then be held up to justify legalising all of them. Alternatively people will cite the worst drugs and use them as justification for banning all drugs.

The only thing in common with the various illegal drugs is that they're illegal. To lump them together is nonsensical. So while I'd be quite open to legalising or decriminalising cannabis, you'd have a hard time convincing me that doing the same for methamphetamine was a good idea.

[gumboot]

Okay, let me rephrase that: insofar as new users of currently illegal drugs would be problem users, they are people who are already inclined towards substance abuse, and whether they abuse cocaine or heroin, or instead abuse alcohol or some other legal product makes little difference.


Well that's the crux of it though, isn't it. Does it make little difference? I think it can make a huge difference. For example someone who uses alcohol for their substance abuse is far more likely to do harm to society than someone who uses cannabis for their substance abuse. And someone who chooses methamphetamine for their substance abuse will do even more harm than alcohol.

These various substances, legal and illegal, are quite clearly very different, the effects of each are different, and the consequences of long term use are different.

[Praktik]

Good points all - one thing I'll mention having visited San Andres, a Colombian island just north of the mainland in the caribbean, is that coke there was 5$ american a gram.

Now it was illegal, but proximity to the source kept costs way down. Addicts or just frequent users there wouldnt have to do much to keep their habit going, a regular job would do.

One of the reasons cocaine and heroine are so damaging is because of the price.

Now its true that crack is cheap and is quite destructive - so this isn't to say that price is the only or even the most important factor - but the point remains that illegality raises the price of the drugs, which for the impoverished, means doing more "stuff" to get their fix - whether that means hustling, stealing car stereos or selling their bodies.

Rendering them legal but controlled would at least help mitigate some of this harm.

[Laeke]

I re-read the opening post and the question is: if we had the evidence that legalisation wouldn't be more harmful to society, how do we sell it to the people?

However I think we mainly discussed the question of whether or not it was more harmful. I think that is because if one had the evidence, he could argue it fairly convincigly to begin with :D
Due to the illegal aspect of it, it is hard to have hard facts on anything.
And there is certainly some "irrational" or moral aspect to the thing that would make it hard for the public to consider it, but that is another problem I guess.

Praktik mentions crack, which is notoriously nocive, but isn't crack a cheaper version of cocaine? One could say the legalisation of cocaine could undermine the crack usage, provided the price is lower.

So here's another barrage of questions, because I lack any sort of competence to answer, so the best I can do is providing you with angles to chew at, about the practical issues.

Would legalisation lower prices? The illegal market is bound by no regulations (free market!) and I guess there are some costs induced by the unlawful aspect of it.
I can understand the logic there. But legal recreational drugs would probably come with vice taxes of some sort (to help pay the medical costs that would generate drugs). Drug sellers would have to be somewhat competent I guess.
For a frame of reference: Do we have some sort of study/evidence about the legal price of cannabis in Holland compared to illegal ones?

Who would manufacture the legal drugs? We have no shortage of pharma companies who would love making a buck of it, I guess. But currently we have a whole chain of production which is held by de facto criminals. We talked about the street gangs, at the end of the line, but the biggest players in the drug market are not them. Would we have to deal with Escobar-Warlord-type like people to get this rolling?
For a frame of reference: What happened during the prohibition for legal alcohol manufacturers? Did they resume production at the end of the prohibition like if nothing happened?

[Oliver]

I like the Netherlands' approach.


Same here. Of course, the dutch [deutsch] people are a bunch of socialistic comrades with no clue whatsoever about the American way of opposing rationalism. :boxedin:

[Euromutt]

Same here. Of course, the dutch [deutsch] people are a bunch of socialistic comrades with no clue whatsoever about the American way of opposing rationalism. :boxedin:You haven't met many Dutch Christian Democrats, have you? Let alone members of the fringe hard-core gereformeerde parties.

[MikeSun5]

Same here. Of course, the dutch [deutsch] people are a bunch of socialistic comrades with no clue whatsoever about the American way of opposing rationalism. :boxedin:

All of them, huh? Whatever, I'll take a socialist over an IDer any day. ;)

...and not to be picky, but "deutsch" is German.

[Dr Adequate]

They have a stranglehold in the ghettos and rule by fear. Would you take the chance of buying drugs in a store when a gang member or lookouts could see you and take out revenge for not buying drugs from them? If this was feasible then they could do it with any commodity. Peanut butter, say. They could say: "Instead of buying peanut butter/heroin from the store --- and we'll be watching you --- you'll buy it at a higher price from us."

But, alternatively, if they were in a position to do that, they cold say: "Give us your money. No, we won't give you any peanut butter/heroin in return, because that would cut into our profits, nor will we be watching you to see if you buy any peanut butter/heroin elsewhere, because this would cut into our busy schedule of extorting money from people, and because our aim is not to prevent you from purchasing peanut butter/heroin, but rather to acquire your money."

[Euromutt]

...and not to be picky, but "deutsch" is German.Oliver's German himself, so I think he knows that. Mind you, there's a fair amount of instances in the English-speaking world where the word "dutch" has been used to mean Deutsch (i.e. German and sometimes German-speaking Swiss), e.g. the "Pennsylvania Dutch" and "Dutch clocks."

[MikeSun5]

Oliver's German himself, so I think he knows that. Mind you, there's a fair amount of instances in the English-speaking world where the word "dutch" has been used to mean Deutsch (i.e. German and sometimes German-speaking Swiss), e.g. the "Pennsylvania Dutch" and "Dutch clocks."

Es tut mir sehr leid.

[Policenaut]

If this was feasible then they could do it with any commodity. Peanut butter, say. They could say: "Instead of buying peanut butter/heroin from the store --- and we'll be watching you --- you'll buy it at a higher price from us."

But, alternatively, if they were in a position to do that, they cold say: "Give us your money. No, we won't give you any peanut butter/heroin in return, because that would cut into our profits, nor will we be watching you to see if you buy any peanut butter/heroin elsewhere, because this would cut into our busy schedule of extorting money from people, and because our aim is not to prevent you from purchasing peanut butter/heroin, but rather to acquire your money."

Gangs do provide a service but they are somewhat realistic about it. If they just stole everything they would lose a lot of support (by support I mean "no snitching"). What's to stop people from snitchin on a gang when said gang might kill/rob them anyway? Also with drugs there will likely be only a few places that are going to be selling it if they enact heavy regulations and age requirements. You might be able to make a better comparison with alcohol but even then gangs would have a hard time controlling something with such a wide distribution (and public acceptance). As long as the drugs (and their legal manufacturers) are tightly controlled then gangs will still have an advantage and will likely still rule in certain areas.

[Undesired Walrus]

A great (short) documentary supporting the legalisation of heroin:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7384717343852310100&ei=Og9eS4WLHoGG-Aaal83QAw&q=heroin+on+the+nhs#

It seems the Swiss have a sensible policy. Any information on whether pro-legalisation people have cherry picked the good news coming out of Switzerland's initiative?

How hard would it be to pass such legislation in other countries like the UK or the US, Australia, Canada etc?

[Praktik]

ha! In Canada?

We'd have to get the Conservatives out of the driver's seat first. Before they halted parliament early (killing all pending legislation) they had a suite of "tough on crime" measures ready, including a mandatory minimum for growing ONE pot plant.

I interviewed a Liberal MP in high school (~1998) for a project on decriminalization/legalization and he was predicting it would happen in "ten years".

Well, Chrétien had it pending but the Bush admin was appalled and leaned heavily on us to reduce the amounts that would be decriminalized: one ounce of weed went down to 20 grams, and bizarrely, hash was reduced to 2 grams. I still can't figure out why the disparity between hash and weed... Since I usually buy by the ounce I figured it would be strange to have to order 20 grams to "stay legal". I dont think they realize that regular smokers buy in ounces or more and use it all for personal consumption.

In any event, that legislation died when Chrétien called an early summer, and yes, all pending legislation died.

Interestingly, Mexico decriminalized all drugs lately and when they tried that around the same time as we tried to do it with pot Bush screamed blue murder and got Fox to intervene to prevent it coming to a floor vote. They succeeded in passing identical legislation last year and Obama's government, admirably, did nothing. I'd just love to hear the American reaction to foreign governments pressuring them on domestic legislation: "don't tread on us" comes to mind.

Trudeau was our PM for a long time and the issue of pot decriminalization/legalization came up and he set up a Royal Commission, the Le dain Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Dain_Commission_of_Inquiry_into_the_Non-Medical_Use_of_Drugs), to look into it and all drug laws. He said he would abide by whatever they decided.

Well they decided that decriminalization/legalization was the right way to go.

And I guess Trudeau forgot his promise. Anyway, this has been on the agenda for decades. I expect one day it will come to pass given how close it has come, its just our current conservatives are little retrograde on the issue.

[Darth Rotor]

Until you can empirically prove this, I don't see why we should enact your idea into policy.
While I was being somewhat sarcastic, I am also being somewhat practical.

What I have learned over the years about addicitve behavior is that there is a predisposition to some of it, and an acclimation to it via imitative behavior and experimentation. (Know more about alcohol addiction as that is what I have dealt with most, in terms of trying to help a few people not destroy themselves).

Whether addiction is a social/psychological pathology, or a more mechanical predisposition, it all apparently boils down to physics. (Standard JREF meme about drilling down to root causes there).

So I am only half joking.

It makes sense to me to let the self-poisoners finish the job they started, if they won't accept the offer of assistance to stop poisoning themselves. I have always held that people ought to be allowed to go to Hell, or Heaven, in their own manner, so long as they don't take anyone else along with them.

You want to shoot smack? Shoot it. It's gonna kill you. There are people who can help you stop doing this.

You still want to shoot smack? Hope you packed for your journey.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Is this a joke?

You sound a bit like that guy, what's his name? The one that talked about systematic elimination of weak strains in the genetic pool?

I ought to sound to you like Denis Leary, who has a nice comedy routine about drug addicts that I borrowed this little bon mot from, as inspiration.

See "No Cure for Cancer" CD, or "Lock and Load" for the reference.

Oh, and you can stuff your Godwin where the sun don't shine.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

One of the reasons cocaine and heroine are so damaging is because of the price.
You might want to consult the medical impact of sustained use of those chemicals. Not your brightest comment ever.

DR

[Oliver]

All of them, huh? Whatever, I'll take a socialist over an IDer any day. ;)

...and not to be picky, but "deutsch" is German.


Nope, "Dutch" is an english term that pretty much means "deutsch" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language#Names).

[Undesired Walrus]

It makes sense to me to let the self-poisoners finish the job they started, if they won't accept the offer of assistance to stop poisoning themselves. I have always held that people ought to be allowed to go to Hell, or Heaven, in their own manner, so long as they don't take anyone else along with them.

You want to shoot smack? Shoot it. It's gonna kill you. There are people who can help you stop doing this.

You still want to shoot smack? Hope you packed for your journey.

DR

As someone who has worked with heroin addicts on and off for the last two years, I can tell you that you appear to be, I'm afraid to say, grossly uneducated about it. Heroin use becomes a physical dependancy (In part due to the horrific side effects once you stop), essentially obliterating any cries to 'snap out of it'. 'Want' is the operative word. They don't 'want' to shoot smack, their body needs to shoot smack.

To show so little understanding and compassion towards people who -in the large part- are attempting to block out sexual/physical abuse and/or extreme trauma seems to betray your Christian principles of love and all the other cheesy stuff. Most of the people who suffer from this dependancy didn't have the oppurtunities you and I had/have in life, and it is worth dwelling on that.

And seeing how heaven and hell don't exist, and this is their only shot (no pun intended) at life, it makes sense to help them improve their lives, trying out pragmatic (and realistic) ways of achieving this like the Swiss are doing.

[Matthew Best]

"The argument in favor of regulating drugs is not that they're harmless, but rather that they're so dangerous they should be controlled by the government. Remember that under prohibition the government has no control. It's the violent drug dealer who decides the price, purity, cutting agents, advertising methods, business location and hours of operation."

- David Bratzer, Canadian police officer and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[Praktik]

You might want to consult the medical impact of sustained use of those chemicals. Not your brightest comment ever.

DR

Oh really, they have medical impacts?

Trust me guy, I've done the research. I think you're taking my statement for an absolute when it was an argument for nuance: not only must we worry about health effects, but the economic issues that are exarcerbated by high prices, which increase crime as addicts must committ more crime to be able to afford the next fix.

That's been a part of the sociology of drugs for some time, and is there if you care to look, old man... ;)

[Bikewer]

According to numbers of government studies (GAO, other agencies) drugs are generally available throughout the country, in high states of purity, at low prices.

If this is indeed the case, we might be justified in assuming that most all the people who wish to consume drugs are now doing so.
Broad-spectrum legalization might cause some increase; experimenters or those who avoid drugs out of fear, but how large a population might that be?

Also, I would like to see any attempt at legalization (or at least, de-criminalization) accompanied by some large-scale research as to the cause. Why do people need to intoxicate themselves?
Is a certain percentage of the population wired in this way? Is it (as I suspect) that depression is more widespread among the population than is generally acknowledged, and that a significant portion of users are simply self-medicating?

Our efforts have been almost totally geared to enforcement and interdiction. Let's find out why people are using.

[Praktik]

This CATO institute report (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080)on Portugal's experience showed no increase in usage after decriminalization, which is a different thing than legalisation:

Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically.Still, the penalty for possession has been removed pretty much, and that didn't open the floodgates.

I am skeptical of claims that there is a cohort of heroin users just waiting for legalization/decriminalization to start shooting up. Methinks that the drug is of such a type, and the typical method of ingestion so scary (though you can smoke or snort it) that the large majority of people arent interested in it regardless of its legal status.

[Praktik]

My theory: drug use is social. People rarely end up doing drugs that their friends or people they know aren't already doing. This is why alcohol and tobacco use are so widespread - socially speaking they are the most common drugs to use and people will have opportunities to try some of each with their friends and they will see friends they like and respect doing them so they will feel more comfortable doing it themselves. They form the center of many social gatherings from the "at work smoke break" crew to the dinner parties where wine and beer may figure prominently.

The reason why we won't see the floodgates open for heroin and cocaine and other illicit drugs under a decriminalization/legalization rubric is because most people lack the social prerequisites to trying those drugs. They lack access cause they dont have a friend who can get them the drug or clear their name with a dealer. THey aren't interested because nobody they know does them and the drugs never make appearances at their social gatherings. They don't see people they like and respect doing them.

The worst that would happen would be, in my opinion, an "imaginary increase". Under a decriminalization/legalization rubric individuals may be more likely to answer "yes" to having tried various drugs in surveys since the legal and social stigma of doing these drugs is lessened. So we might see an apparent bump in popular underground drugs like marijuana and ecstasy but would it be "real"? Or simply an artifact of more people coming out of the closet? I think there is likely some underreporting going on for drug use under the current legal environment.

[CORed]

We should legalize them. I don't think it will lead to a mass of new drug users. As I said before pretty much anyone now who wants to use drugs can and will get their fix. I don't believe there are hundreds of thousands or millions of people out there who want to try drugs but don't because it's illegal. Also though I don't think legalizing it will have as big an effect on gangs as you might think. These gangs are all violent and are only out there for money (and respect). If you think this is going to shut them down and they are going to go without a fight you're wrong. Maybe it'll make all the suburban recreational drug users go buy it legally but it will be business as usual in the poor areas of the country.

One of the appeals of gangs in inner cities is that the gangs have money. They get the money largely be selling drugs. While I don't think criminals will stop being criminals because drugs are legalized, legalizing drugs would reduce the incentive to become a criminal in the first place, as selling illegal drugs is one of the easiest criminal activities in which to make serious money.

[Praktik]

One of the appeals of gangs in inner cities is that the gangs have money. They get the money largely be selling drugs. While I don't think criminals will stop being criminals because drugs are legalized, legalizing drugs would reduce the incentive to become a criminal in the first place, as selling illegal drugs is one of the easiest criminal activities in which to make serious money.

Well it would just shift things around a bit. As there is an underground trade in oxycontin, im sure some would still sell for the convenience factor (oh hes right on the corner) and cause well, thats what they're used to doing. Will take a while for people to change tracks.

But yes, would be a huge hit to organized crime. Thing is, there's still plenty of other areas to earn money that street gangs will use:

- prostitution
- people smuggling
- extortion and protection rackets
- gambling
- gun running

They wont go away - they'll still have plenty of places to earn a buck, and the appeal to inner city kids looking for a way to make a buck in places where legal means to do so are scarce will still find their way to the gangs.

[IchabodPlain]

The illegal market is bound by no regulations (free market!) and I guess there are some costs induced by the unlawful aspect of it.

Not a free market: You say as much in the first sentence, with the key word being illegal. This of course limits the amount of supply to only those willing to engage in unlawful activity, the risk/burden of which is passed onto the consumer because no one wants to take that kind of risk without getting paid well for it. Also, there are no property rights for government to enforce. Moreover, the government would be inclined to take your property.

To answer the OP: In America, it would need to be sold as a way to reduce government spending, and a way for states to shift taxation policies (tax formerly illegal drugs while lowering taxes on income, property, etc). It probably wouldn't be successful, mind you, because the counter -- the label of "Soft On Crime" has ended more political careers than maybe any other.

[Praktik]

I still don't understand that in a country that loves to bandy about the word "freedom" that the argument that anti-drug laws represent an infringement on personal liberty hasn't found more support.

After all, we're talking about the right to control our own minds and bodies here - is there something more fundamental to "freedom" than that?

Anyway, I like these guys: http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/

[IchabodPlain]

The only thing in common with the various illegal drugs is that they're illegal. To lump them together is nonsensical. So while I'd be quite open to legalising or decriminalising cannabis, you'd have a hard time convincing me that doing the same for methamphetamine was a good idea.

This is exactly my opinions on the matter. There is no reason to piggyback decriminalizing/legalizing meth if you want to do so with, say, cannabis. The two drugs are so sharply different in terms of behavior impairments, behavior while on the drugs, chemical harm, and addictive properties. It makes no sense. Each drug should stand or fall on its own merits.

Furthermore, I don't even like the piggyback that some have taken in regards to possible medicinal properties of cannabis as a reason to legalize it for the general public. It's the equivalent of saying "morphine helps people with pain, so it should be legalized for general use." Absolutely ridiculous.

[IchabodPlain]

I still don't understand that in a country that loves to bandy about the word "freedom" that the argument that anti-drug laws represent an infringement on personal liberty hasn't found more support.

After all, we're talking about the right to control our own minds and bodies here - is there something more fundamental to "freedom" than that?

Anyway, I like these guys: http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/

We are talking about the same country that amended its own constitution to ban alcohol less than a century ago, right?

The same country that only gave every citizen the right to vote less than sixty years ago, right?

Honestly, it's a difficult issue. One which has support in some states (California, Alaska) and doesn't in others (Florida, Louisiana). Of course, all of what we're talking about would have to take place on the federal level. There is probably a decent amount of national support for legalizing/decriminalizing cannabis (don't have stats handy for that). But for as much as we are a freedom loving country, we are also a law & order country. Difficult balance.

[Praktik]

Each drug should stand or fall on its own merits.

Furthermore, I don't even like the piggyback that some have taken in regards to possible medicinal properties of cannabis as a reason to legalize it for the general public. It's the equivalent of saying "morphine helps people with pain, so it should be legalized for general use." Absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not sure that's a fair criticism and it's also maybe a bit of conflict to suggest that each drug should rise and fall on its own merits and then extend an analogy to morphine, whose "merits" are surely way different than those of marijuana.

I do come across a lot of talk about how medical marijuana is a "trojan horse" for eventual legalization, mostly from prohibitionists hoping to argue a slippery slope.

And then I come across more reasonable people like yourself that say variations of what you had said: might as well just come out for legalization straight up instead of couching it in medical marijuana. Thing is, I'm not entirely sure where that criticism is rooted. Most legalization advocates would be happy to tell you the list of reasons why it should be legal for non-medecinal recreational use and don't hide behind anything. Only one item on these lists might be medecinal marijuana - speaking personally, I think it should be legalized for a host of other reasons. I have rarely - if ever - come across someone who said "because of medical marijuana it should be legal for non-medicinal purposes". But I have come across arguments rooted in personal freedom, opportunity cost/economics, justice system burdens, crime syndicate issues. Contextually, and to help present the relatively benign effects of the drug, they might mention how it provides relief to sick people. Rarely is this the linchpin of a full-legalization argument.

You might find some ardent medical marijuana advocates who actually don't want to talk much about legalization for recreational purposes because it clouds the moral clarity of their position and opens them up to the oft-repeated "trojan horse" claims. The sad fact is that social stigma and the socio-cultural environment, especially at elite levels, makes any association with the recreational-legalization crowd a bit of a problem for them. This is more an artifact of the current political culture, than it is of some hidden agenda, or faulty logic as you allege.

[Peephole]

One thing's certain, decriminalization leads to a decrease in drug use, deaths from overdoses and HIV infections:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[WildCat]

Well it would just shift things around a bit. As there is an underground trade in oxycontin, im sure some would still sell for the convenience factor (oh hes right on the corner) and cause well, thats what they're used to doing. Will take a while for people to change tracks.

But yes, would be a huge hit to organized crime. Thing is, there's still plenty of other areas to earn money that street gangs will use:

- prostitution
- people smuggling
- extortion and protection rackets
- gambling
- gun running

They wont go away - they'll still have plenty of places to earn a buck, and the appeal to inner city kids looking for a way to make a buck in places where legal means to do so are scarce will still find their way to the gangs.
Not nearly as much money in those alternatives. And gambling is legal in most places now, within a short drive for most people.