The War on Drugs is Useless

[MattusMaximus]

Ouch...

AP IMPACT: US drug war has met none of its goals (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/failed_drug_war)
After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified." ...

One can only hope that the powers-that-be will clue in and realize that Drub Prohibition is a colossal waste of time, lives, and resources, and it's no longer worth pandering to the moral crusaders who view drugs as EEEVIIIILLLLLLL!!!11!1 :jaw-dropp

I'm not holding my breath... but at least there is a silver lining with more states cluing in that marijuana isn't the nasty boogyman its been made out to be.

[dtugg]

Agreed. Even if you are twisted enough to believe you have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their bodies, you must admit that the war on drugs has been a gigantic failure. Cocaine and heroin (for example) are cheaper than ever and are available to anybody who wants them. Not to mention the widespread violence and corruption, especially in Mexico, that is a direct result of the USA's failed war on drugs.

[MattusMaximus]

I know a retired drug enforcement cop who once told me that pretty much everything he and his colleagues have ever done in their career regarding Drug Prohibition was bunk. He said nothing they did enforcing drug laws ever made a difference.

[portlandatheist]

I think a key point to be made here is not merely to evaluate how bad drugs are or are not, but rather how enforceable the laws themselves are. We don't pass laws that it shouldn't rain on Saturday even if we all agree that would be desirable. Whether legal or not, drugs are here to stay. How best to deal with that simple fact? Obviously, other crimes are here to stay as well but we really need to consider what we intend to accomplish with our spent resources on this matter and the war on drugs has no return on investment.
There are very few "victories" in the war on drugs, Methaqualone being one of them. When it comes to pot, not only is this drug minor compared to others, but by its very nature, is unenforceable and this breeds contempt for the law in general. Not only should it be legal because its less harmful than many others, but it should be legal due to its popularity and the total lack of control we ever hope to wield over its use and production. It is also unequally enforced, some police simply through it away if they catch somebody with it and don't bother to otherwise enforce the law.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to reevaluate our entire approach and consider radical alternatives such as legalization or decriminalization.

[quarky]

War on anything is suspect.
The war on communism could easily be seen as a huge failure.
The war on terror? Same deal.

How about the war against drivers speeding? How much does that cost, and how hard would it be to prevent speeding through technology?

(Not hard is the correct answer.)

These wars give people jobs. That's what's good about them.
Inventing crimes allows crime-fighters employment.

If only pot was legalized, many, many people would be put out of work.

Quick!
Look busy.

[ravdin]

Check out my signature line. I really wish it were satire, but it's not- it was as true in Mark Twain's time as it is today.

The government won't stop just because this ruinously expensive, wasteful, and deadly program has demonstrably failed in its stated goals. Their response will be to discount the evidence and spend even more of our money and resources to wage war on our fellow citizens.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

But how much worse could it be if we legalized drugs? Can't take the risk that we would be a society of drugies, and think about what Big Pharma would do.

[/da]

[lionking]

I agree with the OP, but what chance do you think a political party would have running on a "decrimialise drugs" platform?

[dtugg]

I agree with the OP, but what chance do you think a political party would have running on a "decrimialise drugs" platform?

In, the US, none at all. Far too many moral crusaders that believe drugs are evil and that they therefore have the right to ruin people's lives over them.

[Virus]

How do you guys actually propose legalization to work? Do you want the state to become a dope dealer?

Look at the impact the legal drugs have on society, tobacco and alcohol. Do you really want crystal meth added to that mess? Do you really want easily obtainable, cheap crack?

Sorry, I could get behind legalizing weed but the notion of flooding society with cheap, easily obtainable hard drugs supplied by the government is a stupid idea.

[lionking]

How do you guys actually propose legalization to work? Do you want the state to become a dope dealer?

Look at the impact the legal drugs have on society, tobacco and alcohol. Do you really want crystal meth added to that mess? Do you really want easily obtainable, cheap crack?

Sorry, I could get behind legalizing weed but the notion of flooding society with cheap, easily obtainable hard drugs supplied by the government is a stupid idea.

Which is why I used the word "decrimalisation". Still difficult, but far from legalisation.

[DarthFishy]

Couldn't there be a way to rephrase or change the approach, so that instead of being decriminalization of drugs, it would be something more like a tightened regulation of drugs (and in the process decriminalizing it).

Furthermore does anybody have any stats on how many people in say the US (other countries stats could also be interesting) would be willing to legalize Marijuana? I have a feeling that there is perhaps more support for this platform at a grass(he I made a funny)-roots level than expected?

[dtugg]

How do you guys actually propose legalization to work? Do you want the state to become a dope dealer?

It would be exactly the same as alcohol and tobbacco. Regulated by the government but sold by private companies.

Look at the impact the legal drugs have on society, tobacco and alcohol. Do you really want crystal meth added to that mess?

Meth is already "in that mess."

Do you really want easily obtainable, cheap crack?

Crack is already easily obtainable and cheap.

Sorry, I could get behind legalizing weed but the notion of flooding society with cheap, easily obtainable hard drugs supplied by the government is a stupid idea.

Hate to break the news to you, but society is already flooded with cheap (at least cheaper than they have ever been), easily obtainable hard drugs. And because of people like you extremely violent criminal gangs control their trade.

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

But how much worse could it be if we legalized drugs? Can't take the risk that we would be a society of drugies, and think about what Big Pharma would do.

[/da]

We already live in a society of druggies, most of whom get their dope prescribed from Big Pharma.

[Virus]

We already live in a society of druggies, most of whom get their dope prescribed from Big Pharma.

You mean sick people?

[Virus]

It would be exactly the same as alcohol and tobbacco. Regulated by the government but sold by private companies.


Yes, and and alcohol and ciggies are much more widely abused, cost society much more in damages and fill up the hospital beds much more that crackheads and cause scores more motor accidents.


Meth is already "in that mess."

No it's not sir. You can't just go down to the corner store and buy a baggie of cheap meth or LSD.


Crack is already easily obtainable and cheap.

But apparently not cheap enough and not easily available enough for you.


Hate to break the news to you, but society is already flooded with cheap (at least cheaper than they have ever been), easily obtainable hard drugs. And because of people like you extremely violent criminal gangs control their trade.

Yeah so let's have it that you can buy smack at the tobacconists. Let's make it you can get anabolic steroids over the counter. We'll put them next to the aspirin. Let's increase the number of addicts. Let's increase the number of road accidents. Let's increase the number of people who can't work because they're on smack and putting an increased burden on the health care and welfare systems. That fixes everything.

[dtugg]

Yes, and and alcohol and ciggies are much more widely abused, cost society much more in damages and fill up the hospital beds much more that crackheads and cause scores more motor accidents.

So you're saying we should ban alcohol and tobacco?

No it's not sir. You can't just go down to the corner store and buy a baggie of cheap meth or LDS.

Sure it is. You just call your drug dealer. He might even deliver it to you. I've had some that would.

But apparently not cheap enough and not easily available enough for you.

I don't care about how cheap or available it is. I care about personal freedom and keeping money out of the hands of violent criminals. Two things you apparently couldn't care less about.

Yeah so let's have it that you can buy smack at the tobacconists. Let's make it you can get anabolic steroids over the counter. We'll put them next to the aspirin. Let's increase the number of addicts. Let's increase the number of road accidents. Let's increase the number of people who can't work because they're on smack and putting an increased burden on the health care and welfare systems. That fixes everything.

Do you have any evidence that suggests significantly more people would abuse drugs if legal? Would you suddenly start shooting up heroin if you could do it legally? No? What makes you think that other people would then?

On the other hand, it is a fact that because of people like you, billions of dollars goes into the hands of ruthless criminals who don't think twice about killing anybody that get's in their way. It is a fact that billions of dollars are wasted every year trying to fight a war that is clearly un-winnable. It is a fact that thousands and thousands of people's lives are ruined because you think that you have a right to tell people what they can do with their bodies.

[Virus]

So you're saying we should ban alcohol and tobacco?

Nice try. I'm pointing out that you're shooting yourself in the foot with the argument that smack will be just like ciggies and grog when these legalized drugs are huge social problems.



Sure it is. You just call your drug dealer. He might even deliver it to you. I've had some that would.

There are already problems with youths carrying knives. So let's scrap the restrictions and say you can carry all the knives you want. If we don't ban it then people won't do it eh?


I don't care about how cheap or available it is. I care about personal freedom and keeping money out of the hands of violent criminals. Two things you apparently couldn't care less about.

What about the personal freedom of people who don't want to live amongst scores of violent, whacked out, socially useless drug addicts? What about people who don't want to get hit by a driver on crack?


Do you have any evidence that suggests significantly more people would abuse drugs if legal?

Uh, yeah. The legal drugs are far more abused than the illegal ones.


Would you suddenly start shooting up heroin if you could do it legally? No? What makes you think that other people would then?

No but there's more people in the world than just me.


On the other hand, it is a fact that because of people like you, billions of dollars goes into the hands of ruthless criminals who don't think twice about killing anybody that get's in their way. It is a fact that billions of dollars are wasted every year trying to fight a war that is clearly un-winnable.

And billions of dollars goes into health care costs of both legal and illegal drugs. This would increase by several magnitudes.


It is a fact that thousands and thousands of people's lives are ruined because you think that you have a right to tell people what they can do with their bodies.

Thousands and thousands of lives are ruined by the needle. You think you have the right to tell society what they have to tolerate. They have to tolerate violent meth heads. They have to tolerate coke fiends. They have to tolerate streets full of people shooting **** up and leaving dirty needles around. Have a look at "Needle Park", a park in Switzerland where the authorities turned a blind eye to heroin use. Tell me if that's what you'd like the streets to be.

[pipelineaudio]

As long as theres a war on alcohol and tobacco, I doubt there will ever be the unified swell to end the war on some drugs

[Lallante]

Yes, and and alcohol and ciggies are much more widely abused, cost society much more in damages and fill up the hospital beds much more that crackheads and cause scores more motor accidents.

Yes. In pretty much every scientific study of harm, alcohol and ciggies are worse than most drugs for your health (in ciggies case, much more). Why the double standard?



No it's not sir. You can't just go down to the corner store and buy a baggie of cheap meth or LSD.


Yes you can. The only difference is you buy it behind the corner store in an alley and you DONT pay tax or have any enforceable consumer rights.



But apparently not cheap enough and not easily available enough for you.

I don't think many of the legalisation crowd particularly want drugs to be cheaper. In order for legislation to be effective they would need to be no more expensive and little more difficult to obtain for most people however. The point of legalisation is to protect people (quality, contaminants, crime etc) and raise tax revenues, not make drugs more freely available.


Yeah so let's have it that you can buy smack at the tobacconists. Let's make it you can get anabolic steroids over the counter. We'll put them next to the aspirin.
Why would legalisation naturally entail free-for-all. Why not do it like the Netherlands where weed is sold and taxed by specialist "coffee shops" which require a license, or California where you must get a 'medical use card' (change this to a 'recreational use card' but continue to keep a database and require full ID etc).
Let's increase the number of addicts. Let's increase the number of road accidents. Let's increase the number of people who can't work because they're on smack and putting an increased burden on the health care and welfare systems. That fixes everything.
The nature of those predisposed to addiction is that they will become addicts whether or not the substance is illegal. There is far lower incidence of medical problems related to cannabis use in the Netherlands than in the USA (and less children try it) despite cannabis being freely available just about anywhere. There is literally nothing to suggest controlled legalisation of drugs would increase the incidence of addiction - on the contrary, it would allow governments to much more effectively finance and target treatment programmes to those that need it most. If you had to register on a database to obtain drugs, your usage could be tracked and those with a problem legally aquirable dosages tapered.

These principles aren't speculation - they have been demonstrated in trials in the UK and Scotland with Heroine addicts to have MASSIVE positive effects in fighting addiction.

Essentially, legalisation would give you a whole load more tools in your toolkit to minimise harm.

[dtugg]

Nice try. I'm pointing out that you're shooting yourself in the foot with the argument that smack will be just like ciggies and grog when these legalized drugs are huge social problems.

If you don't think they should be illegal, your position is inconsistent and hypocritical assuming you have ever used either.

Anyway, I was just countering your strawman that the government would be the drug dealer.

There are already problems with youths carrying knives. So let's scrap the restrictions and say you can carry all the knives you want.

Now you're equating children carrying knives with drugs? Please...

If we don't ban it then people won't do it eh?

What?

What about the personal freedom of people who don't want to live amongst scores of violent, whacked out, socially useless drug addicts?

You have no evidence whatsoever that this number would be greater if drugs were legal. Any if these people do anything that harms others, they should be put in jail. But the act of using drugs doesn't harm anybody but perhaps the user.

What about people who don't want to get hit by a driver on crack?

With that logic, we should ban alcohol in order to protect people from getting hit by drunk drivers. No...wait, we do the sensible thing and make drunk driving illegal.

Uh, yeah. The legal drugs are far more abused than the illegal ones.

All that proves is that they are more socially acceptable.

No but there's more people in the world than just me.

So you're saying that you're better than other people?


And billions of dollars goes into health care costs of both legal and illegal drugs. This would increase by several magnitudes.

Prove it.

And besides with drugs legal, the billions of dollars that go to fighting the un-winnable war against them could be instead used for treatment. Same for the billions in tax revenue that would be generated.

Thousands and thousands of lives are ruined by the needle.

Sure. And making drugs illegal hasn't stopped that at all.

You think you have the right to tell society what they have to tolerate.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are not harming anyone else. The act of using drugs does not harm anybody else.

They have to tolerate violent meth heads.

If they are violent, of course not.

They have to tolerate coke fiends.

If the cokeheads are not harming anybody it is none of anybody's business. And no being a cokehead doesn't automatically mean that you are going to hurt people. I've known cokeheads. Mostly, they just sit around at home and do coke all day.

They have to tolerate streets full of people shooting **** up and leaving dirty needles around. Have a look at "Needle Park", a park in Switzerland where the authorities turned a blind eye to heroin use. Tell me if that's what you'd like the streets to be.

There is no reason that you would have to tolerate that. Just require people to use in private. Hell, the US you can't even drink in public most places.

[Lallante]

Nice try. I'm pointing out that you're shooting yourself in the foot with the argument that smack will be just like ciggies and grog when these legalized drugs are huge social problems.
When you say "nice try" do you mean you will just ignore his question because it shows the underlying flaw in your arguments?

Should alcohol and tobacco be legal? Why should they be treated more favourably than, say, cannabis and ecstasy (which both have vastly lower abuse potential)?


There are already problems with youths carrying knives. So let's scrap the restrictions and say you can carry all the knives you want. If we don't ban it then people won't do it eh?

In what way is this a legitimate argument?


What about the personal freedom of people who don't want to live amongst scores of violent, whacked out, socially useless drug addicts? What about people who don't want to get hit by a driver on crack?

In what way would controlled legalisation make any of these (supposed) problems greater? You are assuming controlled legalisation = vastly greater abuse, when all available evidence shows the opposite (heroin trials in scotland, cannabis in the netherlands etc).


Uh, yeah. The legal drugs are far more abused than the illegal ones.

Yes they are. Educate yourself on this topic before you spew your bile. Niccotine alone accounts for many orders of magnitude more death and cost to society than all recreational illegal drugs put together.


And billions of dollars goes into health care costs of both legal and illegal drugs. This would increase by several magnitudes.
citation? Controlled legalisation is a harm reduction measure. It would see both increased funding for health care AND reduced cost, as evidenced by the results of controlled heroin clinics in scotland.


Thousands and thousands of lives are ruined by the needle. You think you have the right to tell society what they have to tolerate. They have to tolerate violent meth heads. They have to tolerate coke fiends. They have to tolerate streets full of people shooting **** up and leaving dirty needles around. Have a look at "Needle Park", a park in Switzerland where the authorities turned a blind eye to heroin use. Tell me if that's what you'd like the streets to be.

The reason Needle Park is full of druggies is precisely because of prohibition -> they are forced to concentrate there!

[Bikewer]

There has been a lot of talk in the media of late of various legalization/decriminalization schemes mostly as both a money-saving and a tax-generating measure. With state budgets strapped, incarceration and enforcement are both seen as expensive options.

Cheaper "drug courts" and the possibility of legalizing and taxing marijuana are starting to be appealing.
As one in law enforcement for a long time, I can attest that the "drug war" has been spectacularly unsuccessful.
At some point, if we are really serious about trying to control recreational drugs, we must address the root problem of demand.

[Alt+F4]

On the other hand, it is a fact that because of people like you, billions of dollars goes into the hands of ruthless criminals who don't think twice about killing anybody that get's in their way.

My worry is what these ruthless criminals are going to move on to if drugs are decriminalized. They certainly arent going to stop being criminals and since they don't think twice about killing those who get in their way what private company would risk taking them on in drug sales?

[3point14]

My worry is what these ruthless criminals are going to move on to if drugs are decriminalized. They certainly arent going to stop being criminals and since they don't think twice about killing those who get in their way what private company would risk taking them on in drug sales?

A fair point, but they would at least be able to afford fewer guns, bullets and henchmen if the current system didn't provide them with an astonishingly good way of making money.

[dtugg]

My worry is what these ruthless criminals are going to move on to if drugs are decriminalized.

Whatever it would be it certainly would not be as profitable as selling drugs. And less profit, less incentive to be a criminal.

They certainly arent going to stop being criminals and since they don't think twice about killing those who get in their way what private company would risk taking them on in drug sales?

During prohibition in the US, ruthless criminals like Al Capone controlled the distribution and sale of alcohol in the US. After it was repealed, private companies somehow worked up the courage to sell booze.

[Virus]

So you think that companies are going to start selling crystal meth? If a guy buys it and bashes his wife's face in and ends up in a mental institution can he sue the company for damages? Or will you make smack companies legally immune from the massive amounts of damage their product will inevitably cause?

What other products that send people insane should companies start selling?

[dtugg]

So you think that companies are going to start selling crystal meth?

Companies already sell methamphetamine under the brand name Desoxyn.

If a guy buys it and bashes his wife's face in and ends up in a mental institution can he sue the company for damages? Or will you make smack companies legally immune from the massive amounts of damage their product will inevitably cause?

What other products that send people insane should companies start selling?

If a guy buys some alcohol and bashes his wife's face in and ends up in a mental institution can he sue the company for damages?

Anyway, in the US you can sue anybody for anything as long as you pay the filing fee. Winning is a different story. If I were on this hypothetical jury, I wouldn't award this hypothetical guy a dime. If you ask me, if you abuse a drug to the point that you hurt other people and go insane it is nobody's fault but your own.

[Lallante]

At some point, if we are really serious about trying to control recreational drugs, we must address the root problem of demand.

What problem? In what way is demand for drugs a problem?

Abuse of drugs and drug addiction (much like abuse and addiction to painkillers, alcohol, fast-food, television) is a problem. Use of drugs is a recreation.

[Virus]

Companies already sell methamphetamine under the brand name Desoxyn.

So Desoxyn all round? No questions asked? How about benzodiazapine? Free for all on that? What's the point having prescriptions if you can buy PCP over the counter?


If a guy buys some alcohol and bashes his wife's face in and ends up in a mental institution can he sue the company for damages?

So in other words, no. But if I were you, I'd steer clear of alcohol analogies because they don't work in your favor. We know that alcohol is incredibly destructive and you want more of that destruction.


Anyway, in the US you can sue anybody for anything as long as you pay the filing fee. Winning is a different story. If I were on this hypothetical jury, I wouldn't award this hypothetical guy a dime. If you ask me, if you abuse a drug to the point that you hurt other people and go insane it is nobody's fault but your own.

Ok so we'll legalize the sale of things that send people insane, ruin lives and kill people and we'll have a cavalier attitude about it. That should solve everything.

[Lallante]

So Desoxyn all round? No questions asked? How about benzodiazapine? Free for all on that? What's the point having prescriptions if you can buy PCP over the counter?

Straw man. Legalising drugs doesnt mean handing them out indiscriminately.


So in other words, no. But if I were you, I'd steer clear of alcohol analogies because they don't work in your favor. We know that alcohol is incredibly destructive and you want more of that destruction.
Answer the question: do you think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal? How about saturated fat? Opioid pain killers? cars? guns? (easy one) combat knifes? bow-and-arrows? bear traps? poisons of any kind?

Lots of things have the potential for destruction. It isn't societies job to pick a random handful and rule them off limits because of media-stoked and completely disproportionate fears.


Ok so we'll legalize the sale of things that send people insane, ruin lives and kill people and we'll have a cavalier attitude about it. That should solve everything.
Nice rational arguement skills you have there bud. Not at all hysterical straw-man based rhetoric.

[hgc]

I know a retired drug enforcement cop who once told me that pretty much everything he and his colleagues have ever done in their career regarding Drug Prohibition was bunk. He said nothing they did enforcing drug laws ever made a difference.


It made some difference. It gave them a job.

That's why it's so hard to kill the drug war. It's big business. All the billions being spent on this wasted effort is going somewhere. Then there's the asset seizure scam to consider. You can bet that those on the receiving end -- police, prosecutors, defense bar, private prison interests, judiciary -- aren't going to go down without a fight.

Of course, the drug traffickers, for whatever influence they have, need the drug war to sustain a profitable business.

Nice to hear one of them fessing up after retirement, though.

[Virus]

Straw man. Legalising drugs doesnt mean handing them out indiscriminately.

Ok. So there are controls on it. Who gets access to PCP? What are the controls? Doesn't the establishment of controls create the black market?


Answer the question: do you think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal? How about saturated fat? Opioid pain killers? cars? guns? (easy one) combat knifes? bow-and-arrows? bear traps? poisons of any kind?

Sorry. Not letting you bait me with red-herrings.


Lots of things have the potential for destruction. It isn't societies job to pick a random handful and rule them off limits because of media-stoked and completely disproportionate fears.

Ah, so the problems caused by drugs aren't actually real. It's just something the media dreamed up. Actually it is societies job to rule harmful things off-limits.

[Aoidoi]

I can't help but notice that the latest round of celebrity overdoses all seem to have been done using legal drugs.

I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against legalization, honestly. :)

[Bikewer]

By the "problem" of demand I mean that I wonder about the basic reality here. Why do human beings need to intoxicate themselves. Obviously, this has been done by a fairly large segment of the population since the first time Ooog found those pretty mushrooms or that that jar of fruit in the back of the cave had become rather tasty...

Naturally, not everyone "abuses" drugs in that they become addicted; though some drugs are so very addictive that they can become problematic to a very large percentage of folks that try them...(Crack and meth....Among others).
Still...Is it just part and parcel of the human condition that intoxication is attractive? Is depression more widespread among humans than is normally thought to be the case, and are people merely self-medicating. (some public-health authorities think this may be the case)

[bignickel]

But, but, but...

Won't SOMEONE please think of the children?!

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yay excluded middle.

(Seriously, I don't see serious proposals to decriminalize hard drugs, just the "softer' Ones)

[Dr. Keith]

There has been a lot of talk in the media of late of various legalization/decriminalization schemes mostly as both a money-saving and a tax-generating measure. With state budgets strapped, incarceration and enforcement are both seen as expensive options.

Former governor of New Mexico was on Jon Stewart just this week advocating for legalization.

As one in law enforcement for a long time, I can attest that the "drug war" has been spectacularly unsuccessful.

I also heard a rep from LEAP on a podcast recently. Very interesting.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Seems that this could be woven into a conservative platform if you can get past the hysterical.

[Safe-Keeper]

I despise narcotics and the people who produce them as much as the next guy, and I have done real work to help the drug addicts (volunteered at a street magazine publishing house for almost a year recently)... and even I am slowly becoming convinced that legalization is the way to go. I used to look at legalizing marijuana as a stupid hippie thing, but lately I have come to hear actual, well thought-out arguments that go beyond "good, you just, like, gotta legalize weed, maaaan, peace out!".

Look at the impact the legal drugs have on society, tobacco and alcohol. Do you really want crystal meth added to that mess? Do you really want easily obtainable, cheap crack?There was a time when alcohol was outlawed in the USA. This was a time of illegal underground bars, corrupted policemen, huge mafias centred around smuggling and distribution of alcohol, and all the illegal stuff like killings that came as an inevitable result of this large-scale violence. Just as we're currently seeing with narcotics, as it were.

But how much worse could it be if we legalized drugs? Can't take the risk that we would be a society of drugies, and think about what Big Pharma would do.I know that was meant as irony, but I want to answer anyhow.

How much we want "Big Pharma", or, in fact, Big anything, from Organic to Pillows, to be able to do is something we decide upon through regulation. Norway has a state monopoly on the sale of alcoholic beverages with the exception of light stuff like beer; an 18 years age restriction on consumption of both tobacco and alcohol; a ban on cigarette ads, and a range of other measures to keep "Big Alcohol" and "Big Tobacco" in check. I fail to see how "Big Heroin" should be any different.

ETA: Then there's a nice little thing known as "prescriptions". Already we've got the state playing the part of the "drug dealer" (:rolleyes:) in Norway by prescribing Subutex to heavy, long-time users.

Answer the question: do you think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal? How about saturated fat? Opioid pain killers? cars? guns? (easy one) combat knifes? bow-and-arrows? bear traps? poisons of any kind?
Sorry. Not letting you bait me with red-herrings.Why is this a red herring? Sure, the other ones are extreme, but tobacco and cigarettes? You're saying tobacco and alcohol are so prevalent and damaging because they are legal. Why, then, are you not for a nationwide ban on these substances?

[dtugg]

So Desoxyn all round? No questions asked? How about benzodiazapine? Free for all on that? What's the point having prescriptions if you can buy PCP over the counter?

I couldn't care less what other people put in their bodies.

So in other words, no.

What the matter, can't answer a simple question in return? What are you afraid of?

But if I were you, I'd steer clear of alcohol analogies because they don't work in your favor.

Actually they do. Alcohol is legal despite the fact that it is more dangerous than most illegal drugs. And inconsistent hypocrites like you for some reason are not fighting to make alcohol illegal. Presumable simply because you like to drink alcohol but don't like drugs.

We know that alcohol is incredibly destructive and you want more of that destruction.

Actually, I want people like you to stop ruining people's lives over drugs. I want people like you to stop enabling ruthless criminals from making billions of dollars a year selling drugs. I want people like you to stop wasting billions of dollars a year fighting a war that cannot be won. It is a fact that those things are happening because of people like you.

On the other hand your belief that lots more people would abuse drugs is based on nothing. Nodda. Zip.

Ok so we'll legalize the sale of things that send people insane, ruin lives and kill people and we'll have a cavalier attitude about it. That should solve everything.

Who said it would solve everything?

[BeAChooser]

The War on Drugs is Useless

We actually agree on this one. Been saying this for two decades. And the problem is that was the war wasn't fought right ... economically.

[dtugg]

How would the war be fought right?

[BeAChooser]

How would the war be fought right?

Create conditions where the folks trying to make money off of drugs ... can't.

Do this by making the drugs available to those who want/need them at or below what it costs those who want to profit from them to make them.

Decriminalize use under most circumstances.

But make the sale of drugs for profit an offense with a VERY severe penalty.

And finally, properly fund treatment programs.

Prohibition should have taught us a lesson.

[dtugg]

That seems like a reasonable approach.

[WildCat]

How do you guys actually propose legalization to work? Do you want the state to become a dope dealer?

Look at the impact the legal drugs have on society, tobacco and alcohol. Do you really want crystal meth added to that mess? Do you really want easily obtainable, cheap crack?

Sorry, I could get behind legalizing weed but the notion of flooding society with cheap, easily obtainable hard drugs supplied by the government is a stupid idea.
If you give the addicts their hard drugs for free, then the dealers go out of business. With the dealers out of business there's no one to push it on new users. Eventually the problem becomes less and less.

Who's going to go to a government clinic to shoot up heroin for the first time?

[MattusMaximus]

Create conditions where the folks trying to make money off of drugs ... can't.

Do this by making the drugs available to those who want/need them at or below what it costs those who want to profit from them to make them.

Decriminalize use under most circumstances.

But make the sale of drugs for profit an offense with a VERY severe penalty.

And finally, properly fund treatment programs.

Prohibition should have taught us a lesson.

BAC, you and I rarely see eye to eye, but I'm with you on this one :)

[fishbob]

Actually it is societies job to rule harmful things off-limits.

For substances, this has never actually worked. Society needs a better job.

[Virus]

Depends what you consider success Fishbob. 100% eradication of the problem? Then no law has ever worked.

Laws against child abuse aren't working. Children are still being abused. Let's legalize child abuse.

[BenBurch]

Child abuse is not a crime where somebody profits... Makes all the difference here.

Because drug use itself, while not ideal, is nothing compared to the harm that is caused by the laws against it creating an entire criminal apparatus.

What broke Capone's back? Repeal of prohibition. Do you argue, Virus, that we should go back to it?

[dtugg]

Child abuse has victims. Drug use is a victimless crime.

[Virus]

Child abuse is not a crime where somebody profits... Makes all the difference here.

Because drug use itself, while not ideal, is nothing compared to the harm that is caused by the laws against it creating an entire criminal apparatus.

What broke Capone's back? Repeal of prohibition. Do you argue, Virus, that we should go back to it?

There was organized crime before and after prohibition.

[Virus]

Child abuse has victims. Drug use is a victimless crime.

Absolute crap. Driver accidents, violent assaults, sexual assaults, unwanted pregnancy, child neglect. All linked to drug abuse. You think abuse has no effect on families? No effect on employers? Is the sky green where you live?

[dtugg]

There was organized crime before and after prohibition.

Were there gangs wars in Mexico leaving thousands of people dead before drug prohibition?

[Tatyana]

Yes, and and alcohol and ciggies are much more widely abused, cost society much more in damages and fill up the hospital beds much more that crackheads and cause scores more motor accidents.



No it's not sir. You can't just go down to the corner store and buy a baggie of cheap meth or LSD.



But apparently not cheap enough and not easily available enough for you.



Yeah so let's have it that you can buy smack at the tobacconists. Let's make it you can get anabolic steroids over the counter. We'll put them next to the aspirin. Let's increase the number of addicts. Let's increase the number of road accidents. Let's increase the number of people who can't work because they're on smack and putting an increased burden on the health care and welfare systems. That fixes everything.

There have been several trials of giving junkies medical grade heroin and safe shooting galleries, and not only does crime decrease, but so do some of the health related issues, like overdose and infection.

In fact, there is some good evidence this method is more effective in getting people off heroin.

The same with steroids, the problem with them in the US right now is a mess.

It would be far better to have users and addicts being supervised by medical professionals, rather than the bathtub chemistry, illegal labs and illegal trade.

I don't know about you, but having drugs being legal is not going to compel me to become a heroin-injecting, coke sniffing, roid head, and I don't think that the situation would differ than much for others.

[dtugg]

Absolute crap. Driver accidents, violent assaults, sexual assaults, unwanted pregnancy, child neglect. All linked to drug abuse.
You think abuse has no effect on families? No effect on employers? Is the sky green where you live?

Are you actually this dense or are you just pretending? Of course some drug users (and sober people) sometimes hurt others. And when they commit actual crimes with victims they should be prosecuted. But the act of using drugs has no victim. I've used every illegal drug you can think of and plenty that you can't, and not once have I ever hurt anybody as a result. Perhaps you can explain how my sitting at home with some friends getting high hurts anybody? That's a rhetorical question. You, of course, cannot.

And are you in favor of making alcohol illegal because lots of people get drunk and do stupid crap? Do you think that the act of drinking alcohol has victims?

[Tatyana]

So Desoxyn all round? No questions asked? How about benzodiazapine? Free for all on that? What's the point having prescriptions if you can buy PCP over the counter?



So in other words, no. But if I were you, I'd steer clear of alcohol analogies because they don't work in your favor. We know that alcohol is incredibly destructive and you want more of that destruction.



Ok so we'll legalize the sale of things that send people insane, ruin lives and kill people and we'll have a cavalier attitude about it. That should solve everything.

Logical fallacy: Slippery slope and false analogy.

If you want an alcohol analogy, just look at what happened in the only Western country that had prohibition.

[Safe-Keeper]

Depends what you consider success Fishbob. 100% eradication of the problem? Then no law has ever worked.

Laws against child abuse aren't working. Children are still being abused. Let's legalize child abuse.How on earth is that a valid comparison?

[Virus]

Of course some drug users (and sober people) sometimes hurt others. And when they commit actual crimes with victims they should be prosecuted. But the act of using drugs has no victim. I've used every illegal drug you can think of and plenty that you can't, and not once have I ever hurt anybody as a result. Perhaps you can explain how my sitting at home with some friends getting high hurts anybody? That's a rhetorical question. You, of course, cannot.

Getting high on what? Weed? Probably not. But you said legalize the lot. If you sit and home with your friends and do heroin you'll end up with a dependence, you won't be able to hold down a job and society will be forced to subsidize your drug habit.


And are you in favor of making alcohol illegal because lots of people get drunk and do stupid crap?

I told you that proponents of legalization should avoid bringing up alcohol because that gun only points at your foot. Think about all the social problems and costs caused by alcohol abuse then multiply that by at least three. Once for heroin, once for coke, once for meth. That's the most generous projection. That still doesn't take into account all the other drugs you want legalized that are habit forming.


Do you think that the act of drinking alcohol has victims?

A proportion does. Alcohol can be used in moderation to give a mild buzz. People don't use heroin for a mild buzz, they use it to get zonked. The addiction rate for exposure is much higher for drugs like heroin than alcohol. But even taking this into consideration, there is still a huge social cost involved with alcohol.

[dtugg]

Getting high on what? Weed? Probably not. But you said legalize the lot. If you sit and home with your friends and do heroin you'll end up with a dependence, you won't be able to hold down a job and society will be forced to subsidize your drug habit.

I've sat at home with my friends and done heroin. I didn't end up with a dependence and never leached off society. Who did I hurt?

I told you that proponents of legalization should avoid bringing up alcohol because that gun only points at your foot.

No it just show what an inconsistent hypocrite you are. That's why you refuse to answer any questions about it.

Think about all the social problems and costs caused by alcohol abuse then multiply that by at least three. Once for heroin, once for coke, once for meth. That's the most generous projection. That still doesn't take into account all the other drugs you want legalized that are habit forming.

Considering you just pulled those figures out of your ass, your argument is rejected. You have no evidence whatsoever that people would abuse heroin, coke, and meth at significantly higher rates than they do now, nonetheless at rates similar to alcohol.

A proportion does. Alcohol can be used in moderation to give a mild buzz. People don't use heroin for a mild buzz, they use it to get zonked. The addiction rate for exposure is much higher for drugs like heroin than alcohol. But even taking this into consideration, there is still a huge social cost involved with alcohol.

So we should ban alcohol, yes? That would surely solve all the huge social problems associated with it, correct?

[Virus]

I've sat at home with my friends and done heroin. I didn't end up with a dependence and never leached off society. Who did I hurt?

Appeal to personal testimony.



No it just show what an inconsistent hypocrite you are. That's why you refuse to answer any questions about it.

I know when someone is trying to deflect the issue. We're talking about legalizing heroin, coke and meth, not criminalizing alcohol.



Considering you just pulled those figures out of your ass, your argument is rejected. You have no evidence whatsoever that people would abuse heroin, coke, and meth at significantly higher rates than they do now, nonetheless at rates similar to alcohol.

Yeah right. Making drugs risk-free to obtain and cheaper will not increase the number of users. Talk about faith-based initiatives.

[Lallante]

By the "problem" of demand I mean that I wonder about the basic reality here. Why do human beings need to intoxicate themselves. Obviously, this has been done by a fairly large segment of the population since the first time Ooog found those pretty mushrooms or that that jar of fruit in the back of the cave had become rather tasty...

Naturally, not everyone "abuses" drugs in that they become addicted; though some drugs are so very addictive that they can become problematic to a very large percentage of folks that try them...(Crack and meth....Among others).
Still...Is it just part and parcel of the human condition that intoxication is attractive? Is depression more widespread among humans than is normally thought to be the case, and are people merely self-medicating. (some public-health authorities think this may be the case)

People only ask this question if they have never had a profound hallucinogenic experience.

The question is no more insightful than "why do we listen to music?" or "why do we play games?" or "why do we debate subjects on internet forums?".

[Amazer]

Getting high on what? Weed? Probably not. But you said legalize the lot. If you sit and home with your friends and do heroin you'll end up with a dependence, you won't be able to hold down a job and society will be forced to subsidize your drug habit.
For one, people with a dependence on heroin are just as much sitting at home, unable to hold jobs in your current system.
Society is already subsidizing their drug habit. It's just that the source of funding changes to an extent.

I have to say that this line of reasoning is silly. You are just pretending that the cost you mentioned aren't paid in the current system.

I told you that proponents of legalization should avoid bringing up alcohol because that gun only points at your foot. Think about all the social problems and costs caused by alcohol abuse then multiply that by at least three. Once for heroin, once for coke, once for meth. That's the most generous projection. That still doesn't take into account all the other drugs you want legalized that are habit forming.

A proportion does. Alcohol can be used in moderation to give a mild buzz. People don't use heroin for a mild buzz, they use it to get zonked. The addiction rate for exposure is much higher for drugs like heroin than alcohol. But even taking this into consideration, there is still a huge social cost involved with alcohol.
So why aren't you fighting to have alcohol and tobacco banned as well?

In addition I'd like to point out you are assuming that the number of drug users would actually increase if all drugs were legalized. Would you care to back that assumption up with some studies? Because for all I know you are pulling those assumptions from somewhere unpleasant.

[dtugg]

Appeal to personal testimony.

I'll take that as an acknowledgment that I hurt exactly nobody by using heroin and that there is no legitimate reason for it to be a crime.

I know when someone is trying to deflect the issue. We're talking about legalizing heroin, coke and meth, not criminalizing alcohol.

No. You know that you cannot answer the question without being a inconsistent hypocrite so you chose to not answer it at all.

Yeah right. Making drugs risk-free to obtain and cheaper will not increase the number of users. Talk about faith-based initiatives.

It's not my fault that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claims.

[Lallante]

There are a lot of people in this thread with very little exposure to or understanding of drug culture. Drug use is not a problem, Drug abuse (like abuse of anything else in society) is a problem. At the moment the government has no tool to distinguish between the two or discourage the latter.

Legality has no real effect on whether someone who wants to take drugs will or wont, except in terms of ease of access.

Getting 'caught' is not a significant risk for most sensible casual users (which make up the vast majority of all drug users). Legalisation wont suddenly create more users.

If anything, selective legalisation will drive people away from the remaining illegal drugs that are substitutes for the legal ones (for example, see 2009s MDMA -> Mephedrone exodus).

Thus intelligent, selective legalisation combined with government run 'shops' will generate tax, reduce use of remaining illegal drugs, allow purity and dosage to be controlled and monitored, and generally allow huge harm reduction.

[Bikewer]

Lallante:
I would imagine that the percentage of folks who have had a "profound hallucinatory experience" would be rather tiny compared to the numbers of individuals who "just want to get high" to excape for some period their life's problems.
Most of the people I encounter who are drug users are far from thoughtful folks seeking transcendent experiences...They are addicts seeking to steal enough to get another hit of rock.
We know that some folks are far more susceptible to addiction than others, and that certain drugs are powerfully effective in that regard. There are folks who manage to "chip" heroin for years without ever becoming addicted.
There are folks who take a single hit of crack and are on the road down....

Over the years, I've known many users of various substances. To the question, "why do you...." (insert substance of choice here) The reply is often, "to get through the day."

This is incomprehensible to me, since I frequently find that there is not enough hours in the day to do all the things I want to do. However, it's obviously compelling to many.

[DC]

Create conditions where the folks trying to make money off of drugs ... can't.

Do this by making the drugs available to those who want/need them at or below what it costs those who want to profit from them to make them.

Decriminalize use under most circumstances.

But make the sale of drugs for profit an offense with a VERY severe penalty.

And finally, properly fund treatment programs.

Prohibition should have taught us a lesson.

Socialised Drugdealing?

[nvidiot]

If the rates of use of drugs is the defining factor in the success or failure of drugs policy, then prohibition is an abject failure.

If the rates of problem use amongst users is the defining factor in the success or failure of drugs policy, then prohibition is an abject failure.

If the reduction in deaths amongst users from incorrect or dangerous usage methods is the defining factore in the success or failure of drugs policy, then prohibition is an abject failure.

In all three of those measures, a prohibitionary (and inconsistent) drugs policy can be shown to increase drug usage rates particularly amongst minors, increase problem use rates amongst those who use, and increase the death rates amongst those who consume them. All these figures are lower under a regulated legalisation policy for alcohol. Why should we treat any other recreational drug any different?

You can't argue that recreational drugs are more harmful than alcohol, because they're not. (note quality control, another failure not of drug use but of prohibition here) You can't argue that recreational drugs are less likely to be used under prohbition because nations which have relaxed these policies have lower use and problem use rates. You can't argue that prohibition is in any way a successful policy to reduce either the use rate of drugs in society and by individuals, that it makes it safer for society or individuals, or that it has helped to reduce incidental crime associated with the inevitable black market supply of these substances.

So what do you have to argue with?

[nvidiot]

Oh, and @ Bikewear:

The statistics on rates of use and numbers of users and their occupations would tend to disagree with you. Just because someone wears a suit and works 9-5 with a mortgage and two kids doesn't mean that if they use drugs they're necessarily going to become even a problem user let alone an addict.

I suggest if anyone is actually interested in challenging their preconceptions and ideas about drug policy should look up a very well reasoned (pun intended) book by Jacob Sullum, called Saying Yes: In Defence of Drug Use.

The only reasonable argument I've ever heard for maintaining the status quo is that the inevitable pricing drops that would come with a return to legalised drugs would have a severe economic impact due to lost revenues and taxes. Let's face it, there's a heck of a lot of money sloshing around in the black market as a result of prohibition, and it doesn't cost much more to produce an ounce of cannabis compared to an ounce of tobacco. That's not to say I necessarily find this argument compelling, as the gains in social welfare and savings for policing expenditure would outweigh any temporary macro-economic shift caused by the reduction in price for legalised and regulated drugs.

[dtugg]

The only reasonable argument I've ever heard for maintaining the status quo is that the inevitable pricing drops that would come with a return to legalised drugs would have a severe economic impact due to lost revenues and taxes. Let's face it, there's a heck of a lot of money sloshing around in the black market as a result of prohibition, and it doesn't cost much more to produce an ounce of cannabis compared to an ounce of tobacco. That's not to say I necessarily find this argument compelling, as the gains in social welfare and savings for policing expenditure would outweigh any temporary macro-economic shift caused by the reduction in price for legalised and regulated drugs.

A lot of (most?) of that money goes south of the border. I am sure that the loss of drug money would depress the economy there. But I am also sure that your average Mexican would happily put up with that in order to stop the drug wars.

Drug cartels are, of course, about the last people on earth who would want the end of drug prohibition. They would lose billions every year.

Prohibitionists, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, Mexico's most powerful drug lord would like to thank you for making and keeping drugs illegal in the USA. Thanks to you he is one of the richest and most powerful people in the world (he is on the Forbes list for both). Who knows how many people he has killed to get there.

[nvidiot]

A lot of (most?) of that money goes south of the border. I am sure that the loss of drug money would depress the economy there. But I am also sure that your average Mexican would happily put up with that in order to stop the drug wars.

This could be true for the US, but I wouldn't put it at "most" of the money, I would suggest the markup and distribution costs would result in the larger portion of the money spent on drugs and drug distribution would remain the country of intended destination.

Countries like Australia would see distinctly different effects in the case of cannabis. Most of it is locally produced, with little being imported the economic impacts of a legal and regulated market would be larger. Other drugs like amphetamines and ecstacy require components not easily sourced here, and so are largely imported whole or manufactured locally from wholly imported ingredients. (geez that sounds like a label from a soup can)

The following link is a good try at quantifying some of the costs of the current regeime and proposes some alternative solutions.


http://adlrf.org.au/global-drug-prohibition-costs-consequences-and-alternatives/ (http://adlrf.org.au/global-drug-prohibition-costs-consequences-and-alternatives/)

[Safe-Keeper]

Getting high on what? Weed? Probably not. But you said legalize the lot. If you sit and home with your friends and do heroin you'll end up with a dependence, you won't be able to hold down a job and society will be forced to subsidize your drug habit.This is the kind of scare-mongering that I just loathe. What do people gain from going around telling this to each others and teens?

[Alt+F4]

Drug cartels are, of course, about the last people on earth who would want the end of drug prohibition. They would lose billions every year.

Add to that American weapons manufactuers. I believe that Mexican drug cartels get 95% of their guns from the U.S.

[dtugg]

Add to that American weapons manufactuers. I believe that Mexican drug cartels get 95% of their guns from the U.S.

Source?

[Alt+F4]

Source?

Ooops, sorry about that:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4695848&page=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html

[roger]

Most of the people I encounter who are drug users are far from thoughtful folks seeking transcendent experiences...They are addicts seeking to steal enough to get another hit of rockThat's because you are a cop. You run into the people at the margins of society. You cannot conclude from that that everyone is at the margins of society.

edit: think about it. If alcohol was still illegal, everybody would be hiding their use from you, too. The only users you would run into would be the drunks on the road, the ones getting into domestic conflicts, etc. The chronic abusers (no pun intended). It would be unreasonable to conclude that every drinker is a drunk driver and spouse abuser, even through that's all you ever witnessed.

[dtugg]

Ooops, sorry about that:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4695848&page=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html

According to factcheck.org, (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/index.html) there is no solid basis for those claims. Basically, the 90% is only from guns given to the ATF to check. It is not surprising that most of the guns given to an American law enforcement agency to check came from America. But there is no reason to believe that this number is representative of all the illegal guns in Mexico.

[Alt+F4]

But the act of using drugs has no victim.

I think there is a victim, many victims....in Mexico. The U.S.'s insatiable desire for drugs is what fuels the thousands of senseless murders in Mexico each year.

I don't use illegal drugs for the same reason I don't shop at Walmart, I don't like how the supplier treats those that manufacture the product.

[dtugg]

I think there is a victim, many victims....in Mexico. The U.S.'s insatiable desire for drugs is what fuels the thousands of senseless murders in Mexico each year.

I don't use illegal drugs for the same reason I don't shop at Walmart, I don't like how the supplier treats those that manufacture the product.

You have a point. Of course, if it were not for the moral crusaders who made and keep drugs illegal, this would be a non-issue.

[Alt+F4]

According to factcheck.org, (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/index.html) there is no solid basis for those claims. Basically, the 90% is only from guns given to the ATF to check. It is not surprising that most of the guns given to an American law enforcement agency to check came from America. But there is no reason to believe that this number is representative of all the illegal guns in Mexico.

Ok, I'll go with this quote from the factcheck article:

Whether the number is 90 percent, or 36 percent, or something else, there’s no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegalIy transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.

Anyway, my point was that it's that it's not just the Mexican cartels that don't want an end to the drug war, it's the gun industry in the U.S. too.

[nvidiot]

@ alt-f4

Is that really your reason for not using illegal drugs? If these drugs were produced and manufactured under a legal and regulated environment would you take them?

If you could produce your own legally would you?

[Tatyana]

For one, people with a dependence on heroin are just as much sitting at home, unable to hold jobs in your current system.
Society is already subsidizing their drug habit. It's just that the source of funding changes to an extent.



One of my GPs was running a methodone clinic for both coccaine and heroin addicts, and it was really surprising to see who the addicts were.

The clinic was surrounded with Mercedes, BMWs and other such expensive cars, not the down and outs that I expected.

Heroin is a funny drug, if people have access to medical grade heroin, they can remain quite high functioning in society.

[Alt+F4]

@ alt-f4

Is that really your reason for not using illegal drugs?

Yes, I can't say that I make all my decision this way but if not using legal drugs might stop an innocent child from being murdered in Juarez then why not? I don't feel the same way when I don't recycle every can.

If these drugs were produced and manufactured under a legal and regulated environment would you take them?

I might, but it's such a hypothetical I really can't say. Do you mean producing herion and cocaine in the United States or importing it?

If you could produce your own legally would you?

No, I'm not that handy and would probably end up killing myself.

[dtugg]

Of course, buying illegal drugs does not necessarily mean supporting Mexican drug cartels.

Cocaine - Almost certainly comes to the US via Mexico.
Heroin - Good chance. A lot of it comes from Mexico but it is imported from other places also. I believe Mexican heroin is almost exclusively black tar.
Methamphetamine - Good chance. A lot of it comes from superlabs in Mexico. It is also produced domestically, however.
Weed - Maybe. But the good weed is generally grown in the US or Canada.

Mexican drug cartels will almost certainly have nothing to do with other illegal drugs like MDMA and LSD.

[WildCat]

Ooops, sorry about that:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4695848&page=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html
And then they show pictures of automatic rifles equipped with grenade launchers, and machine guns.

None of which likely came from a US gun show.

Want to know where those guns come from? Corruption in the Mexican army and police.

[Lallante]

Lallante:
I would imagine that the percentage of folks who have had a "profound hallucinatory experience" would be rather tiny compared to the numbers of individuals who "just want to get high" to excape for some period their life's problems.
Most of the people I encounter who are drug users are far from thoughtful folks seeking transcendent experiences...They are addicts seeking to steal enough to get another hit of rock.
We know that some folks are far more susceptible to addiction than others, and that certain drugs are powerfully effective in that regard. There are folks who manage to "chip" heroin for years without ever becoming addicted.
There are folks who take a single hit of crack and are on the road down....

Over the years, I've known many users of various substances. To the question, "why do you...." (insert substance of choice here) The reply is often, "to get through the day."

This is incomprehensible to me, since I frequently find that there is not enough hours in the day to do all the things I want to do. However, it's obviously compelling to many.

You move in the wrong circles then.

I assure you there are orders of magnitude more casual, healthy users than there are abusers. You probably even know some casual hard-drug users. Obviously they don't like to broadcast that fact to non-users, particularly ones with strong and closed views on the subject such as yourself.

[tyr_13]

Of course, buying illegal drugs does not necessarily mean supporting Mexican drug cartels.

Cocaine - Almost certainly comes to the US via Mexico.
Heroin - Good chance. A lot of it comes from Mexico but it is imported from other places also. I believe Mexican heroin is almost exclusively black tar.
Methamphetamine - Good chance. A lot of it comes from superlabs in Mexico. It is also produced domestically, however.
Weed - Maybe. But the good weed is generally grown in the US or Canada.

Mexican drug cartels will almost certainly have nothing to do with other illegal drugs like MDMA and LSD.

Weed grows wild around here. There is a lot of drug use in the local city, but exceedingly little gang violence. The only trouble usually comes from prescription drug, crack, and heroin users crashing cars, breaking into houses, and trying to run down cops with their cars.

I'm not even joking about that last one. In the most recent indecent the cops just shot him four times in the jaw and he gave up.

[tyr_13]

And then they show pictures of automatic rifles equipped with grenade launchers, and machine guns.

None of which likely came from a US gun show.

Want to know where those guns come from? Corruption in the Mexican army and police.

I always laugh when they show all the 'American guns' that are killing people in Mexico, and then show a bunch of AK-47. Also, the 'American made cop killer' handguns that blow through body armor, and they show the FN-FiveseveN from Belgium.

[WildCat]

Weed grows wild around here. There is a lot of drug use in the local city, but exceedingly little gang violence. The only trouble usually comes from prescription drug, crack, and heroin users crashing cars, breaking into houses, and trying to run down cops with their cars.

I'm not even joking about that last one. In the most recent indecent the cops just shot him four times in the jaw and he gave up.
4 times in the jaw? That's a pretty tight group for a target inside a moving car!

[tyr_13]

4 times in the jaw? That's a pretty tight group for a target inside a moving car!

They waited for him to ram a cop car and the officers outside the vehicle shot him through the open driver's side window from about twenty feet away. Still, a nice group.

[Alt+F4]

I always laugh when they show all the 'American guns' that are killing people in Mexico, and then show a bunch of AK-47. Also, the 'American made cop killer' handguns that blow through body armor, and they show the FN-FiveseveN from Belgium.

I understand that these two weapons are not manufactured in the United States but can't they be purchased in the U.S., legally or illegally?

[WildCat]

Also, the 'American made cop killer' handguns that blow through body armor, and they show the FN-FiveseveN from Belgium.
I'm extremely skeptical that a 5.7x28mm round can penetrate police body armor. Especially when fired from a pistol.

It's not a particularly powerful cartridge.

[tyr_13]

I understand that these two weapons are not manufactured in the United States but can't they be purchased in the U.S., legally or illegally?

Yes, just as they can be in Mexico. It isn't that the US gun market is remarkably corrupt, but that the US is next to Mexico.


I'm extremely skeptical that a 5.7x28mm round can penetrate police body armor. Especially when fired from a pistol.

It's not a particularly powerful cartridge.

I'm a big fan of that handgun, and that round. I'm also skeptical that it will penetrate police body armor, especially the civilian available rounds.

[Bikewer]

Lallante:

I'm a cop. Have been for 40 years. So...Yeah, I move in the "wrong circles". We arrest those folks I was talking about on a constant and repeating basis.

Having been around as long as I have....

Starting in police work in 1968, we had a chief of the narcotics bureau who was convinced that weed was "destroying the fabric of America" and who would write long polemics in that regard.
No one had the heart to tell him that a fairly substantial percentage of the police officers were dope-smokers.... Usually, the guys would tell you they smoked so that they "wouldn't drink"...The perils of alcohol being well known.

I'm well aware that there are many who use drugs recreationally and don't have any particular problem with them...Known many.
As to what percentage of folks who do this is in relation to the sorts of individuals I deal with on the street....I wouldn't have a clue.
We do see a lot of ruined lives as a result of drugs and the drug trade.

As to my "closed mind"...If you had any history of reading my posts on this subject you'd see that I consider the "war on drugs" to be an utter failure and a waste of money and effort.
Personally, at my age, I do not see the attraction of intoxication of any sort. Got stoned exactly once...Didn't care for the experience. Never tried any hallucinogens, don't care to. I find my unaltered "little gray cells" to be quite creative on their own.

[McHrozni]

Child abuse is not a crime where somebody profits... Makes all the difference here.

Child porn is a form of child abuse and a crime where somebody profits, plus it hasn't been weeded out, despite ferocious efforts.

Shall we legalize that as well?

McHrozni

[Alt+F4]

Yes, just as they can be in Mexico. It isn't that the US gun market is remarkably corrupt, but that the US is next to Mexico.

It's my understanding that Mexico has quite strict gun control laws. Yes, why would murderous drug criminals respect Mexican law? I don't think they would but since it's very hard for civilians to get guns legally in Mexico I would think the supply would be low, thus turn to the United States.

As you said, the U.S. is next to Mexico. It makes more sense for the drug cartels to be getting weapons from their nearest neighbor rather than having them imported from say Russia.

[McHrozni]

Add to that American weapons manufactuers. I believe that Mexican drug cartels get 95% of their guns from the U.S.

I doubt eventual sales to Mexican drug mafia amount to a significant percentage of sales. There are about 4.4 million guns produced in the US every year.

McHrozni

[Alt+F4]

I doubt eventual sales to Mexican drug mafia amount to a significant percentage of sales. There are about 4.4 million guns produced in the US every year.

McHrozni

I should have rewritten that. I meant to say American gun sellers, not American gun manufacturers.

[geni]

Do this by making the drugs available to those who want/need them at or below what it costs those who want to profit from them to make them.

Your problem here is LSD. The active dose is so low that you would probably have to pretty much give it away to make this viable. A couple of competenent Phd chemists could pump out enough of the stuff to keep the planet happy.

[Safe-Keeper]

Child porn is a form of child abuse and a crime where somebody profits, plus it hasn't been weeded out, despite ferocious efforts.

Shall we legalize that as well?

McHrozniNo. Next question?

[Virus]

Prohibitionists, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, Mexico's most powerful drug lord would like to thank you for making and keeping drugs illegal in the USA. Thanks to you he is one of the richest and most powerful people in the world (he is on the Forbes list for both). Who knows how many people he has killed to get there.

Knock it off with your self-righteous prattle dtugg. You admitted to using every piece of gear under the sun with your druggie friends. You admitted to buying their product. You put that money in their hands because you felt like zonking your neurons. You're the one that created the demand for their product. Now you've got the audacity to tell others that the cartels are their fault? Here's an idea; take responsibility for your actions before blaming everyone else.

[McHrozni]

I should have rewritten that. I meant to say American gun sellers, not American gun manufacturers.

That's a lot better, but how much influence do they hold on the decisions of the US government?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

No. Next question?

What are the key differences between these two bans? I probably should remind you that the post I quoted said "nobody profits" made "all the difference".

McHrozni

[WildCat]

What are the key differences between these two bans?
A victim.

[portlandatheist]

Homicide Rates per 100,000

The ten years Prohibition Prohibition
preceeding begins 1920 ends 1933
Prohibition

1910 - 4.6 1920 - 6.8 1933 - 9.7
1911 - 5.5 1921 - 8.1 1934 - 9.5
1912 - 5.4 1922 - 8.0 1935 - 8.3
1913 - 6.1 1923 - 7.8 1936 - 8.0
1914 - 6.2 1924 - 8.1 1937 - 7.6
1915 - 5.9 1925 - 8.3 1938 - 6.8
1916 - 6.3 1926 - 8.4 1939 - 6.4
1917 - 6.9 1927 - 8.4 1940 - 6.3
1918 - 6.5 1928 - 8.6 1941 - 6.0
1919 - 7.2 1929 - 8.4 1942 - 5.9
1930 - 8.8 1943 - 5.1
1931 - 9.2 1944 - 5.0
1932 - 9.0
Prohibition increases crime and has other negative impacts on the community. Can you imagine what would happen to the homicide rates of Juarez Mexico if we changed our drug policy? Not to mention the overall quality of life?

[Safe-Keeper]

What are the key differences between these two bans?Child pornography is the distribution of imagery of abused children. This is simply a disgusting practice, and neither government nor private actors have any business doing it. None of the problems revolving around child porn would be solved by its legalization.

The ban on alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, on the other hand, causes a whole range of societal ills that do go away when/if it's legalized, as we saw during the prohibition era.

[dtugg]

Knock it off with your self-righteous prattle dtugg. You admitted to using every piece of gear under the sun with your druggie friends. You admitted to buying their product. You put that money in their hands because you felt like zonking your neurons. You're the one that created the demand for their product. Now you've got the audacity to tell others that the cartels are their fault? Here's an idea; take responsibility for your actions before blaming everyone else.

We share some of the blame too. I don't use illegal drugs anymore and when I did, it was rarely drugs that came from the Mexican cartels.

But it is also a fact that if it were not for moral crusaders like you who feel they have the right to tell others what the can and cannot do with their own bodies, pieces of crap like Guzman could not make billions of dollars selling drugs and wouldn't be killing people to protect their trade. Yes, the same would be true if not for the demand for illegal drugs. But the demand is clearly not going to disappear. So we have a choice. We can let murderous thugs like Guzman makes billions of dollars a year meeting that demand, which you apparently want to do. Or we could do the sensible thing and let adults do with their own bodies as they please.

[BeAChooser]

Your problem here is LSD.

It's not a problem because LSD is not addictive.

[BeAChooser]

There was organized crime before and after prohibition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States


Mafia groups limited their activities to gambling and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging manifested in response to the effect of Prohibition. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle.


http://hubpages.com/hub/Prohibitions-Boost-to-Organized-Crime


“The onset of Prohibition unleashed an unsurpassed level of criminal violence, and violence is the specialty of the gangs” (Abadinksky, 2003, p. 67). Prohibition provided opportunities for gangs to grow into organized crime empires and “led to a new level of criminal organization” (Abadinksky, 2003, p. 67). Prohibition acted as a catalyst for the growth of organized crime by providing an illegal structure for organized crime to generate revenue while denying the government tax revenue on alcohol.

… snip ...

Prohibition resulted in a significant loss in government revenue. “From 1919 to 1929, federal tax revenues from distilled spirits dropped from $365 million to less than $13 million, and revenue from fermented liquors from $117 million to virtually nothing” (Blocker, 2006, p. 236). The “cost of enforcing prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers” . Prohibition’s attempt to clean up America resulted in significant revenue loss for the government and significant revenue gain for organized crime.

… snip ...

The government finally realized prohibition was ineffective and only resulted in an increase in organized crime, a decrease in government revenue, and numerous health problems as a result of unregulated alcohol manufacturing practices. “The conclusive proof of Prohibition’s failure is, of course, the fact that the Eighteenth Amendment became the only constitutional amendment to be repealed” (Blocker, 2006, p. 233).

[geni]

It's not a problem because LSD is not addictive.

That doesn't mean that there are not a fair number of people out there who want it.

[dtugg]

I love LSD.

[Beth]

Wow. Great thread so far! Some good points on both sides. It's been a while since I've given this issue much thought. I am generally in favor of legalization, but I also favor a rather strictly regulated environment rather than the libertarian vision of no prescriptions required.

Among the things that are impacting my opinion, there's a trial going on in my local area about a "pill mill" clinic that is associated with a very high number of overdose deaths. You can access details about the trial here:

http://pd.kansas.com/sp?aff=1100&keywords=Schneider&submit.x=17&submit.y=11&submit=Search

I don't know any more about this that what I read in the papers and on the web about it. If the trial stories are true, then this couple deserves to go to jail for a long time IMO. I want legalization, but I want the same sort of review and regulation of providers as we currently have on pharmaceuticals, not the sort we have on alcohol and tobacco. I certainly don't want to see any less regulation of these sorts of potentially lethal and addictive substances.

If people are able to function, hold down their responsibilities, then I don't have a problem with recreational use. But we need providers that will listen when their loved ones ask the doctor not to prescribe those medications anymore.

There was organized crime before and after prohibition.

The less harm argument for legalization is pretty persuasive to me. portlandatheist kindly posted the homicide rates by year for 1910 through 1944. Homicide Rates per 100,000
Thanks for the numbers. Can you provide a cite? I find that a picture is better than a thousand numbers. I thought it would also be interesting to overlay economic statistics on this chart as well. I've attached a file with a graph that also includes economic indicators for the US. I only found data back to 1929 at Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov/index.htm). I've attached a file with a graph, but I can't seem to make it display. If someone can tell me the instruction to display it, I will.

There’s clearly an interesting inverse correlation between the GDP and the homicide rate from 1929 on. It has a correlation coefficient of -0.84.

In addition, I notice that the GDP began an upward climb in 1934, just after prohibition was lifted. I think this adds support to the argument that legalization is an effective strategy for harm reduction.

All in all, I find this to be fairly compelling evidence that legalization of other drugs could lead to harm reduction for our current society. Correlation is not causation, but it is an indication of a relationship between the two variables. Clearly the homicide rate and the economy are linked. It's possible that the economy was negatively impacted by prohibition and positive impacted by it's repeal.

Child abuse has victims. Drug use is a victimless crime.

I think drug abuse has victims, but victims in the sense that adultery and prostitution have victims and not the way that child abuse has victims. I think these recreational activities are more appropriately classed as ‘sins’ (please ignore the religious connotations, I’m thinking of the social connotations) than ‘crimes’. I do think that there are some similarities with child abuse; specifically, child abuse is also an area where we should focus public policy on harm reduction rather than punishment of offenders.

There have been several trials of giving junkies medical grade heroin and safe shooting galleries, and not only does crime decrease, but so do some of the health related issues, like overdose and infection.

In fact, there is some good evidence this method is more effective in getting people off heroin.
I find this a powerful argument for legalization as well.

It would be far better to have users and addicts being supervised by medical professionals, rather than the bathtub chemistry, illegal labs and illegal trade. If they are held to the current standards of good practice, such as the sort of standards that the Schneiders (see link above) are being prosecuted for failing to uphold, I agree with this as well.

I don't know about you, but having drugs being legal is not going to compel me to become a heroin-injecting, coke sniffing, roid head, and I don't think that the situation would differ than much for others.

While I agree that it wouldn’t be a huge immediate upsurge, I do think there is a problem with an increase in addiction. Legalization makes it more culturally acceptable. With cultural acceptance, the closet users come out in the open and that openness influences others. I don’t see this increase as being sufficient to justify continued prohibition, but I do think it needs to be acknowledged. More people will try them and thus, more people will eventually become problem drug abusers.

Do you think that the act of drinking alcohol has victims?

The act of drinking alcohol? No. But I think that alcoholism has many. Prohibition of alcohol is one method that many cultures have used to attempt to prevent those tragedies. Such policies only appear to be successful in regimes of such repressiveness that I’d rather live in an open society and deal with the problems of alcoholism. I support legalization of drugs for the same reason I think it's best to keep alcohol and tobacco legal.

Child porn is a form of child abuse and a crime where somebody profits, plus it hasn't been weeded out, despite ferocious efforts.

Shall we legalize that as well?

McHrozni
Child pornography is the distribution of imagery of abused children. This is simply a disgusting practice, and neither government nor private actors have any business doing it. None of the problems revolving around child porn would be solved by its legalization.

It’s a bit off tangent, but my understanding is that current laws against child-porn make images created without using children illegal – i.e. drawings, photoshopping, etc. There’s no victim in that case.

I am undecided about whether or not it’s reasonable that owning and distributing material of that sort should be a crime. I’d like to hear others opinions on that.

Knock it off with your self-righteous prattle dtugg. You admitted to using every piece of gear under the sun with your druggie friends. You admitted to buying their product. You put that money in their hands because you felt like zonking your neurons. You're the one that created the demand for their product. Now you've got the audacity to tell others that the cartels are their fault? Here's an idea; take responsibility for your actions before blaming everyone else.

This is a very weak argument in my opinion. I agree that purchasing illegal drugs contributes to perpetuating the crime-ridden system that supplies them. Just as purchasing gasoline is contributing to the global-warming problem that we all face. Some people take that responsibility seriously enough to live a lifestyle off the grid. Some people bike to work. Most of us find the costs of doing so too high. I think you and they are right about being anyone participating in those activities are also responsible in some small way for the problems.

The problem I have with these arguments is that social problems like these are not going to be solved by a voluntary change in behavior when that change has a large cost to the individual and the benefit is distributed across time and society.

I think social policy should focus on effective harm reduction with regard to recreational drug use and addiction. Right now, the most effective policy for achieving that goal appears to me to be legalization with strict oversight of providers and users of potentially lethal drugs.

[BeAChooser]

That doesn't mean that there are not a fair number of people out there who want it.

Oh? What percentage of the people? Bottom line is that it's not addictive, so it will become more than a minor nuisance. And as you said, it's really easy and cheap to make. So noone is going to make big money off it. Ever. It isn't going to be corrupting governments or financing terrorism. Ever.

[BeAChooser]

The less harm argument for legalization is pretty persuasive to me.

Speaking of harm ...

1. Banning drugs has caused the substances in question to become more valuable ... so valuable that people are willing to kill in order to make/distribute/sell them and so valuable that people must often commit crimes to pay for their use.

2. Banning them has led to more deaths than the drugs would ever have caused due to actual use (tens of thousands of innocents have died in Columbia alone and many, many thousands die in drug-distribution related bloodshed here in the US each year).

3. Banning them has resulted in the transfer of TRILLIONS of dollars to the most despicable people in the world and in so doing destroyed the financial foundations of the cities and groups those dollars came from. Those TRILLIONS have been used to undermine OUR political system and been the seed money for other illegal activities.

4. Banning them has caused growing numbers of people (especially our youth) to disrespect our legal and judicial system in other regards.

5. Banning them has empowered the gangs that now infest and terrorize many of our cities.

6. Banning them has caused governments (including our own) to usurp the rights of those not involved in any way in the drug trade ... to significantly erode our freedoms and property rights.

7. Banning them has led to corruption in our legal, judicial and political systems ... so much so that even past and present Presidents are now implicated.

8. Banning them has caused the political systems of neighboring and producing countries to be corrupted and increasingly unstable.

9. Banning them has provided a mechanism for terrorists and groups like the KLA and CIA to fund themselves.

10. Banning them has made it more difficult (and risky) for those who want treatment, to get it.

[portlandatheist]

Speaking of harm ...

1. Banning drugs has caused the substances in question to become more valuable ... so valuable that people are willing to kill in order to make/distribute/sell them and so valuable that people must often commit crimes to pay for their use.

2. Banning them has led to more deaths than the drugs would ever have caused due to actual use (tens of thousands of innocents have died in Columbia alone and many, many thousands die in drug-distribution related bloodshed here in the US each year).

3. Banning them has resulted in the transfer of TRILLIONS of dollars to the most despicable people in the world and in so doing destroyed the financial foundations of the cities and groups those dollars came from. Those TRILLIONS have been used to undermine OUR political system and been the seed money for other illegal activities.

4. Banning them has caused growing numbers of people (especially our youth) to disrespect our legal and judicial system in other regards.

5. Banning them has empowered the gangs that now infest and terrorize many of our cities.

6. Banning them has caused governments (including our own) to usurp the rights of those not involved in any way in the drug trade ... to significantly erode our freedoms and property rights.

7. Banning them has led to corruption in our legal, judicial and political systems ... so much so that even past and present Presidents are now implicated.

8. Banning them has caused the political systems of neighboring and producing countries to be corrupted and increasingly unstable.

9. Banning them has provided a mechanism for terrorists and groups like the KLA and CIA to fund themselves.

10. Banning them has made it more difficult (and risky) for those who want treatment, to get it.

All great points BAC and to put things in perspective, Mexico is more violent than Iraq right now and the plague of corruption in Afghanistan is partially due to the drug trade. I especially like your fourth point. The law is unenforceable, unjust and unequally enforced breeding contempt for the law in general which I think is tragic. The war on drugs isn't a metaphor, its real and like any war, many innocent people are being killed as a result.

[portlandatheist]

Thanks for the numbers. Can you provide a cite?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

[Virus]

The less harm argument for legalization is pretty persuasive to me.

You must be pretty easily persuaded then. In fact I feel as though I've wandered into a thread full of anarchists given the amount of terminal naivety.

One legalized drug; alcohol, kills 75,000 people a year in the US. It's the third leading cause of death. How about America's other favorite legalized drug? Cigarettes kill 440,000 people a year. It's the leading cause of preventable death. The Mexican drug war killed 10,000 in three years. How many gang-related deaths are there in America every year? Anyone wanna take a shot at that? Just take a guess, is it more or less than 500,000? Need another hint? There's 16,000 murders total every year in the US. So drug related murders are a fraction of that.

So given that legal drugs are the leading cause of death let's turn the government into a nationalized drug cartel to dispense even harder gear that's even more addictive. Good one. If we make hard drugs freely available and cheaper then less people will use them. Sure they will. On Planet X where economic laws run in reverse.


Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/04/over-10000-dead-mexican-drug-war-violence-ebbing
http://www.med.upenn.edu/cirna/pdf/USA_Figures.pdf

[dtugg]

You must be pretty easily persuaded then. In fact I feel as though I've wandered into a thread full of anarchists given the amount of terminal naivety.

One legalized drug; alcohol, kills 75,000 people a year in the US. It's the third leading cause of death. How about America's other favorite legalized drug? Cigarettes kill 440,000 people a year. It's the leading cause of preventable death. The Mexican drug war killed 10,000 in three years. How many gang-related deaths are there in America every year? Anyone wanna take a shot at that?

So given that legal drugs are the leading cause of death let's turn the government into a nationalized drug cartel to dispense even harder gear that's even more addictive. Good one. If we make hard drugs freely available and cheaper then less people will use them. Sure they will. On Planet X where economic laws run in reverse.


Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/04/over-10000-dead-mexican-drug-war-violence-ebbing
http://www.med.upenn.edu/cirna/pdf/USA_Figures.pdf

Therefore we should ban alcohol and tobacco, right? That would surely solve the problem.

[Matthew Best]

Wow - I never thought I'd agree with BAC about anything.

[Virus]

Therefore we should ban alcohol and tobacco, right? That would surely solve the problem.

I'm not saying we should do anything. I'm saying we shouldn't implement your harebrained idea and I'm using the best model of drug legalization we have to poke holes in it. Hack away at that straw all you want. Play bait-and-switch all you want. It won't help you.

[dtugg]

I'm not saying we should do anything. I'm saying we shouldn't implement your harebrained idea and I'm using the best model of drug legalization we have to poke holes in it. Hack away at that straw all you want. Play bait-and-switch all you want. It won't help you.

You haven't poked holes in anything. All you have is stuff you made up. You have no evidence whatsoever that currently illegal drugs would cause harm at rates similar to currently legal drugs if made legal. None. At. All.

Anyway, the point is that if you think that illegal drugs should remain illegal because they harm people, you should also believe currently legal drugs that harm people should be made illegal. At least if you don't want to be an inconsistent hypocrite. Which is obviously why you refuse to answer the question.

[Beth]

You must be pretty easily persuaded then. In fact I feel as though I've wandered into a thread full of anarchists given the amount of terminal naivety.

One legalized drug; alcohol, kills 75,000 people a year in the US. It's the third leading cause of death. How about America's other favorite legalized drug? Cigarettes kill 440,000 people a year. It's the leading cause of preventable death.


Would the situation be better or worse if we were to ban alcohol and tobacco? The available evidence indicates it would be worse. If they were banned, there might be some reduction in the statistics reflecting use and abuse, but the overall impact on society is so negative that no one who suggests such an approach is taken seriously. You won't even answer the question posed to you repeatedly about whether you think those legal drugs should be banned. 'Yes' is the only answer consistent with your stance on other drugs, but you don't seem comfortable with acknowledging that.


The Mexican drug war killed 10,000 in three years. How many gang-related deaths are there in America every year? Anyone wanna take a shot at that? Just take a guess, is it more or less than 500,000? Need another hint? There's 16,000 murders total every year in the US. So drug related murders are a fraction of that.

So given that legal drugs are the leading cause of death let's turn the government into a nationalized drug cartel to dispense even harder gear that's even more addictive. Good one. If we make hard drugs freely available and cheaper then less people will use them. Sure they will. On Planet X where economic laws run in reverse.

Would the situation be better or worse if we were to legalize and regulate the use of hard drugs? The available evidence, looking at historical data of banning alcohol and trial studies of legalizing drugs, indicates it would be better. Looking at the situation from a harm reduction perspective, the evidence indicates that legalization is the approach more likely to reduce the overall harm to society and to individuals due to drug abuse.

The evidence you cite doesn't alter alter that expectation. It only confirms how bad the current situation is.

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm not saying we should do anything.Therein lies the problem. You do think alcohol is prevalent because it's legal. You do think legalizing drugs would make them more prevalent.

Why, then, do you not believe alcohol should be banned?

[Bikewer]

A common complaint against legalization is that vastly more people would start using various drugs and that society would collapse.. (well, at least become rather nasty)

However, since the government itself (The GAO to be specific) says that drugs are generally available at low prices and in high states of purity..... We might conclude that most everyone that wishes to use drugs is currently doing so.

[quarky]

LSD, back in 'the day', was free.
Or, at most, $1/ dose.
(and what a dose!)

Owsley was not a ph.d chemist, or even a chemist. He just learned quickly.
As the controls were put in place, making precursors nearly impossible to obtain, the market changed considerably.

From what I've seen, the Bonaroo crowd now pays up to $10/ dose, for a 1/3 the amount of a late 60's dose. Economics has changed a lot in this matter. Now, even LSD has a considerable contribution to crime finances.
And the curious kids are more likely to consume something of questionable makeup.

Perhaps even more so with mdma.
Notice that root beer flavoring, sold in grocery stores, is now "safrole free".
The effects of prohibition, even with these non-addictive substances, has been profound. In the case of mdma, it has fostered a plethora of more toxic alternatives, from shadier sources.

[WildCat]

Prohibitionists, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, Mexico's most powerful drug lord would like to thank you for making and keeping drugs illegal in the USA.
As do the Gangster Disciples, the Latin Kings, the Four Corner Hustlers, the Mickey Cobras, the Conservative Vice Lords, etc etc.

[BenBurch]

As do the Gangster Disciples, the Latin Kings, the Four Corner Hustlers, the Mickey Cobras, the Conservative Vice Lords, etc etc.

And all of the contractors who supply law enforcement, in particular the private jail industry.

[portlandatheist]

The Drug Free america Foundation has been brought to you by:
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=390&pictureid=3008

[Alt+F4]

The Drug Free america Foundation has been brought to you by:
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=390&pictureid=3008

Interesting. I wonder why the tobacco, alcohol and big pharms industries are against legalization. They could make quite a profit selling cocaine, heroin and meth.

[3point14]

Therefore we should ban alcohol and tobacco, right? That would surely solve the problem.

Virus - this bit is really important. The fact that you won't answer the question is very telling. For a consistant approach to mind altering substances, you need to answer that alcohol should be banned and make the honest statement that you don't drink. I suspect you can't do both those things (although you may be able to do one) and that your cognitive dissonance isn't apparent to you (it is to everyone else).

The trouble you have is that you really do find difficulty in seperating drug use (fun, really, people wouldn't do it if it wasn't, most drug users aren't stupid) and drug abuse (bad - alcoholism, lung cancer and other problems) but most people using drugs are doing exactly that - getting high on the weekend and going back to work on monday to pay their taxes and move the economy along. Why do current laws criminalise these people merely for doing things that some people find hard to handle? We don't ban alcohol even though some people become alcoholics. We dont ban cars although some people crash them. We don't ban horse riding because some people aren't very good at it and fall off and hurt themselves. We dont ban motor racing (or any other dangerous sport) even though it kills the occasional unlucky soul ("he died doing what he loved") We don't ban strobe lights even though they make some poeple ill. We don't ban sugar despite the fact that some people are diabetic and can't handle it. We don't ban fatty foods even though some people eat too much and become fat. We don't ban peanuts although there are people that will react to them fatally. We don't ban any number of things that are potentially harmful because, in most things, we understand that the fact that some people can't handle something doesn't over-ride the freedom of those who can to do what they want with their bodies and go about their day.

[quarky]

The Drug Free america Foundation has been brought to you by:
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=390&pictureid=3008

That was most excellent.

My moral take on this is likely twisted, but, the tragedy to me is that America is drugged to the nines on some of the shittiest drugs ever consumed by humankind.

[MattusMaximus]

Interesting. I wonder why the tobacco, alcohol and big pharms industries are against legalization. They could make quite a profit selling cocaine, heroin and meth.

My guess is they're afraid of any competition.

[Virus]

Yeah let's all rail against Big Tobacco. I'm sure Big Crack and Big Meth will be so much more benevolent.

[MattusMaximus]

Yeah let's all rail against Big Tobacco. I'm sure Big Crack and Big Meth will be so much more benevolent.

Do you want to ban alcohol & tobacco? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I suspect you will attempt to evade the question, yet again, because your response will reveal your hypocrisy & inconsistency.

[Virus]

I told you before. This thread is about legalizing smack, crack and meth. Not banning alcohol. You're trying to divert the discussion.

You aren't trying to argue that we should sell crack at the liqour store because of hypocracy are you?

[dtugg]

He refused to answer the question again. Huge shocker. :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

He refused to answer the question again. Huge shocker. :rolleyes:

Nope, not surprising at all. It's pretty apparent to everyone here where Virus is coming from.

[nvidiot]

Virus you are not doing your argument any favours when you suggest that drugs such as methamphetamines and heroin should be illegal because they are dangerous, and then point out that alcohol and tobacco are very dangerous, and then refuse to discuss whether this amounts to a double standard.

The question is simple. If you think that legalising presently illegal drugs will cause more harm than the present system, then is it not a natural assumption that making presently legal drugs illegal will result in less harm to individuals and society as well?

[portlandatheist]

Yeah let's all rail against Big Tobacco. I'm sure Big Crack and Big Meth will be so much more benevolent.

I'm really not railing against big tabacco or pharma. I'm just pointing out the absurd irony of the situation.

[McHrozni]

A victim.

And a drug addict isn't one?

Don't BS with "freedom of choice" please. Unless he was fully aware of all consequences, he couldn't make a free choice.

McHrozni

[dtugg]

And a drug addict isn't one?

Don't BS with "freedom of choice" please. Unless he was fully aware of all consequences, he couldn't make a free choice.

McHrozni

So now the victim and the perp are the same person? Interesting concept. Perhaps we should ban all potentially self destructive behavior to protect the "victims."

And yes drug addicts choose to do drugs entirely of their own free will, at least initially. And I am quite sure that virtually all drug addicts knew before they started using that drugs can be bad for you and that you can get addicted to them. They just didn't think it won't happen to them. And any that didn't know that are just plain stupid. And there is no reason that we should make laws banning stuff just to protect the terminally stupid people.

[3point14]

I told you before. This thread is about legalizing smack, crack and meth. Not banning alcohol. You're trying to divert the discussion.

You aren't trying to argue that we should sell crack at the liqour store because of hypocracy are you?

Okay, try this:

I am against the banning of several of the currently banned substances due to the fact that if I were in favour of banning these substances, in order to maintain a consistent view, I would need to be in favour of banning alcohol too, and I don't want to do that because I quite like a drink.

Go on, attack that position.

[nvidiot]

Unfortunately we've had 70 years of drug paranoid propaganda from "reefer madness" to "this is your brain on drugs." Now THAT should be illegal. I await virus to respond with a deprecating statement about anyone who wants drug legistlation to make sense and be consistent is a druggy who wants the end of civilisation.

[quarky]

Cocaine and methamphetamine are still legal when prescribed. Not sure today, but heroin was used in England in hospitals as preferable to morphine for extreme pain. Its not a huge leap to imagine said drugs becoming more available by prescription.

[Virus]

Okay, try this:

I am against the banning of several of the currently banned substances due to the fact that if I were in favour of banning these substances, in order to maintain a consistent view, I would need to be in favour of banning alcohol too, and I don't want to do that because I quite like a drink.

Go on, attack that position.

OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.

[dtugg]

OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.

Yeah it's much better to let murderous thugs become so rich and powerful selling drugs that they destabilize entire countries than to let consenting adults do what they please with their own bodies.

And despite the $1 trillion that the US has flushed down the toilet, anybody who wants drugs can get them anyway and they are cheaper than ever. And drug dealers don't even check IDs.

[Virus]

Cocaine and methamphetamine are still legal when prescribed. Not sure today, but heroin was used in England in hospitals as preferable to morphine for extreme pain. Its not a huge leap to imagine said drugs becoming more available by prescription.

If anyone is still prescribing cocaine, heroin and meth as a therapeutic I'm pretty sure it would only be in extreme cases, closely supervised and only for the short term. There are derivatives now that are less addictive with fewer side effects.

Besides, that's not legalization in the sense that people here are talking about.

[3point14]

OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.

You're admitting that your position is inconsistent?


Well, it's a start, I suppose, we'll have you thinking critically in no time.
.

[Virus]

Yeah it's much better to let murderous thugs become so rich and powerful selling drugs that they destabilize entire countries than to let consenting adults do what they please with their own bodies.

And despite the $1 trillion that the US has flushed down the toilet, anybody who wants drugs can get them anyway and they are cheaper than ever. And drug dealers don't even check IDs.

How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you? Gotta pay for it to be produced. Gotta pay people to work in crack factories. Better keep that gear flowing nice and good too. I hear addicts can get pretty nasty when they don't get their fix.

Law enforcement costs? $19 billion a year on drug enforcement. Pocket change compared to the $92 billion a year cost of tobacco use alone. I could add the cost to the community of alcohol abuse. I could add the cost of illicit drug abuse, but that would just be laboring the point wouldn't it?

[dtugg]

How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you? Gotta pay for it to be produced. Gotta pay people to work in crack factories. Better keep that gear flowing nice and good too. I hear addicts can get pretty nasty when they don't get their fix.

Considering the fact that drug users already pay for drugs, and at highly inflated rates, I fail to see what your point is.

Law enforcement costs? $19 billion a year on drug enforcement.

Maybe that's what the US federal government pays for enforcement. But you also have many state and local police agencies doing the same thing. And, of course, millions of people being locked up for victimless crimes.

Pocket change compared to the $92 billion a year cost of tobacco use alone. I could add the cost to the community of alcohol abuse.

So we should ban them in order to save the money, yes? I mean it works with drugs that are now illegal. Oh wait....

I could add the cost of illicit drug abuse, but that would just be laborih the point wouldn't it?

[Raconteur]

How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you?

Seriously? You seem to think that the drugs would be given out for free. People would pay for them, that's where the money comes from. It wouldn't cost anything; there'd be a profit. Your question is exactly the same asking "how much do you think it costs to keep all the alcohol addicts supplied with alcohol?". It doesn't cost anything, it brings in profits.

enforcement costs? $19 billion a year on drug enforcement.

...that mostly goes towards arresting and prosecuting drug users, rather than suppliers. If they were legal, then these people wouldn't be arrested, so these enforcement costs would not exist.

I have never taken, and never will take, heroin. Even if I could get it legally, I would not take it. What makes you think that millions of people would? It is already extremely easily available; if people want it, they can get it. I don't think there are many people who say, 'you know what, I would really like to try some heroin, but I won't, because it's illegal'.

[McHrozni]

So now the victim and the perp are the same person?

Hm, I see the problem. No I don't think persecuting drug users for drug abuse is any good, however this is but one aspect of the war on drugs, is it not? This aspect I do disagree with, but that doesn't mean the entire effort is useless.
Persecuting drug users for offenses caused due to their addiction should stay.

McHrozni

[dtugg]

I have never taken, and never will take, heroin. Even if I could get it legally, I would not take it. What makes you think that millions of people would? It is already extremely easily available; if people want it, they can get it. I don't think there are many people who say, 'you know what, I would really like to try some heroin, but I won't, because it's illegal'.

Hell, most drug users I know won't even touch heroin (or meth).

[3point14]

OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.

Oh, and another point is that, at the moment, dirt-cheap crack is doled out to anyone, no driving licence required.

[dtugg]

Persecuting drug users for offenses caused due to their addiction should stay.

Absolutely. I don't think any anti-prohibitionist would say otherwise.

[Safe-Keeper]

I told you before. This thread is about legalizing smack, crack and meth. Not banning alcohol. You're trying to divert the discussion.Oh for chris'sake. You are the one who's been ranting nd raving about alcohol and tobacco since your first post. We aren't the ones who got that discussion going, all we're doing is trying to get you to explain your views, that you brought up.

And a drug addict isn't [a victim]?

McHrozniOf course a drug addict is a victim. He or she may be a victim of his or her own stupidity or ignorance, but I would say having your life ruined qualifies you as a victim in my eyes. This doesn't change the fact that taking up use of narcotics, tobacco or alcohol is a free choice.

It's funny, really. I have, as I've said, voluntered for three quarters of a year for people selling street magazines. Only once have I heard a drug addict state that it wasn't his or her fault he or she became an addict. Well, there is this one girl I met on Facebook, but she started drinking when she was 10, and you can't really expect kids to know much about the ramifications of such choices at that age. Those two exceptions aside, the only people I hear saying that "it's not you fault if you become an addict"... are people who have probably never touched the stuff, and don't know anyone who have.

How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you? Gotta pay for it to be produced. Gotta pay people to work in crack factories. Better keep that gear flowing nice and good too. I hear addicts can get pretty nasty when they don't get their fix.How do you get the money? Same way you get money for any other industry, from carpets to cars to chocolate. You sell the products.

Edit: and don't give me any of that "can't hold down a job" ********. The addicts who have the selling of street magazines as their job in Bergen show up at the publishing house when they open at 10 in the morning, buy their magazines, and go out to sell them on the street. One of them told me that they consider themselves lucky if they're done by six in the evening, by which time they have been standing and walking for eight hours already, in rough Norwegian weather that can vary from uncomfortably hot to freezing cold, with freezing winds and rain, sleet and snow. They have one of the most demanding jobs in the city, both mentally and physically, and make fairly good money (up to and over 150-300 USD) on good days.

[nvidiot]

Most drug users you don't realise do use drugs, most addicts you don't realise are addicted, and most drugs don't have anywhere near the addictive potential prohibitionists say they do.

Again, can we get a straight (pun most definitely intended) answer from you virus? Is the present legal availabilty of alcohol and tobacco causing more harm than a prohibitionist approach for those drugs? And if you believe this is the case, do you also follow the yellow logic road down to the inevitable proposal that these two legal drugs should be prohibited? If not, why not? This is a genuine question I wish to have answered. It's one that those who support the current system of prohibition seem rather uneasy about for some reason...

[3point14]

Most drug users you don't realise do use drugs, most addicts you don't realise are addicted, and most drugs don't have anywhere near the addictive potential prohibitionists say they do.

Again, can we get a straight (pun most definitely intended) answer from you virus? Is the present legal availabilty of alcohol and tobacco causing more harm than a prohibitionist approach for those drugs? And if you believe this is the case, do you also follow the yellow logic road down to the inevitable proposal that these two legal drugs should be prohibited? If not, why not? This is a genuine question I wish to have answered. It's one that those who support the current system of prohibition seem rather uneasy about for some reason...

Ill bet you he won't give you a straight answer.

[BenBurch]

OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.

So, we can dole out ethanol, a poison, to anybody and that's OK?

We can dole out tobacco, a leading cause of morbidity and premature death and that's OK?

[Virus]

Why not? If someone sits in a bar and has a drink there's no victim. Which proves there are no victims of alcohol abuse.

[dtugg]

What?

[3point14]

Why not? If someone sits in a bar and has a drink there's no victim. Which proves there are no victims of alcohol abuse.

This piece of absurdity seems to indicate that you are having trouble defending your postion.

[INRM]

I personally think the War on Drugs is ridiculous, some of the drugs may be bad, but the governments reaction to drug-users is far worse. We have enormous amounts of people in prison for drug-related offenses, not necessarily even dealing, and sometimes very light drug like marijuana. The laws are flat-out not reasonable.

The amount of power given to police and law enforcement to enforce these laws are also absurd.


Quarky,

War on anything is suspect.

Agreed. It kind of sends the message that anything can be done to deal with the problem; even things that are not necessarily ethical, not necessarily even in line with our Constitution, or even our basic principles (such as the War on Terror).

The war on terror? Same deal.

The War on Terror, I personally believe was all about power. The government wanted the power to do all sorts of stuff they could never do otherwise. Spy on everybody, jail people indefinitely, denying them the right to a lawyer, beating and torturing people, even exporting them off to other countries where it's okay to torture people, driving up military spending, waging wars of aggression, etc.

How about the war against drivers speeding? How much does that cost, and how hard would it be to prevent speeding through technology?

It would be extremely easy, of course you'd have to monitor every single car that moves which most would consider excessive government intrusion into everyday life, and a 4th Amendment issue.

These wars give people jobs. That's what's good about them.
Inventing crimes allows crime-fighters employment.

Gives them jobs, gives them all the resources and power to combat the threat whether it be serious or nonsensical.

Unfortunately, it hurts a lot of innocent people. I'm for creating jobs within reason. I don't want to create jobs by causing hardship, pain and suffering to a great many people.

Unfortunately, these "wars" end up doing exactly that.

If only pot was legalized, many, many people would be put out of work.

True, but there would be plenty of jobs created out of that too, and it would cut down on crime a great deal.

[WildCat]

How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you? Gotta pay for it to be produced. Gotta pay people to work in crack factories. Better keep that gear flowing nice and good too. I hear addicts can get pretty nasty when they don't get their fix.
Cocaine would be about $10/kilo if it was a legal product. Far cheaper than imprisoning millions every year.

[MattusMaximus]

Why not? If someone sits in a bar and has a drink there's no victim. Which proves there are no victims of alcohol abuse.

Sigh... :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_7747490a66cadb546.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14198)

[Virus]

Do you not see a problem with cokeheads being able to walk into Coke-R-Us and buying a kilo for the price of a take-away? The high cost of coke keeps the number of users down.

In Australia, there are ~3000 deaths a year attributed to illicit drug use. The homocide rate is about 200 a year. 12% of those murders are drug related.

It wouldn't make an ounce of sense for us to legalize hard gear in Australia. The figures would have to be reversed before that argument made sense.

Sources:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/6461

[Virus]

America: Illicit drug abuse costs the country $161 billion a year. Cost of drug prohibition; $19 billion. The economic argument doesn't make sense either.

Source:
http://archives.drugabuse.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/magnitude/

[Virus]

The prisons are not full of harmless users;

Most users get rehab according to the DEA;

Most cases of simple drug possession are simply not prosecuted, unless people have been arrested repeatedly for using drugs. In 1999, for example, only 2.5 percent of the federal cases argued in District Courts involved simple drug possession. Even the small number of possession charges is likely to give an inflated impression of the numbers. It is likely that a significant percentage of those in prison on possession charges were people who were originally arrested for trafficking or another more serious drug crime but plea-bargained down to a simple possession charge.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/10so.htm

Very few addicts volunteer for rehab. Most are sent by the courts. Legalizing hard, highly addictive drugs would remove a major incentive to kick the habit.

[dtugg]

Do you not see a problem with cokeheads being able to walk into Coke-R-Us and buying a kilo for the price of a take-away? The high cost of coke keeps the number of users down.

Cocaine is cheaper than ever despite the War on Drugs. Using cocaine (at least for people who are not addicted) is cheaper than a night out drinking at bars. Of course if you want to maintain a habit it becomes much more expensive. And many addicts will do anything for a fix, leading to more crimes with actual victims.

In Australia, there are ~3000 deaths a year attributed to illicit drug use.

How many of these deaths were due to people taking drugs of unknowable purity. Or drugs that wren't even the same as they thought they bought?

The homocide rate is about 200 a year. 12% of those murders are drug related.

How many of these crimes were due to people trying to getting money for drugs due to their highly inflated cost?

It wouldn't make an ounce of sense for us to legalize hard gear in Australia. The figures would have to be reversed before that argument made sense.

By your "logic" you should ban alcohol and tobacco in Australia because they surely cause more deaths than illegal drugs. Do you want to do that? You will, of course, ignore the question.


America: Illicit drug abuse costs the country $161 billion a year.

How much of this is due to the fact that they are illegal?

Cost of drug prohibition; $19 billion.

Maybe for enforcement for the federal government. What about enforcement for state and local governments? What about locking up millions of people for victimless crimes?

The economic argument doesn't make sense either.

Does making murderous Mexican/South American drug lords richer and more powerful than they could have otherwise imagined factor into your equation?

[dtugg]

The prisons are not full of harmless users;

Most users get rehab according to the DEA;



http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/10so.htm

Very few addicts volunteer for rehab. Most are sent by the courts. Legalizing hard, highly addictive drugs would remove a major incentive to kick the habit.

That's the feds. No, most of the time they will not go after users. But if the state/local governments catch you, you are screwed.

[MattusMaximus]

Dtugg, you continue to feed the troll...

[quarky]

If anyone is still prescribing cocaine, heroin and meth as a therapeutic I'm pretty sure it would only be in extreme cases, closely supervised and only for the short term. There are derivatives now that are less addictive with fewer side effects.

Besides, that's not legalization in the sense that people here are talking about.

Strange...It felt like I was on topic.

Not so sure about the side effect-thingy, though.
I see kids doing huge doses of zanax and valium.
They'd rather trip, but what can you do?

Sure, they wreck their cars doing these crappy drugs...and the withdrawal is hellish, but at least they aren't doing "street drugs".

Wannabe speed freaks take gross amounts of ritilan. Pure meth would actually be much kinder.
Wannabe opiate addicts snort crushed up percocets, with all the tylenol and fillers and crap; trashing their livers with the farking acetaminophen they inadvertently consume...

It would be healthier for them to do heroin.
Clean needles, of course.

[Virus]

Strange...It felt like I was on topic.

Not so sure about the side effect-thingy, though.
I see kids doing huge doses of zanax and valium.
They'd rather trip, but what can you do?

Sure, they wreck their cars doing these crappy drugs...and the withdrawal is hellish, but at least they aren't doing "street drugs".

Wannabe speed freaks take gross amounts of ritilan. Pure meth would actually be much kinder.
Wannabe opiate addicts snort crushed up percocets, with all the tylenol and fillers and crap; trashing their livers with the farking acetaminophen they inadvertently consume...

It would be healthier for them to do heroin.
Clean needles, of course.

Yeah but people here aren't calling for meth as a treatment for ADHD.

[quarky]

Yeah but people here aren't calling for meth as a treatment for ADHD.

Limiting pesticide consumption may be indicated for that.
My point was that meth is a less crappy drug than ritilan.
We compromise.
The good drugs have strong potential for abuse.
The crappy ones do too, which is a pity.

Prescription drug abuse rules.
Illegal drug abuse lags behind, hugely.

[Virus]

My point was that meth is a less crappy drug than ritilan.


Says?


Prescription drug abuse rules.
Illegal drug abuse lags behind, hugely.

Actually prescription drug abuse is second to marijuana.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61N24B20100224

[quixotecoyote]

Says?



Actually prescription drug abuse is second to marijuana.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61N24B20100224

Pretty tough to 'abuse' marijuana unless you ignore the distinction between use and abuse as the government tends to.

[McHrozni]

So, we can dole out ethanol, a poison, to anybody and that's OK?

We can dole out tobacco, a leading cause of morbidity and premature death and that's OK?

I really don't see how this is relevant to legalizing even more such products. Aren't two more than enough already?

McHrozni

[DC]

indeed marijuana abuse hould be punished harshly.
there are enough people that know how to use it properly, no need to abuse it.

peace man.

[fishbob]

depends what you consider success fishbob. 100% eradication of the problem? Then no law has ever worked.

Laws against child abuse aren't working. Children are still being abused. Let's legalize child abuse.

s u b s t a n c e s.

[dtugg]

I really don't see how this is relevant to legalizing even more such products. Aren't two more than enough already?

McHrozni

It just shows the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those who want to throw people in prison for selling/using drugs that are currently illegal. And the two are clearly not enough. Evidenced by the fact that there is a large demand for other substances. A demand that is currently being largely met by Mexican thugs who just kill anybody that gets in their way.

[fishbob]

Weed? . . . heroin . . . . society will be forced to subsidize your drug habit . . .

heroin . . . . coke . . . . . meth . . . all the other drugs you want legalized that are habit forming . . .


And these being illegal has helped how?

None at all is how.

Time to get a clue, time to develop a strategy that has a chance of working.

[3point14]

Has Virus told us that he's Teetotal and in favour of prohibition of alcohol yet?

[Matthew Best]

The drugs I like should be legal, the drugs other people like that I don't should be illegal. It's all fairly simple really.

[Toke]

Cocaine would be about $10/kilo if it was a legal product. Far cheaper than imprisoning millions every year.

And like tobacco sufficiently difficult to manufacture locally that you can put rather point high taxes on it.

The drug war is a disaster.
Sure there is a human cost to the availability of drugs, but a legalisation would lessen those, save the enforcement cost, and shift the (reduced) profit from criminals to the government.
Try think of the saving in tax money. :)

[Virus]

Wouldn't save anything because the cost of illicit drug use to the community is greater than the cost of enforcement. More users would only increase that.

[Lallante]

Absolutely. I don't think any anti-prohibitionist would say otherwise.

I do! Why would you "persecute" them? No criminals should be "persecuted", that isn't what law and order is about. No, I would PROSECUTE them, but also impose mandatory treatment on them.

I would also massively, and I mean massively, crack down on distribution of drugs into prisons. All prisons should be 100% dry. A prison warden bringing drugs in should be given a lengthy prison sentance. An inmate helping to prove a warden (or anyone else) is smuggling in drugs (eg by tipping off the authorities so they can search), should get benefits.

I would reform the whole prison system to make it much more CARROT and STICK. Prisoners would earn (and lose) access to TVs, video games, conjugal visits etc by completing good works (eg educational achievements, civics, counseling other prisoners etc). I would make it much less boring in prison and much more rewarding for those willing to put the effort in to improve and help themselves and others. Prison should be about reform not punishment.

[Matthew Best]

Wouldn't save anything because the cost of illicit drug use to the community is greater than the cost of enforcement. More users would only increase that.

Not yet demonstrated.

[McHrozni]

It just shows the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those who want to throw people in prison for selling/using drugs that are currently illegal.

In other words, it's an ad hominem.

And the two are clearly not enough. Evidenced by the fact that there is a large demand for other substances. A demand that is currently being largely met by Mexican thugs who just kill anybody that gets in their way.

People will always want more, that much is obvious. You can't block out all intoxicants, but that doesn't mean the only legitimate possibilities are either allow all or allow none.

I do think the US law enforcement is making a severe mistake by persecuting drug users, and that there is perhaps some merit in permitting some of the softer illegal drugs in order to focus on the harder stuff. That will not do much to solve the problem, and I doubt that the increased number of afflictions caused by increased usage (that the lower prices and better availability would bring) from a relatively minor array of drugs would improve things sufficiently to justify it, but it has some potential.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Sure there is a human cost to the availability of drugs, but a legalisation would lessen those,

This is doubtful. It's not impossible, but since improved availability would almost certainly increase usage - perhaps not at first, but over a few years that is a certainty - and since we do know that the toll from the already legal drugs exceeds the human cost of the war on drugs by about two orders of magnitude, this argument isn't something anyone should take for granted.

McHrozni

[Toke]

Do you know that the Dutch have less dope smokers than the US?
It makes the connection between legality and frequency of drug use rather iffy.

[nvidiot]

but since improved availability would almost certainly increase usage

This relies on the assumption that availability would increase under a legalisation regeime. I myself find it hard to believe that the numbers of users of any given drug actually increase, as evidenced by the reduction in the numbers of users and abusers in total in states which have decriminalised possession.

If the ultimate aim of the drug war is to reduce the numbers of people who use drugs and therefore the numbers who abuse them, then a prohibitionist approach has been a failure, would you agree McHrozni?

[dtugg]

In other words, it's an ad hominem.

No, just an observation.


People will always want more, that much is obvious. You can't block out all intoxicants, but that doesn't mean the only legitimate possibilities are either allow all or allow none.

I don't think that allowing none is a legitimate possibility, but it is at least consistent. Allowing them all is the only legitimate possibility. At least if you care about personal freedom and preventing murderous thugs from making billions of dollars selling drugs, it is.

[dtugg]

I do! Why would you "persecute" them? No criminals should be "persecuted", that isn't what law and order is about. No, I would PROSECUTE them, but also impose mandatory treatment on them.

I assumed he meant "prosecute."

[Lallante]

I assumed he meant "prosecute."

It was tongue in a cheek...

[3point14]

<SNIP>
People will always want more, that much is obvious. You can't block out all intoxicants, but that doesn't mean the only legitimate possibilities are either allow all or allow none.
<SNIP>
McHrozni


I like this, it's a valid point, but if you base the decision about which substances are legal and which are not on how harmful they are to the human body and how harmful someone abusing them can be to the rest of society, then the wrong ones are legal, surely?

[Lallante]

Tax all substances (including current legal ones) in proportion to the value of their externalities (eg healthcare, treatment, crime, prevention etc).

People will quickly gravitate towards the less harmfull ones as they become cheaper, a lot of drugs are substitutes based on cost/availability (see Mephedrone vs MDMA).

[McHrozni]

Allowing them all is the only legitimate possibility. At least if you care about personal freedom and preventing murderous thugs from making billions of dollars selling drugs, it is.

And if you don't care the misery of millions who get addicted on cheap, dangerous substances, you mean. It was stated in this thread that there are about 75 alcohol-related deaths per year in the US alone for each death in the drug war of the last three years combined.
I really don't see how widely available heroin and similar dangerous substances would somehow reduce the human misery caused.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

I like this, it's a valid point, but if you base the decision about which substances are legal and which are not on how harmful they are to the human body and how harmful someone abusing them can be to the rest of society, then the wrong ones are legal, surely?

If you're only focused on the effects they have on the body, then maybe we could have a better choice, yes. This is not, however, the only issue. You don't need a whole lot to produce alcohol - naturally occurring yeast and sugar are enough. Unless you ban fruit and grains anyone can produce alcohol with minimal training and equipment. Enforcing a ban on alcohol is therefore impossible.

Cigarettes are different in this regard, but with proper restrictions on indoor smoking and such - which can be enforced - addicts to nicotine will at least harm only themselves, and that only in the long run. This can not be said for a vast majority if not all banned drugs.

I should probably say this again - I'm not saying all currently legal substances should remain legal or that all illegal substances should remain illegal. However, some of the illegal substances should remain illegal, and some of the substances should remain (or perhaps become) legal, either because a ban on them is impossible to enforce, or because some intoxicants are simply needed for our society to function normally.

McHrozni

[3point14]

If you're only focused on the effects they have on the body, then maybe we could have a better choice, yes. This is not, however, the only issue. You don't need a whole lot to produce alcohol - naturally occurring yeast and sugar are enough. Unless you ban fruit and grains anyone can produce alcohol with minimal training and equipment. Enforcing a ban on alcohol is therefore impossible.

Cigarettes are different in this regard, but with proper restrictions on indoor smoking and such - which can be enforced - addicts to nicotine will at least harm only themselves, and that only in the long run. This can not be said for a vast majority if not all banned drugs.

I should probably say this again - I'm not saying all currently legal substances should remain legal or that all illegal substances should remain illegal. However, some of the illegal substances should remain illegal, and some of the substances should remain (or perhaps become) legal, either because a ban on them is impossible to enforce, or because some intoxicants are simply needed for our society to function normally.

McHrozni

The bold bit is important. Experience seems to indicate that it is impossible to enforce a ban on any substance that enough people wnat to get their hands on, no?

[McHrozni]

The bold bit is important. Experience seems to indicate that it is impossible to enforce a ban on any substance that enough people wnat to get their hands on, no?

You misunderstood the point somewhat. Completely eliminating any such substance is indeed impossible. Significantly reducing it's availability, however, is quite possible in some cases, but not in others. Just because an effort isn't completely succeeding doesn't mean it's useless, right?

McHrozni

[3point14]

You misunderstood the point somewhat. Completely eliminating any such substance is indeed impossible. Significantly reducing it's availability, however, is quite possible in some cases, but not in others. Just because an effort isn't completely succeeding doesn't mean it's useless, right?

McHrozni


I have a habit of doing that. I'll read it again and see if I have any further reply when I get the chance.

[uruk]

Why not? If someone sits in a bar and has a drink there's no victim. Which proves there are no victims of alcohol abuse.

What if the person gets drunk and drives and crashes? No victims there? http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

What if that person was pregnant? No victims there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_spectrum_disorder

What if that person has a family? No victim there?
http://allpsych.com/journal/alcoholism.html

What about the effects of alcohol on the drinker? No victim there?
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html

If you want to take an intellectually honest argument against the legalization of drugs you have to include Alcohol in your list of dangerous drugs.

The reasons why alcohol is legal is because the people demaned that it be legal and the government could not fight the crime syndicate that grew around the then illegal drug.

The drug problem is simple economics. There is a huge demand for a product and people will provide the product for that demand. There is a huge demand for inebriants in this country and there will always be someone who will make a huge profit by suppling that demand.

The huge amount of money givers the supplier (drug lord) a huge amounts of resources to protect his interests. In some cases the supplier makes more money than the government makes. The government has no hope of dealing with the supplier (drug lord). It is a losing battle.

And the "war on drugs" is being fought on the wrong front. If you take down on supplier, another just takes his place. As long as the demand exists there will always be a supplier.

The problem is with the demand. To win this "war" you have to deal with the demand. if the demand goes away so does the suppliers.

But that is impractical from a law enforcement stand point. There are only a few hundred drug lords and a few thousand dealers, but there are millions of users. It would be a nightmare to go after the users. Especially considering that the users are our Brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, Mothers and fathers, Bosses and employees. And even our government leaders and law enforcers are users too.

Do you know how choked up our penal system would be if we went after the users with the same intensisty that we go after the dealers?

We are at the same crossroads we were at when prohibition was repealed. The majority of our population are users and abusers. The crime syndicate that grew around the drug industry has become exceedingly dangerous and powerfull. And what is worse is that we have a nation on our border that is becoming chaotic due to the drug empires that we (Americans) are actively feeding with our money.

Which is more dangerous and detrimental. Dealing with the growing crime syndicate and the corruption and the pressure cooker ready to blow next door, or the inevitable health and social issue that will result from the temporary increase in drug use that will result from the legalization?

[rustypouch]

A bit late to the party, but here it goes.

Personally, I think drug use should be legal. Personal freedom, your body your choice, and all that. The line comes when your choices adversely affect others. Of course driving while under the influence should be punished, as well as workplace use. But in private, on your own time, what's the problem with that?

A Friday night, after a hard week of work, what difference does it make it someone wants to relax with a case of beer, a few bottles of wine, or a couple joints? Or you're in a cabin in the mountains, and spend the day on mushrooms?

Another point that I don't see anyone discussing is Portugal.

A few years back the government there decriminalized drug use and possession of small amounts. People caught got treatment and therapy. Interestingly enough, this led to a decline in drug use, with the exception of marijuana, which increased slightly.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[quarky]

Boy, is this going to sound like I have no moral fiber, but wtf:

A certain% of the population is hard wired to seek altered states.
I don't see this % changing much, due to government nagging campaigns, and weird contests in schools, with the horrible posters, and the kid's name in the paper.

The tragedy, to me, is that now, because of prohibition, the inclined % is stuck with some really, really crappy drugs.

Remove lsd successfully?
Technological innovation will suffer.

Remove heroin successfully?
Music becomes crap.

Remove meth?
Factories stop running.

Remove pot?
Redneck factory workers, still buzzed on meth, beat up their ol' ladies when they get home...instead of getting stoned and falling asleep watching re-runs of the "Love Boat", Cheetos in hand.

Because of the default position of denial, we aren't allowed to bring in relativity to the conversation.

Yes, there are wasted lives on drugs.
What isn't spoken is this:

Drug addiction has saved a lot of people from killing themselves, and taking out a few ass-holes on the way.

We pretend a society that is a fantasy, and from that reference point, we judge the ugly parts.

We're disinclined to think this:

If that priest who molested all those kids was able to be a heroin addict, maybe he wouldn't have bothered screwing up all those young lives.

Morality is repugnant to me, in whatever flavor it comes in.

[dtugg]

And if you don't care the misery of millions who get addicted on cheap, dangerous substances, you mean.

Millions of people are already addicted to cheap, dangerous drugs. You have no evidence whatsoever that there would be significantly more addicts if it were legal. And if it did, I wouldn't really care too much. It would be entirely their own faults.

It was stated in this thread that there are about 75 alcohol-related deaths per year in the US alone for each death in the drug war of the last three years combined.

That was alcohol and tobacco. Which means we should ban the two, correct?

I really don't see how widely available heroin and similar dangerous substances would somehow reduce the human misery caused.

But they are already widely available.

Also factor in the fact that we could stop sending people to prison for these victimless crimes.

[dtugg]

If you're only focused on the effects they have on the body, then maybe we could have a better choice, yes. This is not, however, the only issue. You don't need a whole lot to produce alcohol - naturally occurring yeast and sugar are enough. Unless you ban fruit and grains anyone can produce alcohol with minimal training and equipment. Enforcing a ban on alcohol is therefore impossible.

Cigarettes are different in this regard, but with proper restrictions on indoor smoking and such - which can be enforced - addicts to nicotine will at least harm only themselves, and that only in the long run. This can not be said for a vast majority if not all banned drugs.

I should probably say this again - I'm not saying all currently legal substances should remain legal or that all illegal substances should remain illegal. However, some of the illegal substances should remain illegal, and some of the substances should remain (or perhaps become) legal, either because a ban on them is impossible to enforce, or because some intoxicants are simply needed for our society to function normally.

McHrozni

I think it is absolutely clear that it is impossible to enforce a ban on illegal drugs. There is a demand for them and that demand will be met.

[INRM]

Quarky,

Morality is repugnant to me, in whatever flavor it comes in.

Without ethics/morality society would disintegrate.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

People on this thread seem to be concentrating (understandably) on hard drugs.

Out of curiosity, does anyone here actually feel marijuana should not be decriminalized? Here in Ma, it is not legal, but it is decriminalized, and under an ounce can't get you more than a ticket that is akin to a traffic ticket, and more often than not you won't even get that.

[dtugg]

I don't think it should be decriminalized. It should be legalized.

[nvidiot]

Indeed, decriminalisation is only a respite for users up to a limit, and it remains an offence against the state which it should not be.

If an individual decides to wind down in the evening with a puff on his pipe rather than a swig from his bottle that's up to them and has absolutely nothing to do with the state. If they commit a crime or endanger others through their actions under the influence, that's another matter, and no "diminished responsibility" should be entertained as it is sometimes with alcohol presently. You're responsible enough to take a mind affecting substance then you're responsible for your actions under the influence.

I've often wondered why libertarian republicans and conservatives generally don't embrace legalisation. It's as if their instincts to allow individuals the right to choose their path in life suddenly get cut off when it comes to cannabis... (or any other recreational drug for that matter.)

[Virus]

You have no evidence whatsoever that there would be significantly more addicts if it were legal.


Tobacco use decreases with increased taxes. Happy hour increases the number of drinks people consume. Basic law of economics: Make things cheaper, more people buy them. It's just plain wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

And if it did, I wouldn't really care too much. It would be entirely their own faults.

That's a terrible basis for policy.

[dtugg]

Tobacco use decreases with increased taxes. Happy hour increases the number of drinks people consume. Basic law of economics: Make things cheaper, more people buy them. It's just plain wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

If that were true how come significantly more people used cocaine in the 1980s when the price was much higher?

That's a terrible basis for policy.

I suppose you would think so if you believe it is the state's job to be people's mommies.

[nvidiot]

I suppose you would think so if you believe it is the state's job to be people's mommies.

Only if you're not using the drugs that virus prefers himself.

[Virus]

I suppose you would think so if you believe it is the state's job to be people's mommies.

No its job is to be a smack cartel and distribute mind-**** substances to people.

[dtugg]

Nice strawman.

[Virus]

Ditto.

[dtugg]

You actually believe that the state should be people's mommy even though you wouldn't say it in those words. So no strawman.

I don't think that the state should sell drugs.

[McHrozni]

Millions of people are already addicted to cheap, dangerous drugs. You have no evidence whatsoever that there would be significantly more addicts if it were legal. And if it did, I wouldn't really care too much. It would be entirely their own faults.

You're saying that a decreased price and increased availability wouldn't have an effect on usage. I find this ridiculous.

That was alcohol and tobacco. Which means we should ban the two, correct?

Tobacco can be made safe for those that don't want to use it (smoking bans, etc) and will only hurt the users themselves. I've covered alcohol in another post, address that.

But they are already widely available.

They would be more widely available and (in all likelihood) cheaper.

Also factor in the fact that we could stop sending people to prison for these victimless crimes.

That is one thing I already agree with, and was already done in many countries without legalizing trading and distributing them.
In fact I already explicitly told you this, in post #151, and you responded to that post (#152), so please stop with this.

I think it is absolutely clear that it is impossible to enforce a ban on illegal drugs. There is a demand for them and that demand will be met.

That you don't know. It's quite possible to create a shortage, even if it's impossible to eliminate a drug fully.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

I don't think there are many people who say, 'you know what, I would really like to try some heroin, but I won't, because it's illegal'.

I know one person who told me just that, but in the past tense. By making certain substances illegal you demonize their use, by making them legal you eliminate that psychological barrier.
Yes, some people will still use them and yes, usage might not increase immediately after the ban would be lifted, but in time it's only reasonable to expect just that would happen. Experience certainly suggests just that - more people drink alcohol than use any of the illegal drugs, and quite likely more than all of them combined. Certainly there is a cultural factor here, but the ban on drugs is one of the cultural factors. In time, heroin could be as acceptable as hard liquor is today, with similar or worse consequences.

McHrozni

[Virus]

I don't think that the state should sell drugs.

Do you want to give the cartels a business license?

[dtugg]

You're saying that a decreased price and increased availability wouldn't have an effect on usage. I find this ridiculous.

I am saying that you don't know the effect would be.

Tobacco can be made safe for those that don't want to use it (smoking bans, etc) and will only hurt the users themselves. I've covered alcohol in another post, address that.

You're right. It is impossible to enforce a ban on alcohol. But it is also impossible to enforce a ban on illegal drugs. Or perhaps you know something the US government does not know?

That you don't know.

100% of evidence says I am correct.

It's quite possible to create a shortage, even if it's impossible to eliminate a drug fully.

Perhaps a temporary one. The US government has been unable to put any permanent dents on supply. If you know how to do this, perhaps you should let them know.

McHrozni[/QUOTE]

[dtugg]

Do you want to give the cartels a business license?

No.

[nvidiot]

McHrozni, have you actually looked at the rates of use before and after decriminalisation? In all the examples I'm aware of the actual usage rates dropped rather than increased.

And drugs would not be "more available", if anything the regulation that goes with a legalisation regeime would result in fewer users from the lower end of the age rage due to difficulty to purchase. Many examples of kids telling us it's easier to buy a hit of heroin than to buy a beer would point to that.

People should be careful to remember that legalisation does not mean "free for all". It means a carefully considered regulatory model with specific use requirements, age requirements, testing for influence when driving etc. If anything it would be a more restrictive model than the current one which allows people to go see the greasy dealer down the corner and buy whatever they want no questions asked. Not to mention the taxes generated to help problem users/addicts and the benefits gained from consistent purity of harder drugs like heroin and methamphetamines.

Look, I agree that we should be careful with what drugs we regulate and how, but the present system does not work. If the aim is to reduce the number of users, it's failed. If the aim is to reduce the numbers of deaths from improper or excessive use, it's failed. If the aim is to cost the society at large the least amount possible it's failed. How long will we keep up this prohibitionist experiment before we realise that the policy has failed in every metric we measure success by?

[dtugg]

Many examples of kids telling us it's easier to buy a hit of heroin than to buy a beer would point to that.

Good point. When I was in high school, it was easier to get many illegal drugs than it was to get alcohol.

[Virus]

No.

So you don't want the government to sell the dope, and you don't want the cartels doing it. So you want new companies to do it? Big Smack? Big Meth? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they won't be shady. Big Meth's election contributions ect. But doesn't solve the problem of the cartels. What are you going to do with the unauthorized dope sellers? You're still going to have to devote $19 billion a year to shutting them down.

[McHrozni]

I am saying that you don't know the effect would be.

And you do?

You're right. It is impossible to enforce a ban on alcohol. But it is also impossible to enforce a ban on illegal drugs. Or perhaps you know something the US government does not know?

Perhaps one thing yes - persecuting drug users is a waste of effort.

It is not impossible to enforce a ban on certain drugs. It is impossible to completely eradicate a drug, true, but it is possible to significantly reduce supply. The fact US government isn't doing it very effectively hardly shows it is impossible, don't you think?

100% of evidence says I am correct.

Really. Please point to a state that permitted use of hard drugs and saw usage drop as a result.

Perhaps a temporary one. The US government has been unable to put any permanent dents on supply. If you know how to do this, perhaps you should let them know.

I pointed out one option. Since drug use in US is more rampant than in some other countries, perhaps US should seek their counsel?

McHrozni, have you actually looked at the rates of use before and after decriminalisation? In all the examples I'm aware of the actual usage rates dropped rather than increased.

For the umpteenth time, decriminalization of drug use is something I support. I said that several times by now in this thread. The war on drugs isn't going well and some of it's aspects are badly planned, but that doesn't mean the entire effort is bad.

Look, I agree that we should be careful with what drugs we regulate and how, but the present system does not work. If the aim is to reduce the number of users, it's failed.

You don't know that, because you don't know the number of users that would be on the stuff if it was readily available.

If the aim is to reduce the numbers of deaths from improper or excessive use, it's failed.

Comparison to alcohol shows otherwise.

If the aim is to cost the society at large the least amount possible it's failed.

That is true.

And lastly, this:

People should be careful to remember that legalisation does not mean "free for all". It means a carefully considered regulatory model with specific use requirements, age requirements, testing for influence when driving etc. If anything it would be a more restrictive model than the current one which allows people to go see the greasy dealer down the corner and buy whatever they want no questions asked.

With the already existing trafficking network in place, wouldn't you say a significant black market would stay for these? If you ramp up taxes, black market could still find a niche for that, like with cigarettes. If the stuff were legal, smuggling it would be easier, allowing the black market price to drop.

Certainly, it could reduce the power of the criminal cartels over time. However if these cartels would just turn to provide the stuff legally, that wouldn't really help the issue.

McHrozni

[nvidiot]

Oh now I know you're a troll virus.

[dtugg]

So you don't want the government to sell the dope, and you don't want the cartels doing it. So you want new companies to do it? Big Smack? Big Meth? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they won't be shady. Big Meth's
election contributions ect.

No more shady than big alcohol or big tobacco.

But doesn't solve the problem of the cartels. What are you going to do with the unauthorized dope sellers? You're still going to have to devote $19 billion a year to shutting them down.

Yeah, just the same as illegal alcohol remained a huge problem after the end of prohibition. Oh, wait....

[nvidiot]

To be fair, illegal alcohol production, whilst small if not miniscule in number in most developed countries, is more of an issue in less developed or remote areas of developed nations.

Illegal manufacture and sale of tobacco is also still an issue in some countries and juristictions, but it's several orders of magnitude smaller than the legitimate market, mostly because quality is rubbish and tobacco is cheap even with taxation through the roof.

[dtugg]

And you do?

I never said I did.

It is not impossible to enforce a ban on certain drugs. It is impossible to completely eradicate a drug, true, but it is possible to significantly reduce supply.

Short of patrolling every single mile of the border and searching every truck, plane, and cargo container that comes into the country, I don't see how. Too much money to be made.

The fact US government isn't doing it very effectively hardly shows it is impossible, don't you think?

That and the simple economics of the situation.

Really. Please point to a state that permitted use of hard drugs and saw usage drop as a result.

I was referring to the impossibility of effectively enforcing a ban.

I pointed out one option. Since drug use in US is more rampant than in some other countries, perhaps US should seek their counsel?

That doesn't prove that they have been successful in significantly reducing supply. It could just mean that the demand is lower.

[McHrozni]

I never said I did.

So you agree with me there is little reason to believe the drug abuse situation would improve if they were legalized. Thanks.

Short of patrolling every single mile of the border and searching every truck, plane, and cargo container that comes into the country, I don't see how. Too much money to be made.

That would be a bit awkward, although adequate border controls are a necessary part in this.

One interesting idea would be to eliminate cash from society. If all transactions were completely traceable, finding the dealers and evidence against them would be fairly easy. Drastic, true, but so is heroin available at any liquor store.

I was referring to the impossibility of effectively enforcing a ban.

Ah. Well, in that case, let me point to North Korea, which effectively enforces a ban. True, the price their society pays for it is worse than any drug problem, but clearly, it is not impossible to enforce such a ban.

That doesn't prove that they have been successful in significantly reducing supply. It could just mean that the demand is lower.

It could also mean that, yes. Could it be a mix of both?

Incidentally, dtugg, would you support drugs being available for free for anyone who wants them (with only age restrictions in place perhaps)? That would eliminate drug-related crime entirely, and suffering would be largely limited to those that want to use them. With mass production, the cost of that would be fairly low, and the reduced crime rate could make it well worth it in terms of money.
Would you agree? Why? Why not?

McHrozni

[Safe-Keeper]

Around and around in circles the discussion goes, where it will stop, nobody knows...

[dtugg]

So you agree with me there is little reason to believe the drug abuse situation would improve if they were legalized. Thanks.

I didn't say otherwise.

That would be a bit awkward, although adequate border controls are a necessary part in this.

Yes it would. And would the huge cost in securing the borders and the costs to legitimate economy be worth it? I don't think so, and neither does the US government.

One interesting idea would be to eliminate cash from society. If all transactions were completely traceable, finding the dealers and evidence against them would be fairly easy. Drastic, true, but so is heroin available at any liquor store.

Maybe that would work. I suspect they would just find ways around it though.

Ah. Well, in that case, let me point to North Korea, which effectively enforces a ban. True, the price their society pays for it is worse than any drug problem, but clearly, it is not impossible to enforce such a ban.

OK. Let me amend that to "it is impossible to enforce an effective ban without cost to society being much worse than the drugs themselves."

It could also mean that, yes. Could it be a mix of both?

Maybe. Another possibility I didn't think about before is that maybe drug cartels focus more on the USA because of its proximity to the source, the ease of smuggling it into the USA given its huge borders and coastlines, and because Americans have more money to spend on drugs than people in most other countries.

Incidentally, dtugg, would you support drugs being available for free for anyone who wants them (with only age restrictions in place perhaps)? That would eliminate drug-related crime entirely, and suffering would be largely limited to those that want to use them. With mass production, the cost of that would be fairly low, and the reduced crime rate could make it well worth it in terms of money.
Would you agree? Why? Why not?

I would support this over the status quo, absolutely. I do think it would be better to just sell them and put "sin" taxes on them in order to help for for treatment. Though, obviously this tax couldn't be too high otherwise the black market would still exist.

[quarky]

Quarky,



Without ethics/morality society would disintegrate.

Ethics is different.

[3point14]

So you agree with me there is little reason to believe the drug abuse situation would improve if they were legalized. Thanks.


Well, I would, provided that you accept that there is very little reason to believe the drug abuse situation would be worsened if they were legalised?

[dtugg]

Has anybody mentioned quality control as a reason for legalization? As of now, there is none and this leads to many otherwise preventable deaths. Especially with heroin. There are actually two different ways that it can lead to an overdose. First, the user has no way of knowing the purity of the drugs, which can very widely. If a heroin user is used to taking heroin that is 40% pure but then gets some that is 80% pure, there is a good chance he will OD. The drugs may also contain other, more deadly active ingredients. Fentanyl (and its analogues) which is extremely potent, much more so than heroin, is sometimes mixed with heroin and an inactive cut to make the heroin seem much more potent.

[Virus]

The following pictures are taken from a park called Platzspitz, previously known as "Needle Park" in Switzerland. One of the pictures was taken when drug use was virtually legalized in the park. One of the was taken after the experiment was shut down. Try and guess which is which:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dmDHh7gwpa4/SdSfis20SQI/AAAAAAAABr8/0mAWo8ATyuU/s800/AAAA.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Z%C3%BCrich_-_Platzspitzpark_IMG_0374.jpg/800px-Z%C3%BCrich_-_Platzspitzpark_IMG_0374.jpg

[McHrozni]

Maybe that would work. I suspect they would just find ways around it though.

Probably, in time. Fighting against organized crime is a never ending story.

Maybe. Another possibility I didn't think about before is that maybe drug cartels focus more on the USA because of its proximity to the source, the ease of smuggling it into the USA given its huge borders and coastlines, and because Americans have more money to spend on drugs than people in most other countries.

That is undoubtedly a factor. So perhaps more effort on the source is needed? I know much is being done already, but could more be done?

I'm sure all policies could be improved, but the question is indeed by how much.

I would support this over the status quo, absolutely. I do think it would be better to just sell them and put "sin" taxes on them in order to help for for treatment. Though, obviously this tax couldn't be too high otherwise the black market would still exist.

Interesting. It might be cheaper to do away with the free treatment and allow anyone to drug themselves to death if they want, though. It would depend on how much would the actual costs of procurement be, but the treatment can be so expensive as not to be worth it. It would be another money drain, in all likelihood.

That said, the cost to the society could be enormous.

McHrozni

[Safe-Keeper]

The following pictures are taken from a park called Platzspitz, previously known as "Needle Park" in Switzerland. One of the pictures was taken when drug use was virtually legalized in the park. One of the was taken after the experiment was shut down. Try and guess which is which:Your point being?

[dtugg]

I wonder if rampant usage had anything to do with that being the only place to use with no risk. :rolleyes:

And besides, nobody is suggesting that anything like that be tolerated. It is not even legal to drink alcohol in public most places in the US.

[McHrozni]

Has anybody mentioned quality control as a reason for legalization? As of now, there is none and this leads to many otherwise preventable deaths.

This concern of yours strikes me as rather odd. Habitual drug users are slowly killing themselves anyway. If they kill themselves sooner, surely the damage to the society is lesser, no?

McHrozni

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The following pictures are taken from a park called Platzspitz, previously known as "Needle Park" in Switzerland. One of the pictures was taken when drug use was virtually legalized in the park. One of the was taken after the experiment was shut down. Try and guess which is which:




You do realize that these people were doing drugs before, right? The only difference is that in this picture, you can see them doing it. Do you honestly think these were all squeaky clean kids who ran out and bought heroin for the first time, when it was legalized in a park? If not, then what's the point of your post? The only point your posts makes is that drug use should perhaps not be allowed in a public park. Many parks already have such rules for legal substances, and do not allow smoking or drinking. In the Netherlands, there are many areas where you cannot smoke pot, and you can only smoke pot indoors (aside from your home of course) in designated coffeehouses.

I have mixed views on the legalization of hard drugs. I think I lean more towards making them not totally legal, but decriminalized, with users treated as opposed to prosecuted.

When it comes to softer drugs though, which have not shown themselves to be a scourge upon society and communities, then I am for total legalization. This would include weed, shrooms, ecstacy, and perhaps some others that aren't on my radar.

[dtugg]

That is undoubtedly a factor. So perhaps more effort on the source is needed? I know much is being done already, but could more be done?

I'm sure all policies could be improved, but the question is indeed by how much.

I can't think of any ways besides maybe the US military going basically taking over the countries where these drugs are produced. They've tried destroying the crops with no real effect.



Interesting. It might be cheaper to do away with the free treatment and allow anyone to drug themselves to death if they want, though. It would depend on how much would the actual costs of procurement be, but the treatment can be so expensive as not to be worth it. It would be another money drain, in all likelihood.

That said, the cost to the society could be enormous.



Maybe.

his concern of yours strikes me as rather odd. Habitual drug users are slowly killing themselves anyway. If they kill themselves sooner, surely the damage to the society is lesser, no?

Not necessarily. Heroin isn't particularly harmful besides the dependence and high risk of overdose. A junkie can live an otherwise normal life if he has continued access to the drug a known purity rates.

And of course, not everybody that overdoses is an addict.

[McHrozni]

Not necessarily. Heroin isn't particularly harmful besides the dependence and high risk of overdose. A junkie can live an otherwise normal life if he has continued access to the drug a known purity rates.

That may seem so for quite a while, yes. However as it turns out, getting the fix is eventually the only goal. While it may seem to you that giving him the drug is solving the problem that really isn't the case. The addict is surviving, not living. It's a slow and relatively painless death as the person slowly abandons himself to the anticipation of the next dose.

The fact heroin doesn't significantly damage the body actually makes the whole thing worse, imho.

McHrozni

[quarky]

That may seem so for quite a while, yes. However as it turns out, getting the fix is eventually the only goal. While it may seem to you that giving him the drug is solving the problem that really isn't the case. The addict is surviving, not living. It's a slow and relatively painless death as the person slowly abandons himself to the anticipation of the next dose.

The fact heroin doesn't significantly damage the body actually makes the whole thing worse, imho.

McHrozni

Are you House?
If so,
Reference this attitude within a background model that includes the mostly pathetic lives that average people live.
Don't weigh it against the minority success story humans that don't live lives of "Quiet desperation"

(H.D. Thoreau, if I remember)

[Safe-Keeper]

That may seem so for quite a while, yes. However as it turns out, getting the fix is eventually the only goal. While it may seem to you that giving him the drug is solving the problem that really isn't the case. The addict is surviving, not living.Yeah, because it's not readily available. Users in Norway who have gotten into the Subutex distribution program and get a dose of Subutex ("replacement" drug for, among others, heroin addicts) each morning at their pharmacy are quite capable of functioning normally for the rest of the day.

[Virus]

Subutex isn't heroin. All you're doing is saying that addicts should be given treatment. Yep, I'll agree that addicts should have access to subutex.

[McHrozni]

Subutex isn't heroin. All you're doing is saying that addicts should be given treatment. Yep, I'll agree that addicts should have access to subutex.

I do too.

McHrozni

[nvidiot]

Do you also agree that those who aren't addicts (the vast majority of users of all illegal drugs) and simply take substances for enjoyment occasionally are entitled to do so?

[ZirconBlue]

Do you not see a problem with cokeheads being able to walk into Coke-R-Us and buying a kilo for the price of a take-away?

Unfounded assumption.

Wouldn't save anything because the cost of illicit drug use to the community is greater than the cost of enforcement. More users would only increase that.

Unfounded assumption.


Tobacco use decreases with increased taxes. Happy hour increases the number of drinks people consume. Basic law of economics: Make things cheaper, more people buy them. It's just plain wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

Unfounded assumption.


You've provided no evidence that prices will go down, nor that usage will go up. Until/unless you do that, your arguments have no basis.

[McHrozni]

Do you also agree that those who aren't addicts (the vast majority of users of all illegal drugs) and simply take substances for enjoyment occasionally are entitled to do so?

Well, if they were entitled to it, the drugs would have to be paid for by the state.

It's not that I hate drugs or drug users, it's that many of the illegal drugs (not all) make a very slippery slope. First it's once a month, then once a week, then every weekend, then every day, then you discover it would be a good idea to stop, but it's far too late already. Not all occasional users go down that path, but far too many to warrant legalization, in my opinion.

I do realize, though, that someone with sufficiently different values would disagree. That can't be helped.

You've provided no evidence that prices will go down, nor that usage will go up.

In regards to the lower price, between the extraordinary efforts needed to get the drug to the consumer now and the fact that a portion of the shipments are seized on the way, a lower price is the only realistic possibility.

McHrozni