Remember the Stupid "When you use drugs, you might be financing terrorists" ads?

[Skeptic]

Graffitti in New York Subway:

"When you buy gasoline, you might be financing terrorists".

Sad but true...

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Graffitti in New York Subway:

"When you but gasoline, you might be financing terrorists".

Sad but true...

My poppyseed muffin could be financing terrorism, right?

Those ads on TV were execrable.

Lurker

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Graffitti in New York Subway:

"When you but gasoline, you might be financing terrorists".

Sad but true...

Bill Maher said something similar back when those ads first came out (he said SUV's instead of gasoline). I am continually fascinated by our govt's willingness to lie straight to our face on not feel the least bit of shame.

The new ones I've seen have a teenage girl in the bathroom with her parents taking a pregnancy test. Horror of horrors, she got pregnant because she.... SMOKED POT!

Never mind the fact that the drug of choice for facilitating most sexual encounters at my high school -- and the rest of my life for that matter -- was alcohol. No shame.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by JesFine
The new ones I've seen have a teenage girl in the bathroom with her parents taking a pregnancy test. Horror of horrors, she got pregnant because she.... SMOKED POT!

Never mind the fact that the drug of choice for facilitating most sexual encounters at my high school -- and the rest of my life for that matter -- was alcohol. No shame.

Offhand, I think that the commercial to which you refer (reefer? sorry...) is probably the most transparent and thus least effectual ad ever produced. I think everyone had the exact reaction you did: "Funny, all the girls that got knocked up at my school were drunk."

[Dancing David]

I always liked the one that went

This is your brain...(whole egg)

This is your brain on drugs...(fried egg)

This is your brain with a side of bacon.

Having worked collateraly with substance abuse for fourteen years I have to say ETOH (alcohol) is the hardest drug of all.

Peace

[Crossbow]

Or maybe they ought to show a picture of cheeseburger, french (Ooops, I mean) Freedom fries, and milkshake, and say something like:

Buying things like this kills hundreds every day!

[Tmy]

Those anti pot commercials are teh best. Theres the one when the stoned kid shoots his buddy with his dads hand gun (nothing is said aboutt leaving loaded handguns lying around)

Then theres the one when the little kid on teh bike gets run over by the stoned teens ordering food. (nothing said about small kids playing in the BK drivethru)

I'm witing for them to blame 911 on POT. The sinking of the titanic, the hindenburg, teh great Chicago fire. All caused by pot!!!!

[Nyarlathotep]

The thing I find so annoying about those "If you buy drugs you are financing terrorism" is the fact that while it may be true that somedrug money does go to terrorists and nast organized crime syndicates, the REASON that thes groups have a share of the drug trade is the fact that the drugs sre illegal in the first place. AS long as drugs are illega but there is a demand the money will go to terrorists.

However, just like alcohol during prohibition, if drugs were legalized then they would become just another business and legitimate business interests would begin taking over the share of the market that the terrorists have.

Of course the government doesn't want you thinking about that....

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by JesFine


..... I am continually fascinated by our govt's willingness to lie straight to our face on not feel the least bit of shame.



Fascinated? Interesting choice of word.. At least you didn't say ' surprised'...

[DrChinese]

It was outrageous, I totally agree. Surely the government can do better with its advertising dollars. Talk about "feel good" ads that accomplish nothing...

As to the lying, I feel this is where you have to give a lot of credit to the entire Bush administration. They are getting better at it as they go, and they do it more and more. They mix just the right amount of "truth" into the equation to insure it appears "semi-believable".

It is like a new version of "Plausible Deniability". Called "Apathetic Credibility", you retract the statement at a later date and claim "we had some evidence at the time, but we didn't really investigate too closely and darn - it turned out to be false (and by the way we can't tell where the information came from for fear of compromising sources)." Basically: no one here cares if the information is right or wrong, we're going with it!

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by JesFine


Bill Maher said something similar back when those ads first came out (he said SUV's instead of gasoline). I am continually fascinated by our govt's willingness to lie straight to our face on not feel the least bit of shame.



Slightly off topic... Bill Maher had a book out called "If you're riding alone, you're riding with bin Laden". The book featured many WW2-era cartoons, with slight tweaking to make them apply to the current "war on terror".

The title of the book was based on a WW2 poster to encourage car-pooling. (The poster read "If you're driving alone, you're riding with Hitler", and featured a picture of a civilian in a driver's seat with an outline sketch of Hitler next to him.) The concept being, if we waste resources (by not car pooling), you are reducing the resources available to fight against the Germans.

I think he does have a point. If we ever get off our butts and come up with an alternate energy source (simply increasing fuel economy won't do it) the flow of money to the middle east will stop. Sure, it may become more of a h*ll hole than it already is, but all those religious fundamentalist won't have any oil-funded dollars needed to support suicide bombers and other fan favorites.

[shemp]

Originally posted by JesFine

The new ones I've seen have a teenage girl in the bathroom with her parents taking a pregnancy test. Horror of horrors, she got pregnant because she.... SMOKED POT!


I thought getting pregnant had something to do with sex. I wasn't aware one could get pregnant by smoking pot.

[Underemployed]

Bill Hicks Speaks (http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/orwell/93/bill.html)

Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... paranoid? You know what I mean?

It's nature. How do you make nature against the f**king law? It grows everywhere. Serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying to God made a mistake. You know what I mean, it's like God on the seventh day looked down on his creation:

"There it is, my creation, perfect and holy in all ways. Now, I can rest."

[Mimes God looking around - spotting pot]

"Oh my me."

"I left f**king pot everywhere."

"I should never have smoked that joint on the third day ..sh*t."

"That was the day I created possums. Haha. Still gives me a chuckle."

"If I leave pot everywhere that's gonna to give humans the impression they're supposed to... 'use' it."

"(sigh)Now I have to create Republicans."

[HarryKeogh]

or the ad that says that 20% of people arrested for drunken driving also have pot in their system

yeah but 100% of them have alcohol in their system!!!!

[Marvel Frozen]

I thought getting pregnant had something to do with sex. I wasn't aware one could get pregnant by smoking pot

I guess you're just not doing it right then.

[Skeptic]

I'm witing for them to blame 911 on POT. The sinking of the titanic,

That was the jews' fault. Iceberg, Goldberg, what's the difference...

[Skeptic]

The title of the book was based on a WW2 poster to encourage car-pooling. (The poster read "If you're driving alone, you're riding with Hitler", and featured a picture of a civilian in a driver's seat with an outline sketch of Hitler next to him.) The concept being, if we waste resources (by not car pooling), you are reducing the resources available to fight against the Germans.

...which was absolutely true, of course.

[Samus]

Originally posted by JesFine
The new ones I've seen have a teenage girl in the bathroom with her parents taking a pregnancy test. Horror of horrors, she got pregnant because she.... SMOKED POT!

Originally posted by Tmy
Those anti pot commercials are teh (sic) best. Theres the one when the stoned kid shoots his buddy with his dads hand gun (nothing is said aboutt leaving loaded handguns lying around)

Then theres the one when the little kid on teh bike gets run over by the stoned teens ordering food. (nothing said about small kids playing in the BK drivethru) Oh, that was grand! It was a kick back to that old 1930s (?) movie Reefer Madness, when the guy literally got locked up in the looney ward because he smoked pot. Priceless!

I don't condone smoking pot, but if you're going to denounce it, at least make the use cases realistic.

As for commercials appealing to emotion (if you do this, you support terrorism), well, that's just plain silly. Next, they'll say flight schools promote terrorism, as do box cutter manufacturers.

[OdderMensch]

I don't condone smoking pot, but if you're going to denounce it, at least make the use cases realistic.

There's a realistic case for outlawing pot? that doesn't apply to alcohol or tabbacco?

However, just like alcohol during prohibition, if drugs were legalized then they would become just another business and legitimate business interests would begin taking over the share of the market that the terrorists have.

Of course the government doesn't want anyone thinking about that.

don't be to sure, have you seen the latest "Nick and Norm" ad?

Nick- "ok so drug money supports terrorism....."
Norm -confident- "It does."
Nick - "ok yeah so, change the law."
Norm -"change the law? So you want crack in the playgrounds and herion sold over the counter to 8 year olds."
Nick - "errrr.."

my tax dollars at work folks!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by OdderMensch


don't be to sure, have you seen the latest "Nick and Norm" ad?

Nick- "ok so drug money supports terrorism....."
Norm -confident- "It does."
Nick - "ok yeah so, change the law."
Norm -"change the law? So you want crack in the playgrounds and herion sold over the counter to 8 year olds."
Nick - "errrr.."

my tax dollars at work folks! [/B]

It just goes to show that the US Government can throw out Strawman arguments with the best of 'em

[Bentspoon]

I have two personal anecdotes on this type of thinking.

When I was a freshman in college (I don't even want to tell you how long ago that was) NORML had a forum to teach people what they need to know about MJ laws. They had a local law enforcement type there ot answer questions. I will call him Officer Bubba for the purpose of this story:

The first is kinda funny and actually happened. Someone asked about the legalities of a personal search. "When can they search you and what can they look for"

Officer Bubba: They are only allowed to search you for weapons with out a warrant. Then they can only pat you down.

Question: What if you have a lid in a baggie in your pocket?

Officer Bubba: Hmmm Let's see - they can only legally pat down for a weapon so let's say they are patting you down and come across a soft lump in your pants pocket. Well then they cannot touch that if it is soft. However, if they feel something hard they are legally able to grab it.

The other question for Officer Bubba: Why do you say that pot ruins people's lives. How has it ruined anybody's life?

Officer Bubba: Well, I can personnaly tell you of a story that I became aware of recently. There was a boy who had everything going for him. He was a straight A student, popular, and an accomplished athlete. He was going places. Then he got busted for possession and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. The pot ruined his life.

The funny part of this story is that, of course, the crowd became very aroused at this total lack of reasoning and many tried in vain to get Officer Bubba to see the illogic of this. The amazing thing is that they were never succesful. He wouldn't let it go - pot ruined this kid's life. If he hadn't used it he would not be in prison - therefore pot ruined his life. No amount of discussion could phase him.

It was very frustrating.

Bentspoon

[Jim Lennox]

Question: What if you have a lid in a baggie in your pocket?

How come it's called a lid?

Are there any other interesting drug words in the US?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox




Are there any other interesting drug words in the US?


Marijuana: pot, grass, dope, weed, indo, clip, doe, mary jane, kill

Ecstasy: Pills, rolls, beans, X, E

Theres alot more, but those are the ones I heard the most in high school.

[Samus]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
There's a realistic case for outlawing pot? that doesn't apply to alcohol or tabbacco? I don't know, is there? I guess it would have to do with the affects of the drug on one's body, and how quickly/seriously one can become addicted to it. For example, I don't hear of many "casual" heroin users, they're pretty much all addicts.

I don't know much about pot, nor do I care to. Illegal or not, I can't see any benefits to it. I think the commercials were trying to get across that smoking pot regularly is more dangerous than one might think. They could have done a better job at that.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
There's a realistic case for outlawing pot? that doesn't apply to alcohol or tabbacco?


I don't feel that strongly about the topic either way (so please don't jump on me like some anti-drug lunatic...)

One thing that would have to be worked out is how to handle pot in the case of impaired driving. Tobacco doesn't impair driving ability, and alcohol can easily be detected. Pot probably is the worst of both worlds... reduces ability, and can't be detected with a standard breathlizer.

There was recently a case up here in Canada where someone was arrested for impaired driving for having marijuana in his system. (He was a medicinal user who had clearance to use it for his MS.) However, he managed to get the charges dropped because the cops couldn't tell if his poor driving was from the pot or the MS.

Just out of curiosity, how do countries like Denmark handle impaired driving?

[Dancing David]

I have been told that it was a 'lid' because it was the amount that would fit in the lid of a large tobbaco tin.

Yes the impaired driving is a real sticking point because blood levevl does not corellate to impairment. THC has a very long half life compared to alcohol, so someone who uses regularly could be walking around with the blood equivalent of having taken three hundred puffs without any impairment, assuming that three hours has past since thier last puff. And you could have a new user who takes three puffs and wrecks the car.

Anecdotaly i am not sure that MJ uses impairs driving, it sure does screw up your judgement.(And makes you pregenant, OH MY GOD! Is that how Mary had the virgin birth!)

Funk On.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by dwb
I don't know, is there? I guess it would have to do with the affects of the drug on one's body, and how quickly/seriously one can become addicted to it. For example, I don't hear of many "casual" heroin users, they're pretty much all addicts. What does that have to do with the law should be?

Originally posted by dwb
I don't know much about pot, nor do I care to. Illegal or not, I can't see any benefits to it. What does your inability to see any benefits have to do with what the law should be?

Originally posted by dwb
I think the commercials were trying to get across that smoking pot regularly is more dangerous than one might think. They could have done a better job at that. The commercial was trying to say that pot smokers finance terrorists. Whereas in reality drug prohibition may finance terrorists.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by dwb
I don't know, is there? I guess it would have to do with the affects of the drug on one's body, and how quickly/seriously one can become addicted to it. For example, I don't hear of many "casual" heroin users, they're pretty much all addicts.
.

But there are casual users. The generalization is that drug userse are all skid row bums. This is not true. There is billions going into the drug trade. only a portion of that is maintained by sterotypical unemployed addict. Theres a big chunk being supplied to the closet weekend users.

Of course the aniti-drug campaines want everyone to believe that you get uncontrollably hooked to all drugs.

[Samus]

Originally posted by RichardR
What does that have to do with the law should be? If a headache drug causes a person to break into seizures and die, and another drug causes minor irritation, should one be legal and the other not? Studying the affects that various substances have on the body should very much have to do with their legality. Why is caffeine a socially acceptable drug? Nicotine? Alcohol? Is it fair to say that causal usage of those is less harmful than casual usage of LSD?

Originally posted by RichardR
What does your inability to see any benefits have to do with what the law should be? Absolutely nothing, it was a statement of opinion. Regardless of the legality, I see no personal gain to be had by smoking pot.

Originally posted by RichardR
The commercial was trying to say that pot smokers finance terrorists. Whereas in reality drug prohibition may finance terrorists. I didn't get that out of the commercials. How does a teen in a car hitting a girl playing in the street depict the image of terrorism financing? Hey, you could very well be right, I'm just saying I didn't get the same message by watching those commercials. I got the message that kids shouldn't smoke pot because (according to the gov't) it's more dangerous than people think.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy

But there are casual users. The generalization is that drug userse are all skid row bums. This is not true. There is billions going into the drug trade. only a portion of that is maintained by sterotypical unemployed addict. Theres a big chunk being supplied to the closet weekend users.

You don't have to be on skid row in order to be an addict. You can still hold a job, be relatively productive, etc. (The question is, will an addict be living up to their potential, will the 'addiction' be a cause of problems for the addict or others in the future, etc.)

And while there are 'casual users' of pot, can a person be a casual user of heroin? (I think that was the point the original poster was trying to make.)
Originally posted by Tmy

Of course the aniti-drug campaines want everyone to believe that you get uncontrollably hooked to all drugs.

What exactly is an anti-drug company, and what does an anti-drug company sell? Are they listed on the stock exchange?

[Tony]

Originally posted by dwb


Absolutely nothing, it was a statement of opinion. Regardless of the legality, I see no personal gain to be had by smoking pot.



Smoking "pot" is fun, I see that as a personal gain. :)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


What exactly is an anti-drug company, and what does an anti-drug company sell? Are they listed on the stock exchange?

I meant "campaign". Im less dyslexic when I smoke pot, but the government would rather I suffer wh bad spelling!


Tony's right. Smoking pot is fun. Is that so wrong. Is there a commandment saying "Thou shall not have fun!". Whats wrong with having vices.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


And while there are 'casual users' of pot, can a person be a casual user of heroin? (I think that was the point the original poster was trying to make.)


Not in todays world. But there is some evidence from britan before they went totaly gung ho into prohibition. Docters would simply perscribe addicts a controled amount of herion. Those that got that generally decreased the overall amount of herion they took, but few ever quit this way. However much of the harm of herion addiction comes from

1) impure drugs due to black market sources
2) long periods of no drugs (withdral) followed by periods of increased drug activity (bingeing)
3) drug interactions due to docters not knowing what other drugs a patient is takeing.

Personally, I would steer anyone away from herion, most other drug as well, but I see it as their right to do them, so long as it does not interfre with others rights to live and work.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by dwb
If a headache drug causes a person to break into seizures and die, and another drug causes minor irritation, should one be legal and the other not? Studying the affects that various substances have on the body should very much have to do with their legality. Why is caffeine a socially acceptable drug? Nicotine? Alcohol? Is it fair to say that causal usage of those is less harmful than casual usage of LSD?

No, I don't think that is a fair statement. Also the legitlative history of the drug war does not take into acount end user harm, as much as simple racism and bigotry.


I didn't get that out of the commercials. How does a teen in a car hitting a girl playing in the street depict the image of terrorism financing? Hey, you could very well be right, I'm just saying I didn't get the same message by watching those commercials. I got the message that kids shouldn't smoke pot because (according to the gov't) it's more dangerous than people think.

Actually, i had heard the "drugs support terror" ads were to be pulled as they were a White House thing that was "off message" instead they want to focus on the idea that, "It's more harmful then you think." Since now they have to convice the moms that grew up smokeing reefer in the 60's and 70's that pot is dangerous.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by OdderMensch


Personally, I would steer anyone away from herion, most other drug as well, but I see it as their right to do them, so long as it does not interfre with others rights to live and work.

But how do you draw the line when you say "interfere with other's rights..."?

What about people who want to smoke pot, or do heroin, and then drive? They are endangering me on the road; should we ignore them until they actually cause an accident?

What about (in the case of pot, or other 'smoked' drugs) second hand exposure? (It may not be that dangerous, but people still may not want to be exposed to it.) If its legal, do we allow people to light up in restaurants or bus stops? (Will we have to have 3 restaurant sections in the future... smoking, non smoking, and pot?) I guess the standard argument to that would be "just don't go to places they might smoke pot", but if its street legal, it could make life very inconvienient.

Like it or not, we have a fairly socialized system in the western world (even in the U.S.), with publicly available health care and welfare. What if the use of other drugs causes unexpected long-term health effects? (Even now we don't all the problems alcohol and tobacco can cause, and they're already legal.) If someone uses heroin (if it is their right) and it destroys their liver (because of some unexpected side effect), we may be on the hook for their health care costs. And what if a addict does end up on 'skid row' due to their additions? Should they be eligible for welfare?

(Yes, I know that last paragraph also partly applies to alcohol and/or tobacco, and even fast food....)

Again, I don't feel about things that strongly either way. But if any drugs are legalized, I think some of the above issues need to be addressed.

[OdderMensch]

Again, I don't feel about things that strongly either way. But if any drugs are legalized, I think some of the above issues need to be addressed

Yes, many issues will need to be addressed when this stupid war is over, but I have faith that we can overcome most of the problems you mention.

As for drug use and driveing the solution that i see is threefold.

First, a campaign educateing users about the danger of driveing while intoxicated, as with the current 'designated driver' programs.

Second would be laws banning repeat offenders from driveing.

And a third is better enforcement of reckless driveing standers. Tilgateing, passsing on the right, and speeding are seen as right by some people today. I think there is more danger in makeing pizza deliverys in 15 minutes or less then the odd person that might get into a car stoned.

all in all I think our society would be better off dealing with the problems drug use might cause, rather than ignoreing them with a failed attemt at prohibiting all use.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by OdderMensch

Yes, many issues will need to be addressed when this stupid war is over, but I have faith that we can overcome most of the problems you mention.

Yes, but, how? And should we legalize drugs then come up with solutions, or get the solutions in place first?

Originally posted by OdderMensch

As for drug use and driveing the solution that i see is threefold.

First, a campaign educateing users about the danger of driveing while intoxicated, as with the current 'designated driver' programs.

Second would be laws banning repeat offenders from driveing.

And a third is better enforcement of reckless driveing standers. Tilgateing, passsing on the right, and speeding are seen as right by some people today.
First, if campaigns were so effective, then why do people use drugs at all? They've had anti-drug campaigns on for a long time.

Secondly, there are people who do drive while their licence is suspended. There are also people who drive drunk many times, and don't get caught until they actually get into an accident.

On your third point, I agree better enforcement may help, but does that mean you should ignore all use of alcohol/drugs when driving if it doesn't cause an accident? How do you feel about the RIDE program (not sure what you call it in your area... but the spot checks for alcohol...) Should all impaired driving laws be eliminated?

[OdderMensch]

Yes, but, how? And should we legalize drugs then come up with solutions, or get the solutions in place first?

My ideal 'endgame' for the war on drugs is to leagalize MJ right now, make it as legal as beer (ie only sold to 18 year old, only sold from licenced stores, ect) Then take a few years to study various proposals for bringing the other drugs out of the black market.
As for smokeing in public, treat MJ like tabbacco, if your can smoke cigs, you can smoke joints. If you can't, you can't.

First, if campaigns were so effective, then why do people use drugs at all? They've had anti-drug campaigns on for a long time.

Anti drug ampaigns fail because they do not educate, they indocternate. They don't say, here are the facts, now you decide how to be responsible. They say drugs are an evil that must be wiped out at all costs.

Secondly, there are people who do drive while their licence is suspended. There are also people who drive drunk many times, and don't get caught until they actually get into an accident.

And if caught driveing with a suspeneded licence they should be put in jail. And many people drive drunk all the time, if they don't do so recklessly, they should be left alone. But if they weave in thier lane, or drive in a manner otherwise noting imparment the law needs to get involved.

On your third point, I agree better enforcement may help, but does that mean you should ignore all use of alcohol/drugs when driving if it doesn't cause an accident? How do you feel about the RIDE program (not sure what you call it in your area... but the spot checks for alcohol...) Should all impaired driving laws be eliminated?

No, but there is a big difference between someone who just knocked back a 6 pack, and someone who smoked a bowl last week. Modern testing for MJ does not take this into account as it tests for metabolites in the blood and urine of the suspect.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by dwb
If a headache drug causes a person to break into seizures and die, and another drug causes minor irritation, should one be legal and the other not? Not necessarily. If adults want to do a drug and they know the consequences I believe they should be allowed to do them.

Originally posted by dwb
Studying the affects that various substances have on the body should very much have to do with their legality. Why is caffeine a socially acceptable drug? Nicotine? Alcohol? Is it fair to say that causal usage of those is less harmful than casual usage of LSD? No I don’t think it is.

Originally posted by dwb
Absolutely nothing, it was a statement of opinion. Regardless of the legality, I see no personal gain to be had by smoking pot. Then don’t smoke it. I don’t. But I don’t believe that is a reason to prevent others from smoking it.

Originally posted by dwb
I didn't get that out of the commercials. How does a teen in a car hitting a girl playing in the street depict the image of terrorism financing? Hey, you could very well be right, I'm just saying I didn't get the same message by watching those commercials. I got the message that kids shouldn't smoke pot because (according to the gov't) it's more dangerous than people think. Well, the title of the thread is “Remember the Stupid "When you use drugs, you might be financing terrorists" ads?”. I presumed he was referring to the two guys in the restaurant – the dumb “Straw Man” character and the arrogant git who knocks him down. Perhaps you saw a different commercial. ;)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by OdderMensch

Anti drug ampaigns fail because they do not educate, they indocternate. They don't say, here are the facts, now you decide how to be responsible. They say drugs are an evil that must be wiped out at all costs.

Unfortunately, since most people are human, we find education boring. Which will be more memorable? Which would you be more likely to remember, the "this is your brain... this is your brain on drugs" ad, or a bunch of actual statistics? (Even if you just give the statistics, people will say that its indoctrination... someone will just come up with more stats later.)

Plus, on the issue specifically on drugs and driving, many people are more likely to believe anecdotes and their own experineces ("hey, I feel fine... where are my keys") than some stats about x% of people smoking and causing accidents. (You don't need laws for the good people, you need them for the people who will do bad things.)

Originally posted by OdderMensch

And if caught driveing with a suspeneded licence they should be put in jail. And many people drive drunk all the time, if they don't do so recklessly, they should be left alone. But if they weave in thier lane, or drive in a manner otherwise noting imparment the law needs to get involved.

So, do you believe that RIDE programs (spot checks, where the cops set up road blocks and check people at random for alcohol) should be stopped?

And do you think its a crime to have any chemicals in your system that cause impairment, even if you are not driving in a reckless manor? And if a person is reckless, are extra charges (for driving drunk) waranted, or should any charges relate only to the crime itself?
Originally posted by OdderMensch

No, but there is a big difference between someone who just knocked back a 6 pack, and someone who smoked a bowl last week. Modern testing for MJ does not take this into account as it tests for metabolites in the blood and urine of the suspect.
You're right, just as there's a difference between someone who just smoked a joint 5 minutes ago and someone who had a glass of wine 2 hours ago.

Testing is a major problem... cops can smell alcohol on the breah, and a breathilizer is an easy test to administer. I can't see anyone being too happy if they were pulled over hand had to give a road-side urine test.

[GrapeJ713]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64092,00.html

-- In May of 2001 -- just months before Sept. 11 -- the U.S. State Department announced a $43 million gift of aid to Afghanistan and its ruling Taliban regime. The grant was widely recognized as a reward for a Taliban edict banning the cultivation of opium poppies.

-- Just recently, the U.S. Congress approved a $440 million anti-drug aid package earmarked for the Colombian military -- despite warnings from human rights groups that the Colombian military has yet to satisfactorily sever its ties with the narco-terrorist groups responsible for the country's rash of kidnappings, bombings and murders.

I just recently saw the beginning of a documentary called "Grass" (I fell asleep, not the movies fault) and it went through how pot was made illegal. It was surreal listening to anti-drug warriors in the 30's and 40's say how vigourous law enforcement and locking up addicts would stop illegal drug use in the USA. It's been over 60 years now, the government still lies about how we can win the drug war if they only had enough money and manpower. If drugs were legal then the profits would shrink out of it just like when alcohol was re-legalized after prohibition. I think a lot of old people have to die before people will act clearly on drugs. My mom is a baby boomer and thinks they should still thinks drugs should be illegal. But she smoked some pot on her 30th birthday at a fleetwood mac concert, I asked her if a cop saw her and arrested her would that have been the best thing to happen to her? She didn't want to talk about it after that.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Unfortunately, since most people are human, we find education boring. Which will be more memorable? Which would you be more likely to remember, the "this is your brain... this is your brain on drugs" ad, or a bunch of actual statistics? (Even if you just give the statistics, people will say that its indoctrination... someone will just come up with more stats later.)

True, propoganda is sexier, but the truth is important. We should be taught about(and teacch others about) drugs the same we we teach about fire, or guns, or reckless driveing.

to pu it another way, if you had a kid, and lived near a busy road, you would tell them not to go on the road. As they got older you would tell them why they must avoid the road, and later how to cross the road safely. Yopu would not tell them that crossing the road would get them pregnant, or that a big scary monster would eat them if they crossed the road, becasue then they might try to cross the road, not see the big scary monster, and not know about the very real danger of the cars that might hit them.

Plus, on the issue specifically on drugs and driving, many people are more likely to believe anecdotes and their own experineces ("hey, I feel fine... where are my keys") than some stats about x% of people smoking and causing accidents. (You don't need laws for the good people, you need them for the people who will do bad things.)

a difference between alcohol and pot.
Alcohol "I feel fine, where are my keys" stumbles to keys, gets in car, drives off.

Pot "I feel fine, where are my keys" sees keys" oh, way over there." eats twinke.

:D


So, do you believe that RIDE programs (spot checks, where the cops set up road blocks and check people at random for alcohol) should be stopped?
hmm in gerneral, yes random enforement just rubs me the wrong way, but in some specific cases, i can see a need for it.

And do you think its a crime to have any chemicals in your system that cause impairment, even if you are not driving in a reckless manor? And if a person is reckless, are extra charges (for driving drunk) waranted, or should any charges relate only to the crime itself?

it should not be a crime to have chemicals in your sytem that might cause imparement, heck some naturaly occurring chemicls probably fit that criteria. But maybe haveing those chemicals might infer guilt.
Ie two people stopped for speeding, one is drunk, the other is not. the drunk is cited, warned and possibly detained (depending on level of imparment) the other is cited, fined and warned to slow down. you could reasonably assume the sober person will heed your warning, while you cannot make that assumption for the drunkard.

[Samus]

Originally posted by RichardR
Well, the title of the thread is “Remember the Stupid "When you use drugs, you might be financing terrorists" ads?”. I presumed he was referring to the two guys in the restaurant – the dumb “Straw Man” character and the arrogant git who knocks him down. Perhaps you saw a different commercial. ;) Indeed, we are suffering from a bit of topic drift here. I didn't see the commercial you are talking about. My very first post in this thread quotes others who discuss the "more dangerous than you thought" anti-drug campaign, so I've been on that kick the whole time. No wonder we were confused! :)

That said, care to expound on why it's not important to consider a drug's effect when deciding its legality? I would think, from a public safety perspective, that keeping "dangerous" drugs out of Rite Aid is a good idea. What is dangerous? Well, we can argue that 'till the cows come home. I'm sure there's some reasonable standards that can be established.

Originally posted by OdderMensch
No, I don't think that is a fair statement. Also the legitlative history of the drug war does not take into acount end user harm, as much as simple racism and bigotry. I agree that the "war on drugs" has been, shall we say, misguided at best. Just because end user harm has not yet been a major factor, doesn't mean it should never come into play. The government has an interest in keeping people off of LSD trips, and away from drugs that can cause severe physical side effects, for all the reasons that DWI is a crime.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by dwb
That said, care to expound on why it's not important to consider a drug's effect when deciding its legality? I would think, from a public safety perspective, that keeping "dangerous" drugs out of Rite Aid is a good idea.Sure. Mainly because I believe adults should be able to make their own decisions on things like this. It's not the business of the damn government to regulate my life, IMO. In addition, prohibition just makes things worse - briefly, it increases gang activity and makes it easier for kids to get hold of drugs.

I wouldn't propose putting them on the shelves next to the aspirin, but that's another story.

[Samus]

Originally posted by RichardR
Sure. Mainly because I believe adults should be able to make their own decisions on things like this. It's not the business of the damn government to regulate my life, IMO. In addition, prohibition just makes things worse - briefly, it increases gang activity and makes it easier for kids to get hold of drugs.

I wouldn't propose putting them on the shelves next to the aspirin, but that's another story. Fair enough. I happen to disagree, but I don't think we'll ever convince one another to change. :) I think if there's a compelling interest to public safety, then the government has legitimate reasoning to intervene.

Please don't take that as a ringing endorsement of the government's handling of the so-called war on drugs. Supporting them taking action is one thing, supporting each decision they've made is quite another.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by dwb
Fair enough. I happen to disagree, but I don't think we'll ever convince one another to change. :) I think if there's a compelling interest to public safety, then the government has legitimate reasoning to intervene.

Please don't take that as a ringing endorsement of the government's handling of the so-called war on drugs. Supporting them taking action is one thing, supporting each decision they've made is quite another. Understood. :cool:

[Ladewig]

a difference between alcohol and pot.
Alcohol "I feel fine, where are my keys" stumbles to keys, gets in car, drives off.

Pot "I feel fine, where are my keys" sees keys" oh, way over there." eats twinke.

How many orders of magnitude are necessary to measure the difference between alcohol-induced violence and pot-induced violence?

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by dwb

I agree that the "war on drugs" has been, shall we say, misguided at best. Just because end user harm has not yet been a major factor, doesn't mean it should never come into play. The government has an interest in keeping people off of LSD trips, and away from drugs that can cause severe physical side effects, for all the reasons that DWI is a crime.

Driveing while under the infuence of LSD I could see as being a crime, but why can't someone take LSD at home, or with friends? What possble interest does the government have in stoping me from altering my neurochemestry for a bit, so long as my actions do not hurt anyone.

Of course end user harm should come into play. But as far as i am concerned, if it doesn't hurt other people, it shouldn't be a crime.

Edited to add
Whoops, i should have read your exchange with RichardR, but if I might ask, what is the treat to public safety you see inherant to drug use? Since you belive a threat to public safety give the government the right to act?

[OdderMensch]

Oh if anyone is intersted here (http://www.mediacampaign.org/mg/television.html) you can find one of the best collections of strawmen on the web.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Tmy


I meant "campaign". Im less dyslexic when I smoke pot, but the government would rather I suffer wh bad spelling!


Tony's right. Smoking pot is fun. Is that so wrong. Is there a commandment saying "Thou shall not have fun!". Whats wrong with having vices.

And to Tony - are you saying there is no downside to smoking pot? :eek:

Just to lay my cards on the table - I'm not a big drug taker - just chocolate and maybe pepsi max (I think it has caffeine in) and I like to give those up for January - just so I know I can :) But I think all drugs have a payback.

I still think they should be legal though :)

OdderMensch - playing devil's advocate here, if you take an overdose of something like LSD by accident (is that possible?) then who would you expect to bail you out? Here it would be the government in the form of the Emergency Services. So if drug taking goes wrong in the form of addiction, overdose etc and the Government are expected to step in at this point, isn't it reasonable for it to want to take preventative steps?

Sou
(Edited to add - oh I'd wiped from my memory that I do indulge in alcohol sometimes - but never again :p until next time ;))

[schplurg]

So if drug taking goes wrong in the form of addiction, overdose etc and the Government are expected to step in at this point, isn't it reasonable for it to want to take preventative steps?If I may take a stab at this, who bails us out now? How would legalizing drugs change this? Many people already have health insurance here, though not everyone. In any case, I think it would be much cheaper for the government (taxpayers) to educate and "bail out" people than to lock them in jail for years and pay the police to enforce drug laws. Not to mention all the money saved by eliminating many of the other crimes associated with the illegal drug trade (dealers killing each other, etc). Educating people is more preventative than simply locking them up.

And sure there are downsides to smoking pot (not many), but if the user is the only one affected, then it isn't the governments business. There are downsides to eating at McDonalds too.

That said, care to expound on why it's not important to consider a drug's effect when deciding its legality? I would think, from a public safety perspective, that keeping "dangerous" drugs out of Rite Aid is a good idea. What is dangerous? Well, we can argue that 'till the cows come home. I'm sure there's some reasonable standards that can be established. I believe Rite-Aid sells beer and cigarettes. If not, other stores like it do (Walgreens, Thrifty, most grocery stores in America...). Of course the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal seems to somehow negate the fact that they kill more people than all other drugs combined. And, since statistically alcohol and tobacco are the most dangerous drugs, I guess all the other less dangerous drugs should be legal too. All the hard drugs "sound" so dangerous, but are they? I hear about a lot of drunk driving deaths, but never hear of any Cocaine, Heroin, PCP or LSD related traffic deaths.

Finally, I think that legalizing drugs will make them easier to control. It's easier for a 14 year old kid to buy pot or speed than to buy alcohol, as most dealers don't check I.D. Kids will still get it if it's legal, but it will be much tougher. By legalizing drugs, a good portion of them will be taken off the street, making them tougher to get on the black market.

In the end, it comes down to individual choice. If the adult user is the only one being hurt by drinking or taking drugs, that's their business.

[Soubrette]

All quotes in bold originally posted by schplurg
If I may take a stab at this, who bails us out now? How would legalizing drugs change this? Many people already have health insurance here, though not everyone. In any case, I think it would be much cheaper for the government (taxpayers) to educate and "bail out" people than to lock them in jail for years and pay the police to enforce drug laws. Not to mention all the money saved by eliminating many of the other crimes associated with the illegal drug trade (dealers killing each other, etc). Educating people is more preventative than simply locking them up.

Ok there are several nice points in this one :)

First - as you're American and I'm British we're going to have to go really slow on the health front. Your health system is radically different to ours so it will take me some time to get to grips with it (the only knowledge I have of it now is from ER ;))

My argument is not that the Government should legalise or make certain drugs illegal - it's just that cheesy adverts are to be expected if at some point when drug using goes wrong the government is expected to step in and clean up the mess. So, I think, we actually agree on the education part - even if neither of us are impressed by cheesy adverts.

I like that you make it clear that taxpayers fund the government - so many people seem to forget that - seeing government money as some kind of free money :)

Now on the cheaper part to educate and bail people out. I have no opinion on that and I'm open to figures. I do know that addiction relapses are common but I can't get more specific than that. I also know that keeping someone in prison is very expensive but I can't get more specific than that - so I'm open to persuasion either way there.

And sure there are downsides to smoking pot (not many), but if the user is the only one affected, then it isn't the governments business. There are downsides to eating at McDonalds too.

Now this is a genuine question :) Why does pot have to be compared to anything? My drug of choice if you like is alcohol. I don't feel I have to compare it to anything to justify my use. It is dangerous stuff. A certain proportion of people will become alcoholics through overusing it. People can damage their livers and poison themselves and die - people can vomit and choke on it and die etc etc. I use alcohol in full awareness of this downside and attempt to limit the dangers BUT in the full knowledge that as I get drunk my capacity for good judgement goes down and I may make a fatal mistake. I have never said - well alcohol isn't as bad as heroin thus I am justified in drinking it, it seems to be the pot users mantra though - pot isn't as bad as alcohol (and I personally believe that to be true) but it has nothing to do with how dangerous or not pot is. Not looking at you specifically here schplurg just things said on this thread and others, triggered by your comparison to fast food.

Onto your comparison - yes there are downsides to eating at McDonalds but again I would hope that education is the key here too :)

And what are the downsides to smoking pot in your opinion? I want to know so we can discuss if these downsides impinge on the user, people around them or society in general and if and when the goverment is justified in stepping in - if you'd like to talk further of course :)

believe Rite-Aid sells beer and cigarettes. If not, other stores like it do (Walgreens, Thrifty, most grocery stores in America...). Of course the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal seems to somehow negate the fact that they kill more people than all other drugs combined. And, since statistically alcohol and tobacco are the most dangerous drugs, I guess all the other less dangerous drugs should be legal too. All the hard drugs "sound" so dangerous, but are they? I hear about a lot of drunk driving deaths, but never hear of any Cocaine, Heroin, PCP or LSD related traffic deaths.

Yeah the trouble with that argument is that it could equally be taken to the other extreme and applied as a reason to make alcohol and nicotine illegal :eek: Are you saying that in your opinion all drugs should be made illegal?

And there is a big problem I feel with statistics - how many illegal drugs come under the scrutiny of the legal ones. Another reason (for me) they should all be legalised and studied:)

....in the end, it comes down to individual choice. If the adult user is the only one being hurt by drinking or taking drugs, that's their business.

But what if they aren't the only ones being hurt? I think we're talking at slightly cross purposes here - I have no problem with all drugs being legal. But I understand why the Government wants to discourage their use as it's expensive to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong - and for a proportion of people it does go wrong :(

Sou

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Soubrette
if you take an overdose of something like LSD by accident (is that possible?) then who would you expect to bail you out? Here it would be the government in the form of the Emergency Services. So if drug taking goes wrong in the form of addiction, overdose etc and the Government are expected to step in at this point, isn't it reasonable for it to want to take preventative steps?Yet another problem of prohibition.

When drugs are illegal you are more likely to take an accidental overdose than if they are legal. That is because you never really know the strength of illegal drugs. Legal drugs generally come in accurately regulated dose sizes.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by RichardR
Yet another problem of prohibition.

When drugs are illegal you are more likely to take an accidental overdose than if they are legal. That is because you never really know the strength of illegal drugs. Legal drugs generally come in accurately regulated dose sizes.

I agree and if the dosage wasn't regulated you could sue someone's ass off ;)

In fact Richard - could you post all your arguments regarding the legalisation of drugs in one post for me? At the moment there seems to be bits scattered all over the place and I'd like to consider the argument in one place :)

Thanks :D

Sou

[Samus]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
...but if I might ask, what is the treat to public safety you see inherent to drug use? Since you belive a threat to public safety give the government the right to act? First off, I checked out the link you posted, and downloaded the commercial with the two guys discussing how buying drugs directly supports terrorism. Now I'm on the same page as this thread (about time!) and I agree that their logic is absurd. I don't watch much TV, and I hadn't yet seen that commercial.

Pressing forward, how is drug use inherently a threat to public safety? I concede my forthcoming argument might lack consistency, but here goes...

There are substances that, when taken in moderation, have a mild enough effect on the body that they don't cause significant behavioral changes. Caffeine, alcohol, even nicotine, in moderation, cause little damage to one's inhibitions, judgement and ability to control themselves. It's safe to allow such substances under the reasoning that a person would still be able to function.

Other substances have a more significant effect, even when taken in moderation. I used LSD as an example. Even casual, moderated use of so-called "hard drugs" can cause much physical harm and cause poor judgement. Such substances should probably not be allowed.

All this said, overdosing on any substance mentioned above (including caffeine, and especially alcohol) can have significant effects on one's judgement and ability to act responsibly. For that reason, some might draw the conclusion that alcohol should be banned. After all, look at all the drink-driving deaths every year! Two problems with alcohol are 1. it's availability and 2. lack of moderation. However, if any given hard drug is legalized, it will become more readily available, and people will continue to use without moderation. So, you've got a bad deal in that direction, too.

Another thing to consider: how easy it is to become addicted. I've smoked cigarettes in the past, you have to try to become addicted to those. It requires smoking them regularly until you begin to crave the nicotine. From what I recall, some hard drugs can have you hooked on the first sample, some may even be deadly on first dosage (ecstasy comes to mind). More dangerous substances in that respect should also be illegal.

Bottom line, yes I am saying the government is protecting us from ourselves. That only slightly jives with my overarching philosophy regarding the role of the government (which I will post if there is significant interest ...or heck, any interest!)

Because I have no plans to ever use illegal drugs (I barely drink alcohol, my only semi-harmful vice is the occasional cigar) my arguments might be flawed, and I understand that.

Thoughts? Comments?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
Originally posted by Segnosaur
[B]
Pot "I feel fine, where are my keys" sees keys" oh, way over there." eats twinke.


Oh great... now they're going to add twinkies to the war on terror.

Originally posted by OdderMensch
Originally posted by Segnosaur
[B]
hmm in gerneral, yes random enforement just rubs me the wrong way, but in some specific cases, i can see a need for it.

...
it should not be a crime to have chemicals in your sytem that might cause imparement, heck some naturaly occurring chemicls probably fit that criteria. But maybe haveing those chemicals might infer guilt.


Ok, you're being logically consistent, and I respect that.

As much as 'punishing' people just for having alcohol or drugs in their system while driving seems like punishing people just for the potential they may do wrong, I still think its a good idea, because it involves the elimination of a very big big risk factor. As for the RIDE programs (do they call them that where you live?), again I think the benefit (i.e. people deliberately not driving drunk because of the risk of getting caught) outweighs the negative aspects.

But, that's all I'm going to say on that because it could get off topic really fast.

[Tmy]

What little respect i had for the gov't war on drugs was flushed down the shatter when they refused to take out poppy fields during the Afgan-Taliban invasion. Talk about drugs directly supporting terror! It wouldve been so easy to take out the crop but the US wanted to play nice with the anti-Taliban scumbag warlords.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by schplurg

Finally, I think that legalizing drugs will make them easier to control. It's easier for a 14 year old kid to buy pot or speed than to buy alcohol, as most dealers don't check I.D. Kids will still get it if it's legal, but it will be much tougher. By legalizing drugs, a good portion of them will be taken off the street, making them tougher to get on the black market.



Now wait a second.... I've heard some valid arguments for legalizing drugs, but that argument you made (making them legal will make it harder for kids to get them) makes no sense at all.

Yes, the "black market" will disappear. But, kids will still be able to obtain them from adults who are willing to buy them for kids. (Just as adults buy beer or cigaretes for kids now.)

If anything, might end up making it easier to get drugs; rather than having just a few sources in the neighbourhood, potentially anyone can purchase pot at the local store to give to kids. Plus, once legal, the price would likely come down, which would allow more kids to afford it.

And I don't really think pot is easier to get than alcohol because of the lack of ID checks. I think its just a case of convenience.... A few joints are a lot easier to carry around with you in a jacket pocket than a 6 pack of beer. (Plus, I didn't really think kids have that much trouble getting alcohol.)

[Tmy]

When I was in school getting pot was so much eaiser than getting alcohol.

I think these drug ads are counter productive. They are so outragous and misleading. When kids do experiment they realize the drug ads are full of s**t and they lose all credibility.

Teh ant Tobacco ads are juts as bad. Most of them just villify tobacco companies for crap they did decades ago. Ironically those ads are funded with tobacco money.

[Dancing David]

Yeah really, alcohol is number one with six graders, most of whom drink at home.

The only drug I feel shouldn't be legal is cocaine, little rats allowed to self administer heroin(which I don't believe should be legal, maybe liscensed) live to the age of seven months, little rats that self admiinister cocaine are all dead in a month. (This according to Dam White, UofI in the 1980's)

Peace

[RichardR]

Sou:

I don’t really want to get into another long debate about legalizing drugs, but since you ask, here is a summary of my arguments. They come under two general headings, namely (a) civil liberties and (b) the consequences of prohibition are worse.

The civil libertarian argument is simple: the government should get the hell out of our lives. I don’t care if something is dangerous, I don’t need nanny to tell me what to do or what not to do. As long as the known dangers are understood it should be up to each adult to decide what he or she wants to do or not to do.

There are many consequences of prohibition that are worse than drug use, namely that prohibition means:

1) Drugs are distributed by criminal gangs that protect their turf with violence. Much gun use / violence is directly related to the criminal gangs that are catering to the market that prohibition has forbidden legitimate businesses. It provides many youths in poor areas with little incentive to do anything but join gangs and deal drugs. All the shooting deaths presented in the commercials as reasons drugs are bad, are actually a result of drug warlords protecting their huge (artificially created by the government), illegal profits.

2) There is a huge law enforcement cost of trying to prevent (1) above.

3) Drug use may finance some terrorism. I say may – but in any case the obvious answer to those idiotic commercials is to ditch the Straw Man idiot and tell the arrogant prat with the glasses that it is prohibition that allows terrorists to make any profits from drugs, not the drugs per se.

4) The prisons are full of drug “offenders” who should not IMO be there. This ruins the lives of many of them, and the incarceration of all these people is an unnecessary cost to the rest of us.

5) Some drug users turn to crime to pay for the high cost of their habit. Legally produced drugs should be much cheaper.

6) Increased pollution due to illegal drug manufacture. Meth labs, especially, fall into this category. Legal factories would be able to dispose of pollutants legally (duh!).

7) Drug users don’t know what they are getting and don’t know the dose. Fake Ecstasy, for example, makes many more people sick than real Ecstacy. Drug users, if they overdose, usually do so because they don’t know the strength of the latest batch.

8) Kids can get hold of drugs more easily. This is because drug dealers don’t check IDs. Some people have suggested here that this is a false reason, arguing that kids can get alcohol now. Well, it is probably impossible to keep all drugs from all kids, but using this as an excuse is lazy defeatist thinking, IMO. It is quite possible to be much more strict with drugs than we are with alcohol and cigarettes, with much bigger penalties for selling to minors. It is hard to argue that making drugs legal for adults but illegal for kids would be anything but an improvement.

9) The paranoid “drugs are evil” message prevents any rational discussion about, and any useful research into, drug use. Kids are told that all drugs are bad, and when they find that they can smoke a little pot without turning into addicts they lose respect for any official message about drugs. Which is unfortunate because some drugs are bad.

That about covers it, although there are probably more examples of the evils of prohibition. And if the above applies to one drug it applies to all drugs, IMO.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RichardR
8) Kids can get hold of drugs more easily. This is because drug dealers don’t check IDs. Some people have suggested here that this is a false reason, arguing that kids can get alcohol now. Well, it is probably impossible to keep all drugs from all kids, but using this as an excuse is lazy defeatist thinking, IMO. It is quite possible to be much more strict with drugs than we are with alcohol and cigarettes, with much bigger penalties for selling to minors. It is hard to argue that making drugs legal for adults but illegal for kids would be anything but an improvement.


The other thing involved is that at least with alcohol, some people will not provide booze to kids because it is illegal. Pot dealers don't have any reason to make a distinction between selling to kids or not.

You forgot to add the benefit of legalizing drugs from the government perspective: you can tax it.

Thus, money that now goes into the drug lord hands will go to the government.

[Segnosaur]

Even though your posting was directed at Sou, I thought I'd respond...

For the most part, I agree with most of your points. But, I think a couple of them either need a little more consideration, or are just plane wrong...

Originally posted by RichardR
The civil libertarian argument is simple: the government should get the hell out of our lives. I don’t care if something is dangerous, I don’t need nanny to tell me what to do or what not to do. As long as the known dangers are understood it should be up to each adult to decide what he or she wants to do or not to do.

I agree with the concept. The main purpose of the govenment should be to protect the citizens, not run their lives.

Unfortunately, our society isn't set up like that right now. If drugs were legal, non-drug users might be impacted negatively... for example: health costs (here in Canada, health care is provided by the government; what if someone is hospitalized due to drug use?), welfare costs (Yes, not all addicts are on 'skid row' or welfare, but some are), even just sitting next to someone in a restaurant.

Yeah, I know most of those above arguments also apply to cigarettes, alcohol and fast food. Its just one more thing that would be added into an already overcrowded mix.

Now, until we get a more 'libertarian' society overall, is it fair to impose the above drug-related risks on non-drug using people? What ARE the actual risks? And what is an acceptible cost? (Again, these are things that need to be considered; not that they totally invalidate your point.)

Another thing you meantion is the 'known dangers'. Another potential problem I see is the fact that, right now, we don't know all the risks. Heck, we don't even know everything that alcohol and tobacco cause. We depend on the government for certain safeguards (e.g. make sure food isn't contaminated, pesticides are safe, etc.) Do we know enough about ALL the effects of drugs on people? What will happen if the goverment says "Ok, Heroin is legal", and 10 years down the road, we find some horrible side effect?

Originally posted by RichardR
7) Drug users don’t know what they are getting and don’t know the dose. Fake Ecstasy, for example, makes many more people sick than real Ecstacy. Drug users, if they overdose, usually do so because they don’t know the strength of the latest batch.

This is another point that would have to be considered very carefully. Yes, the government could set up rules for potency, contaminants, etc. But, if there is profit to be had, people will still be willing to cook stuff up in their basement. Why buy pot from the government-liscenced store and pay tax, when you can buy it from Joe Smith who grew it in his basement and avoid the tax? (Of course, Joe Smith had been urinating on his crop since he started growing it, but hey, its still a bargin.) Since drugs would be legal, it would be harder to charge the dealer, but people taking his version would still be at risk.

It doesn't totally invalidate your point; in fact, I do think it would cut down on overdoses. But it wouldn't eliminate them.

Originally posted by RichardR
8) Kids can get hold of drugs more easily. This is because drug dealers don’t check IDs. Some people have suggested here that this is a false reason, arguing that kids can get alcohol now. Well, it is probably impossible to keep all drugs from all kids, but using this as an excuse is lazy defeatist thinking, IMO. It is quite possible to be much more strict with drugs than we are with alcohol and cigarettes, with much bigger penalties for selling to minors. It is hard to argue that making drugs legal for adults but illegal for kids would be anything but an improvement.


Ok, now this is where I totally disagree....

The only way that it would possibly work is if you made the penalty for selling to kids much much more higher than the current pentalty for dealing drugs now. (Make the penalty for selling to kids execution, and it may work. It has to be far and above the penalty for selling drugs to kids now.) What do you consider a valid penalty?

Right now, a dealer buys some drugs for $X, and sells them to kids for $Y. The difference between $X and $Y is profit (which helps compensate him for any risk involved.)

Now, if drugs were legal, the price would decrease. The dealer could go get his supply at the local government store, and walk to the local mall to sell to kids there. That means the dealer would make more money, either though a greater profit margin (if he sells at $Y; possible, since the kids were willing to buy at that price before), or through greater volume (lower cost means people can buy more.) Plus, risk is reduced in several ways: No charge for simple possession, so trafficing would have to be proven, which isn't as easy; and the supply is more guaranteed.

So, any penalty for selling to minors would have to be great enough to overcome both the potential for greater profits, and the lower chance of detection.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by RichardR
Sou:

I don’t really want to get into another long debate about legalizing drugs, but since you ask, here is a summary of my arguments. They come under two general headings, namely (a) civil liberties and (b) the consequences of prohibition are worse.

The civil libertarian argument is simple: the government should get the hell out of our lives. I don’t care if something is dangerous, I don’t need nanny to tell me what to do or what not to do. As long as the known dangers are understood it should be up to each adult to decide what he or she wants to do or not to do.

There are many consequences of prohibition that are worse than drug use, namely that prohibition means:

1) Drugs are distributed by criminal gangs that protect their turf with violence. Much gun use / violence is directly related to the criminal gangs that are catering to the market that prohibition has forbidden legitimate businesses. It provides many youths in poor areas with little incentive to do anything but join gangs and deal drugs. All the shooting deaths presented in the commercials as reasons drugs are bad, are actually a result of drug warlords protecting their huge (artificially created by the government), illegal profits.

......

OK Richard - this is more a general comment then and thanks for putting that list together for me :)

Now this seems to be high on the list of both Government Propaganda and Pro-drug Groups Propoganda and I genuinely don't get it.

The Government tells us to not do drugs because it funds terrorists/organised crime.

The ProDrug Lobbyists tell us to lift the prohibition because it will take drug money out of the hands of terrorists/organised crime.

The implication from both is that without this money terrorism or organised crime will just disappear?

I actually think that's one of the weakest arguments on both sides. Organised crime/terrorism will just move onto something else so not buying drugs or making them legal will have no net effect on terrorism/organised crime most certainly in the long term and probably in nothing but the very short term.

FWIW I'm a civil liberties gal - the only thing that would persuade me that keeping drugs illegal is if more people's liberties were abridged if the stuff were legal than not. People can stuff up their own lives in numerous legal ways now - if they choose drugs and lose control it just adds to the number imo.

That said the hard core evangalising from some drug supporters on this board is something I find somewhat irritating, it's like talking to fundamentalists - you never get to the bottom of their beliefs ;)

Sou

[Tmy]

Do we really want to wipe out drug use? Think about how much of the economy is supported by the drug trade. Sure its not directly taxed but drug dealers and known to be great consumers. They're always buying crap.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Soubrette
I actually think that's one of the weakest arguments on both sides. Organised crime/terrorism will just move onto something else so not buying drugs or making them legal will have no net effect on terrorism/organised crime most certainly in the long term and probably in nothing but the very short term.

While it won't starve all the terror or crime out, it might have a dramatic impact if you think of the 'drug economey' as being slightly larger than the auto industry. A black market is of course very had to monier, but I have seen some truely startleing estimates of its size gloabally.


FWIW I'm a civil liberties gal - the only thing that would persuade me that keeping drugs illegal is if more people's liberties were abridged if the stuff were legal than not. People can stuff up their own lives in numerous legal ways now - if they choose drugs and lose control it just adds to the number imo.

The problem is no one has to be persuded to keep drugs illegal. Drugs are illegal and our governments spend massive amounts of money trying to wipe out drug use. The problem is they have failed, year after year, decade after decade, drug use has continued, supplies have not dried up and prices have not been dramaticlly effected. The prohibition will never succed and we need to speak out against it.

Keeping these activies under ground harms our society far more that bringing it out into the open, so to speak.


That said the hard core evangalising from some drug supporters on this board is something I find somewhat irritating, it's like talking to fundamentalists - you never get to the bottom of their beliefs ;)

Sou

I am trying to be a reformed 'evangical' myself, how am I doing?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The only drug I feel shouldn't be legal is cocaine, little rats allowed to self administer heroin(which I don't believe should be legal, maybe liscensed) live to the age of seven months, little rats that self admiinister cocaine are all dead in a month. (This according to Dam White, UofI in the 1980's)OK, you've convinced me. Cocaine should be illegal for rats.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
If drugs were legal, non-drug users might be impacted negatively... for example: health costs (here in Canada, health care is provided by the government; what if someone is hospitalized due to drug use?), welfare costs (Yes, not all addicts are on 'skid row' or welfare, but some are), even just sitting next to someone in a restaurant.

Yeah, I know most of those above arguments also apply to cigarettes, alcohol and fast food. Its just one more thing that would be added into an already overcrowded mix. The majority of casual drug users are not hospitalized on a regular basis, you know. ;)

There are some costs of drugs, such as hospital costs. But these costs are incurred already. As I noted, overdoses are more likely under prohibition, and so I suggest that hospital costs could also be higher under prohibition..

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Another thing you meantion is the 'known dangers'. Another potential problem I see is the fact that, right now, we don't know all the risks. Heck, we don't even know everything that alcohol and tobacco cause. We depend on the government for certain safeguards (e.g. make sure food isn't contaminated, pesticides are safe, etc.) Do we know enough about ALL the effects of drugs on people? What will happen if the goverment says "Ok, Heroin is legal", and 10 years down the road, we find some horrible side effect? Well, I wouldn’t expect anyone to understand the unknown dangers.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
This is another point that would have to be considered very carefully. Yes, the government could set up rules for potency, contaminants, etc. But, if there is profit to be had, people will still be willing to cook stuff up in their basement.Will they? Why would they?

You can never make it impossible that someone will make some chemicals themselves. But how many people make their own whiskey at home now. Very many? No. Nor would very many try to manufacture Ecstasy (for example), if it was available legally.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Why buy pot from the government-liscenced store and pay tax, when you can buy it from Joe Smith who grew it in his basement and avoid the tax? (Of course, Joe Smith had been urinating on his crop since he started growing it, but hey, its still a bargin.) Since drugs would be legal, it would be harder to charge the dealer, but people taking his version would still be at risk. You do know that with overdoses, we’re not really talking about pot?

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The only way that it would possibly work is if you made the penalty for selling to kids much much more higher than the current pentalty for dealing drugs now. (Make the penalty for selling to kids execution, and it may work. It has to be far and above the penalty for selling drugs to kids now.) What do you consider a valid penalty? You’re comparing the penalty for drug dealers now (penalty jail – maybe), with a potential penalty for drug dealers in the future (jail, or worse.) That’s the wrong comparison.

The comparison you should make is between the penalty shopkeepers would get now for selling cigarettes to minors (penalty – a fine?), to the penalty they would get for selling drugs (jail).

If the penalty is prison then not many store owners or regular adults would be tempted.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Right now, a dealer buys some drugs for $X, and sells them to kids for $Y. The difference between $X and $Y is profit (which helps compensate him for any risk involved.)

Now, if drugs were legal, the price would decrease. The dealer could go get his supply at the local government store, and walk to the local mall to sell to kids there.If users can get their drugs legally they have less incentive to sell any. And I would control it more strictly to stop people buying huge quantities for resale. You will never completely prevent kids from getting hold of drugs whether they are legal or not. But if they are legal you have a chance to control it. Right now, you have no chance at all.

[RichardR]

Sou:

Who are you comparing to a fundamentalist? :p

You raise an interesting point, with some validity. Many of the criminal gangs were essentially created out of the prohibition of drugs. It would be better if that had never happened, but now that it has, those gangs will not all disappear overnight if prohibition is abolished. However, I don’t see how you could make legal, a whole lot of previously illegal activity, and say that crime wouldn’t decrease.

Firstly, it is hard to think of a “crime” that pays such high rewards for so little risk as drug dealing. That is because the profits have been artificially inflated by the government’s prohibition actions. I can’t imagine what would take its place for all those people involved, but if the profits are reduced, so will the violence that is there to protect those profits. To put it another way, if you reduce the available “market size” for crime, the supply of criminals is bound to fall.

Secondly, the street dealers will have lost not only the market for their product, but also one of their main reasons for being a drug dealer – namely to get cheap and plentiful drugs. Some of them would drop out, I believe. At the very least, there would be less incentive and fewer prospects than now, for any young person to start in crime.

Thirdly, the cartels in Central America (and elsewhere) would have no product to smuggle into the US and Europe. They might resort to other forms of crime in their own countries, but what crimes / violence would they be importing to the US or Europe? None that I can think of. At the very least, law enforcement would have to spend less time in the useless activity of trying to intercept drug shipments.

Of course, these are all just opinions. There is no hard data we can look at, that I’m aware of.

And re terrorism: if the argument is that if drugs were made legal then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do, then I will say that if everybody stopped doing drugs then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do. Either way, the “drugs finance terrorists so stop doing drugs” argument is bogus. Likewise, one of the “don’t do drugs” commercials on the TV in the US shows a young girl in a (presumably Central American), village who gets shot in a shootout between rival drug gangs. The message is “you buy little a baggy of pot and little girls die”. I don’t think these is any justification for saying that if drugs were not illegal this mythical little girl would still have died.

Drug crime is a direct result of drug prohibition, not of drugs. The conclusion from this is stop drug prohibition and you will stop drug prohibition crime. If drug criminals move to other forms of crime then tackle those crimes, but I don’t see that possibility as a reason to keep prohibition.

[BobK]

RichardR,

Thanks for posting a very well reasoned argument for the legalization and regulation of drugs.

I agree with you entirely.

Unfortunately I don't think the liquor lobby and the Bar Association would like that to happen. Cost them too much money.

The far right either.

I won't be holding my breath 'til it happens.:)

[Soubrette]

All quotes in bold originally posted by RichardR

Sou:

Who are you comparing to a fundamentalist? :p

Anyone who who chooses to see no downside and only an upside (excuse the pun ;)) to drug legalisation and use :p

You raise an interesting point, with some validity. Many of the criminal gangs were essentially created out of the prohibition of drugs. It would be better if that had never happened, but now that it has, those gangs will not all disappear overnight if prohibition is abolished. However, I don’t see how you could make legal, a whole lot of previously illegal activity, and say that crime wouldn’t decrease.

Because organised crime by its very definition is...well organised. They will just move out of the drugs market and into the say money market. Or the assassination market or Russia or whatever.

The best you can say, I think, is that users would be decrimininalised and thus crime will decrease by definition (something that was a crime isn't any more).

I think I understand what you're saying though and I'm about to comment on that in a second.

Firstly, it is hard to think of a “crime” that pays such high rewards for so little risk as drug dealing. That is because the profits have been artificially inflated by the government’s prohibition actions. I can’t imagine what would take its place for all those people involved, but if the profits are reduced, so will the violence that is there to protect those profits. To put it another way, if you reduce the available “market size” for crime, the supply of criminals is bound to fall.

I think we're talking at slightly cross purposes here Richard. I see organised crime as using drug money as a means to an end - funding terrorism etc. I see them merely looking for alternative money raising schemes which may on the face of it be legal -like the money markets, but the terrorism part will still remain. Whether the money markets (just as an example) will remain the corrupt-free market place they are today :p who is to say - a lot of money seems to induce violence in some.

No doubt the Government will then exhort us all to stop buying shares :D

Secondly, the street dealers will have lost not only the market for their product, but also one of their main reasons for being a drug dealer – namely to get cheap and plentiful drugs. Some of them would drop out, I believe. At the very least, there would be less incentive and fewer prospects than now, for any young person to start in crime.

I think that depends. It depends on the tax the government chooses to put on the legal drugs in the first instance. It is legal to buy cigarettes here in the UK but there is a thriving illegal smuggling industry around it because the tax is so high here. It doesn't necessarily follow that ending prohibition (surely you don't use that word for its emotive qualities ;)) will end all demand for black market drugs?

Also what about the people who can't afford to maintain their habits? Much of the non-organised crime in the UK is drug related (robbery to gain money to feed a drug habit) if you're down on your luck then I don't see how an element of that is going to remain, again it depends on the price set for the legal stuff.

If the price is low then I see your point totally. However alcohol and cigarettes are taxed to the hilt here - apparently for health reasons - nothing to do with the nice tax take from people unwilling or unable to give up their vices (and a glass or two or red wine every day is apparently healthier than being teetotal :)) I would say that legalised addictive drugs would present an irresistable target for a government wanting to raise taxes.

Thirdly, the cartels in Central America (and elsewhere) would have no product to smuggle into the US and Europe. They might resort to other forms of crime in their own countries, but what crimes / violence would they be importing to the US or Europe? None that I can think of. At the very least, law enforcement would have to spend less time in the useless activity of trying to intercept drug shipments.

They could start being a lot more organised about smuggling in people for a start :)

However I take your point about the law enforcement will have time to do something else - I'm sure they'll find something though!

Of course, these are all just opinions. There is no hard data we can look at, that I’m aware of.

I agree - but opinions can be as interesting and telling as facts.

And re terrorism: if the argument is that if drugs were made legal then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do, then I will say that if everybody stopped doing drugs then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do. Either way, the “drugs finance terrorists so stop doing drugs” argument is bogus. Likewise, one of the “don’t do drugs” commercials on the TV in the US shows a young girl in a (presumably Central American), village who gets shot in a shootout between rival drug gangs. The message is “you buy little a baggy of pot and little girls die”. I don’t think these is any justification for saying that if drugs were not illegal this mythical little girl would still have died.

Hang on - who says that if we legalise drugs in our countries that the drug cartels in other countries will disappear? Explain that reasoning to me please.

Drug crime is a direct result of drug prohibition, not of drugs. The conclusion from this is stop drug prohibition and you will stop drug prohibition crime. If drug criminals move to other forms of crime then tackle those crimes, but I don’t see that possibility as a reason to keep prohibition.

I agree with you totally it's a weak argument. But so it is from your side too.

You say it yourself - if everyone gave up drugs (what no chocolate:() then terrorists would find another source of income. Read legalise drugs instead of gave up and you have the same scenario.

And of course drug crime is a direct result of drug prohibition. You might as well say that drug crime is a direct result of making drugs illegal. It's a meaningless statement I'm afraid Richard in much the same vein as gun crime is a result of illegal guns.

Now show me you aren't an evangalist - what are the downside to legalising drugs and tell me what you would do about them?

Thank you for the interesting conversation, I'm enjoying it :)

Sou
(6 smileys died in the making of this post)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
While it won't starve all the terror or crime out, it might have a dramatic impact if you think of the 'drug economey' as being slightly larger than the auto industry. A black market is of course very had to monier, but I have seen some truely startleing estimates of its size gloabally.

I think I've covered it with Richard - I'm thinking that I'm looking at it from a slightly different viewpoint from you. The drug economy to me is just a way of making money to fund other illegal activities such as terrorism. So organised crime I feel, will remain pretty much as is. In fact it may even stay in the drug market - if it's legal now :p Organised criminals are in plenty of legal markets around the world.

Plus I don't understand how if we legalise crime then it would affect the drug cultures of other countries. I'd be interested in knowing more about that :)

The problem is no one has to be persuded to keep drugs illegal. Drugs are illegal and our governments spend massive amounts of money trying to wipe out drug use. The problem is they have failed, year after year, decade after decade, drug use has continued, supplies have not dried up and prices have not been dramaticlly effected. The prohibition will never succed and we need to speak out against it.

I agree with you there. And in fact I'm trying to think of a society that doesn't have some kind of social mind altering part to it whether it be alcohol or weird herbs and I'm failing abysmally :D. Maybe we're hardwired to seek these things out ;)

So why do you think these things are still illegal Odder?

Keeping these activies under ground harms our society far more that bringing it out into the open, so to speak.

In what way?

I am trying to be a reformed 'evangical' myself, how am I doing?

There is nothing wrong with being passionate about something :) And talking logically and calmly about something either - I think I was a bit pissed off at the hit and run "drugs are fun" couple of posts on this thread which the posters then made no effort to back up or defend. :)

I like talking about different viewpoints. Thank you for sharing yours :)

Sou

[Genghis Pwn]

Those drug ads were a disgrace and a shame. :mad:

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Originally posted by OdderMensch
While it won't starve all the terror or crime out, it might have a dramatic impact if you think of the 'drug economey' as being slightly larger than the auto industry. A black market is of course very had to monier, but I have seen some truely startleing estimates of its size gloabally.

Plus I don't understand how if we legalise crime then it would affect the drug cultures of other countries. I'd be interested in knowing more about that :)

First would be the chance for counties to produce and export legally a highly desireable cash crop.
Second the US exports alot of it's drug war. Plan Colombia alone acounts for nearly a billion dollars in mostly military aid, we gave millions to the Taliban just before 9/11, and US rader spots planes so Peru can shoots down missionarys (by accident)
Third would be the subtle singal ending the war will send to the world, that a free and proud people can admit thier mistakes and faults and yet prosper.

The problem is no one has to be persuded to keep drugs illegal. Drugs are illegal and our governments spend massive amounts of money trying to wipe out drug use. The problem is they have failed, year after year, decade after decade, drug use has continued, supplies have not dried up and prices have not been dramaticlly effected. The prohibition will never succed and we need to speak out against it.

I agree with you there. And in fact I'm trying to think of a society that doesn't have some kind of social mind altering part to it whether it be alcohol or weird herbs and I'm failing abysmally :D. Maybe we're hardwired to seek these things out ;)

So why do you think these things are still illegal Odder?

Apathy on the part of the voters. It is one thing to get people to fight for the right to bear arms, Guns have a simple almost primal effect. The value in drugs is less obvoius, few people belive they have any use but to make you stupid. Why vote with the potheads, which brings me to sterotypes, bigotry and class warfare. It is simple to profile drug users an dealers, and they are a very easy target for politicions and police wanting to impress the public. Aslo anyone supporting an end to the drug war would be seen as 'soft on crime.' Add to that the legitlative history of the war, from Anslinger to Nixon to Bush Jr, why kill the goose that lays the golden egg? Why take the politcal heat that burnt Carter? A good book by Peter McWillmas describes this problem better than I can.

Who is against legalization?
The right, who is tough on crime and vice, and the left, who thinks they can run your life better than you can. :(


Keeping these activies under ground harms our society far more that bringing it out into the open, so to speak.

In what way?

Alcoholism and binge drinking surged durring prohibition. That and with legal access it removes the stigma from addiction and will better enable people to seek treatment. Plus you will cut down on many of the cheaper, more dangeruos drugs because many of them are cheap alternatives to more pure substances. Also you can count on less of the other crime that comes with the trade as is, Dealers A and B will no longer need to shot it out over disputes as they will have access to a legal remedy from the courts.

:D

[shanek]

Stop funding terrorism—grow your own pot!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
This is another point that would have to be considered very carefully. Yes, the government could set up rules for potency, contaminants, etc. But, if there is profit to be had, people will still be willing to cook stuff up in their basement. Why buy pot from the government-liscenced store and pay tax, when you can buy it from Joe Smith who grew it in his basement and avoid the tax?

Why buy beer when you can make it in a 5 gallon drum in your basement?

While a lot of people brew their own, I don't think the beer companies are worried about them. They certainly aren't doing it to avoid the tax.

Mac & cheese is easy to make from scratch, but people still buy Kraft.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RichardR
You raise an interesting point, with some validity. Many of the criminal gangs were essentially created out of the prohibition of drugs. It would be better if that had never happened, but now that it has, those gangs will not all disappear overnight if prohibition is abolished. However, I don’t see how you could make legal, a whole lot of previously illegal activity, and say that crime wouldn’t decrease.


Especially considering that we already have data to help gain some insight. Look back at alchohol prohibition and the effect of ending it.

The last time we had problems with massive gang violence, huge drug trafficking, people manufacturing their own, and people getting very sick from getting bad stuff, the way we solved it was by ending prohibition.

(the comments about prohibition and quality control are completely dead on - outside of prohibition, how many people have gone blind from booze cut with wood alcohol?)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Because organised crime by its very definition is...well organised. They will just move out of the drugs market and into the say money market.

You're focussing on the organized part and not the crime part. If organized crime enters a legal market, it's not organized crime any more. It's a business. A good example is gambling. While organized crime controls gambling in places like New York, where it's illegal, the casinos in Vegas are operated by legitimate business owners.

The best you can say, I think, is that users would be decrimininalised and thus crime will decrease by definition (something that was a crime isn't any more).

What about all the gang war and other violence related to the illegal drug trade?

I think that depends. It depends on the tax the government chooses to put on the legal drugs in the first instance.

This is a good point. If the government taxes the drugs too much, it'll just fuel another black market, the way we have a black market for cigarettes in places with high cigarette taxes.

(Of course, we also have an illegal black market for toilets in this country, too. Government insanity never ends!)

If the price is low then I see your point totally.

As long as the government doesn't tax it to death, the prices will be much lower than they are now. And in the hands of responsible private businesses. And our streets would be safer and we would have lower taxes and more resources to go and catch real criminals. Not to mention the loss of such insane and despicable infringements of our liberty like asset forfieture, where the police can come and take your car etc. without so much as even charging you with a crime.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Especially considering that we already have data to help gain some insight. Look back at alchohol prohibition and the effect of ending it. Good point. Do you have any data on that?

[shanek]

Here's some data on Prohibition and the Drug War:

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/prohibition/10.gif

Source: Historical Stat., Colonial Times to 1970, series h 971-986. Vital Stat. of the United States, annual.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
First would be the chance for counties to produce and export legally a highly desireable cash crop.

Um..don't they produce a highly desirable cash crop at the moment? Or are you saying demand will increase hugely?

Second the US exports alot of it's drug war. Plan Colombia alone acounts for nearly a billion dollars in mostly military aid, we gave millions to the Taliban just before 9/11, and US rader spots planes so Peru can shoots down missionarys (by accident)

So what do you think will happen once this money is taken away?

Third would be the subtle singal ending the war will send to the world, that a free and proud people can admit thier mistakes and faults and yet prosper.

That just sounds like cheesy propaganda to me :D

Apathy on the part of the voters. It is one thing to get people to fight for the right to bear arms, Guns have a simple almost primal effect. The value in drugs is less obvoius, few people belive they have any use but to make you stupid. Why vote with the potheads, which brings me to sterotypes, bigotry and class warfare. It is simple to profile drug users an dealers, and they are a very easy target for politicions and police wanting to impress the public. Aslo anyone supporting an end to the drug war would be seen as 'soft on crime.' Add to that the legitlative history of the war, from Anslinger to Nixon to Bush Jr, why kill the goose that lays the golden egg? Why take the politcal heat that burnt Carter? A good book by Peter McWillmas describes this problem better than I can.

The fight for the right to bear arms - I'm from the home of the gun ban remember, where we're held to ransom by malicious American Squirrels because we don't have that right :) But I digress....tell me what the value of recreational drugs are in your opinion and tell me if you believe there are any downside to the use of them and what you think they are.

As for stereotyping I think that is a human character trait in general. But I also have to say that in my limited experience (thinking of one friend in particular who smoked pot every day for about 5 years in her early twenties:)) she fitted the demotivated pot smoker stereotype to a tee. I was recently talking to her about this and she said when she stopped it was like her head clearing (when she wasn't high) and she could actually think about things in a way that chronic smoking stopped her doing - although she didn't realise that at the time. Now I mention her because drugs have a physical effect - isn't it reasonable to assume that stereotypes emerge because of that physical effect for at least the majority of chronic drug takers? I don't know - that's something I'm very interested in. And of course I accept that an occasional user will not be facing the same risks.

Soft on crime makes me laugh. I can't find it in me to disagree with you because that reasoning by the Government is so weak :D

Who is against legalization?
The right, who is tough on crime and vice, and the left, who thinks they can run your life better than you can. :(

Best vote libertarian then ;)

Alcoholism and binge drinking surged durring prohibition. That and with legal access it removes the stigma from addiction and will better enable people to seek treatment. Plus you will cut down on many of the cheaper, more dangeruos drugs because many of them are cheap alternatives to more pure substances. Also you can count on less of the other crime that comes with the trade as is, Dealers A and B will no longer need to shot it out over disputes as they will have access to a legal remedy from the courts.

:D

That's interesting, I have a vague memory of Luke T linking to some statistics that showed that alcoholism actually went up when prohibition ended.

Addiction is a funny thing. We misuse the word alot in our society. But basically there are many legal things you can become addicted to and that is still a stigma. There's a thread in banter about fat people. Fat people often abuse food (and I mean that purely as in they eat for reasons other than hunger) as a substance. In many ways some of them could be addicts yet you don't see them any less stigmatised.

Cut down on cheaper more dangerous drugs? Like what and what are the more pure alternatives? I know nothing - educate me.

What kind of disputes do dealers have? If it's turf warfare then I don't see they have a legal remedy at all - unless the government starts running drug franchises ;) Give me some examples so I can see what you mean.

pgwenthold - I too would like to see some figures on prohibition and when it was lifted. As I say I have this vague vague memory of Luke giving some that contradict what you say. And I hope this isn't going to be like the gun control figure thread - lots of contradictory figures which can back up either side. That is sooo tiresome :)

Shane - I suppose I was thinking organised crime as in areas where the end result is used to fund illegal activities such as terrorism. Surely if drugs are legalised now then the people with the infrastructure will be those already in the market ie the criminals. Do you advocate that they keep and build on what was their ill gotten gains now they're bona fide businessmen:)?

And regarding gang warfare etc - why do you think they'll go away? is all gang warfare etc about drugs or just a high percentage?

Sou
(four smileys dead - stop killing smileys Jeff - lift the ban)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Soubrette
I suppose I was thinking organised crime as in areas where the end result is used to fund illegal activities such as terrorism. Surely if drugs are legalised now then the people with the infrastructure will be those already in the market ie the criminals.

Why? It didn't happen that way with Alcohol Prohibition. Once regular business gets into it the current dealers will either have to convert to a legitimate business or go out of business.

Do you advocate that they keep and build on what was their ill gotten gains now they're bona fide businessmen:)?

Let's not forget that these "ill-gotten gains" are nothing more than the funds from the sale of a product that the government has no business banning in the first place.

And regarding gang warfare etc - why do you think they'll go away? is all gang warfare etc about drugs or just a high percentage?

Gangs nowadays, at least in the US, are drug based. Without drugs,t here won't be drug turf to fight over.

Sou
(four smileys dead - stop killing smileys Jeff - lift the ban) [/B][/QUOTE]

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Soubrette
[Bpgwenthold - I too would like to see some figures on prohibition and when it was lifted. As I say I have this vague vague memory of Luke giving some that contradict what you say. [/B]

It depends on what you mean. You mentioned a claim that alcoholism went up after prohibition ended. If that is the effect you are claiming, then it does nothing to contradict what I have said.

No one has ever said that drug use will go down if drugs are legalized. However, we do expect certain things:

1) Drugs will become cheaper. Therefore,
a) people are less likely to need to resort to violent crime to get money for them (this is the origin of a lot of drug crime - to get money to pay for it)
b) dealers will not be able to sell them at high prices, thus will have to work for lower profit margins. How many people run moonshine stills these days? They were common in prohibition times.

2) Drugs can be regulated.
a) dealers will have to follow regulations or be not allowed to sell. The only market for illegal dealers will be those who are not allowed from buying legally. Although some people give booze to kids, no one makes a living off it.
b) the quality of the drugs will be known. This will solve a lot of the OD problems. Bad drugs were also common in prohibition, as dealers tended to cut their product with stuff like wood alcohol, which results in blindness.

3) Legalizing drugs is good money
a) we won't waste all this money in the war on drugs
b) we can tax drug sales

Now, it may be true that drug addiction might go up. However,
a) while drug addiction is bad, is it necessarily worse than alcohol addiction? Personally, I think drug addiction has a long way to go before it is as destructive as alcoholism. Especially considering the fact that if you legalize drugs, then a huge chunk of the problem they cause (crime, jail) is no longer a problem. It's that old canard "Drugs ruined his life. How so? He got busted and now he's sitting jail."
b) is it the government's job to protect people from getting addicted? I know a lot of people addicted to coffee...Again, you can talk about the potential danger they present, but it has to be evaluated without the context of prohibition. I can see the potential danger to be about the same as alcoholism, which apparently the government finds acceptable.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Um..don't they produce a highly desirable cash crop at the moment? Or are you saying demand will increase hugely?
No, I am saying that right now the criminal element within these counteries produces and exports it. With a legal export, the governments in produceing nations can also tax and tariff the trade.

So what do you think will happen once this money is taken away?
ideally that money will ot just be taekn away, but phased out andreplaced with money from tariffs.

Third would be the subtle singal ending the war will send to the world, that a free and proud people can admit thier mistakes and faults and yet prosper.

That just sounds like cheesy propaganda to me :D

I thought to be cheesy I'd have to mention puppies or something ;p You want Cheese? When hemp production starts in earnest, the birds will sing better! :D

The fight for the right to bear arms - I'm from the home of the gun ban remember, where we're held to ransom by malicious American Squirrels because we don't have that right :) But I digress....tell me what the value of recreational drugs are in your opinion and tell me if you believe there are any downside to the use of them and what you think they are.

I believe a good 80% of the downside of drug use comes from prohibition, and the lack of education about both the real use and the true dangers of drug use. The main value I see is simply the ending of a multi-billion dollar war that does nothing.

Now I mention her because drugs have a physical effect - isn't it reasonable to assume that stereotypes emerge because of that physical effect for at least the majority of chronic drug takers? I don't know - that's something I'm very interested in. And of course I accept that an occasional user will not be facing the same risks.

Yes it is true, but couldn't it be said that many of the negative sterotypes of homosexuals are based on the physical effects of 'sinful love' And the majority of drug users are potsmokers that use in a more or less responseable manner, the number of 'hard core addicts' is relatively small and can be controlled better in a regulated market than in an underground one.


Oh yeah, the wr on drugs is the war on pot, there are some 75 million pot smokers and some 7 million 'hard drug' (cocaine herion) users. The number of hard core users has remained stable within the population since records were kept.

Best vote libertarian then ;)
What, and throw away my vote! :D


Cut down on cheaper more dangerous drugs? Like what and what are the more pure alternatives? I know nothing - educate me.

People today press any number of things into pill from and sell it as MDMA, while MDMA is not candy and should be handled with care, most of the things people subsitute for it are more dangerous, if just from not knowing what you might get.

Since it is difficult to grow high grade MJ, some people (foolishly) resort to adultering the MJ with anything from PCP to formaldihyde! In a legal enviroment this will become unnessacary.

You might also be interested in the history of crack cocaine, basicly it exists becasue of the drug war when dealers realized they could make more profit of it's cheaper high.

What kind of disputes do dealers have? If it's turf warfare then I don't see they have a legal remedy at all - unless the government starts running drug franchises ;) Give me some examples so I can see what you mean.

Example A
Dealer sells someone a pound of cocaine, buyer tests and finds that the dealer cut the cocaine with some substance. Buyer is mad, shoots dealer.

Or buyer goes to court to recover his investment.

Example B
Dealer gets robbed because he cannot store his money in a safe or bank, dealer finds peole that robbed him, shoots them.

or dealer calls the cops and covers the loss with his insureance.

Example C
User is told substance is herion, goes home to find it is not herion, since user is an addict withdrawl kicks in and user commmits any number of crimes in an attempot to get his needed herion.

or user has a safe and reliible connection and never goes thru withdrawl without it being part of a decision to end his or her addiction.

[shanek]

Here are some statistics on drug addiction from the Drug Policy Alliance compared to murder statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

In 1904, when cocaine and marijuana were available legally, the addiction rate of these two drugs was 1.3% and the murder rate was 1.3 per 100,000. In 1979, after the onset of the War on Drugs, the murder rate had jumped to 10.0 out of 100,000, and the addiction rate of cocaine and marijuana was...1.3%.

[shanek]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
No, I am saying that right now the criminal element within these counteries produces and exports it. With a legal export, the governments in produceing nations can also tax and tariff the trade.

And even without tariffs, the goods will be considered part of GDP and the money will go through the banks to be invested.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Soubrette
RR: You raise an interesting point, with some validity. Many of the criminal gangs were essentially created out of the prohibition of drugs. It would be better if that had never happened, but now that it has, those gangs will not all disappear overnight if prohibition is abolished. However, I don’t see how you could make legal, a whole lot of previously illegal activity, and say that crime wouldn’t decrease.

Sou: Because organised crime by its very definition is...well organised. They will just move out of the drugs market and into the say money market. Or the assassination market or Russia or whatever.

The best you can say, I think, is that users would be decrimininalised and thus crime will decrease by definition (something that was a crime isn't any more). No that is not my point (although that is also true). I am saying that not all the people involved in manufacture, smuggling and street selling of drugs, would go into other forms of crime. Please read the quote from me below.

Originally posted by Soubrette
RR: Firstly, it is hard to think of a “crime” that pays such high rewards for so little risk as drug dealing. That is because the profits have been artificially inflated by the government’s prohibition actions. I can’t imagine what would take its place for all those people involved, but if the profits are reduced, so will the violence that is there to protect those profits. To put it another way, if you reduce the available “market size” for crime, the supply of criminals is bound to fall.

Sou: I think we're talking at slightly cross purposes here Richard. I see organised crime as using drug money as a means to an end - funding terrorism etc. Can you show me evidence that all organized drug profits go to finance terrorism?

Originally posted by Soubrette
RR: Secondly, the street dealers will have lost not only the market for their product, but also one of their main reasons for being a drug dealer – namely to get cheap and plentiful drugs. Some of them would drop out, I believe. At the very least, there would be less incentive and fewer prospects than now, for any young person to start in crime.

Sou: I think that depends. It depends on the tax the government chooses to put on the legal drugs in the first instance. It is legal to buy cigarettes here in the UK but there is a thriving illegal smuggling industry around it because the tax is so high here. It doesn't necessarily follow that ending prohibition (surely you don't use that word for its emotive qualities ;)) will end all demand for black market drugs? Agreed. The government can always mess things up. But how many illegal cigarette smugglers make their own cigarettes? And is the illegal cigarette smuggling industry comparable in size to the drug business?

Originally posted by Soubrette
RR: Thirdly, the cartels in Central America (and elsewhere) would have no product to smuggle into the US and Europe. They might resort to other forms of crime in their own countries, but what crimes / violence would they be importing to the US or Europe? None that I can think of. At the very least, law enforcement would have to spend less time in the useless activity of trying to intercept drug shipments.

Sou: They could start being a lot more organised about smuggling in people for a start :) So your argument is that drug gangs will reinvent themselves as smugglers of illegal immigrants? Do you have any evidence that there is a huge untapped market for smuggling illegal immigrants, just waiting to be exploited by ex drug smugglers?

Originally posted by Soubrette
RR: Of course, these are all just opinions. There is no hard data we can look at, that I’m aware of.

Sou: I agree - but opinions can be as interesting and telling as facts. Yes, and look at the graph shanek posted on murders after alcohol prohibition and during drug prohibition. Correlation is not causation, but the graph certainly does not support your position.

Originally posted by Soubrette
RR: And re terrorism: if the argument is that if drugs were made legal then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do, then I will say that if everybody stopped doing drugs then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do. Either way, the “drugs finance terrorists so stop doing drugs” argument is bogus. Likewise, one of the “don’t do drugs” commercials on the TV in the US shows a young girl in a (presumably Central American), village who gets shot in a shootout between rival drug gangs. The message is “you buy little a baggy of pot and little girls die”. I don’t think these is any justification for saying that if drugs were not illegal this mythical little girl would still have died.

Sou: Hang on - who says that if we legalise drugs in our countries that the drug cartels in other countries will disappear? Explain that reasoning to me please. I’m referring to crime in our respective countries. If it was still illegal in some other country they would continue to have the same problems. (Obviously.) But as most of the pressure to keep drug manufacture illegal comes from the US (and maybe other Western countries), I think this might change.

Originally posted by Soubrette
RR: Drug crime is a direct result of drug prohibition, not of drugs. The conclusion from this is stop drug prohibition and you will stop drug prohibition crime. If drug criminals move to other forms of crime then tackle those crimes, but I don’t see that possibility as a reason to keep prohibition.

Sou: I agree with you totally it's a weak argument. But so it is from your side too.

You say it yourself - if everyone gave up drugs (what no chocolate:() then terrorists would find another source of income. Read legalise drugs instead of gave up and you have the same scenario. Please don’t distort what I wrote. I didn’t say if everyone gave up drugs then terrorists would find another source of income

I said that IF the argument is that if drugs were made legal then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do, then I will say that if everybody stopped doing drugs then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do. Either way, the “drugs finance terrorists so stop doing drugs” argument is bogus.

Originally posted by Soubrette
And of course drug crime is a direct result of drug prohibition. You might as well say that drug crime is a direct result of making drugs illegal. Yes you might, because you would be saying exactly the same thing. Your statement is meaningless.

Originally posted by Soubrette
It's a meaningless statement I'm afraid Richard in much the same vein as gun crime is a result of illegal guns. Bzzzt – wrong. Bad analogy Sou. Legal guns can be used in crime just as can illegal ones. Guns are used IN the crime. Guns are not used in crime because the guns are illegal. They are used because they are handy for protecting yourself.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Now show me you aren't an evangalist - what are the downside to legalising drugs and tell me what you would do about them? Why should I? You tell me what you think the downside is.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by RichardR
No that is not my point (although that is also true). I am saying that not all the people involved in manufacture, smuggling and street selling of drugs, would go into other forms of crime. Please read the quote from me below.

Can you show me evidence that all organized drug profits go to finance terrorism?

I think these are the points I'm trying to explore Richard. Is there any evidence that none of the money will? I suspect the reality of the situation is that it will be somewhere along the line of none at all and all of it. But we can't really say can we? We can only conjecture and think about consequences (both positive and negative) of different situations.

Agreed. The government can always mess things up. But how many illegal cigarette smugglers make their own cigarettes? And is the illegal cigarette smuggling industry comparable in size to the drug business?

I know the cigarette smuggling is a big problem in certain areas of the UK as is the drug industry. I'm afraid I have no more information than that. As Odder mentioned it is hard to estimate the size of these things even if you've researched them - which I certainly haven't.

But one thing I certainly agree on - cigarettes are bought in places where they are cheaper and make legally then smuggled into the UK and sold. But that wasn't the point I was making (I dont' think ;)) I was only trying to make the point that making something legal doesn't necessarily take out the black market in it.

So your argument is that drug gangs will reinvent themselves as smugglers of illegal immigrants? Do you have any evidence that there is a huge untapped market for smuggling illegal immigrants, just waiting to be exploited by ex drug smugglers?

No - you said that you couldn't think of any thing that could take the place of drug smuggling - I gave an example of something they could do instead.

Yes, and look at the graph shanek posted on murders after alcohol prohibition and during drug prohibition. Correlation is not causation, but the graph certainly does not support your position.

Actually my position is fluid on this one Richard - and I am pro-legalisation. I am interesting in exploring the pros and cons though. That means - for me - looking at both sides of the argument and trying to refute them both.

I’m referring to crime in our respective countries. If it was still illegal in some other country they would continue to have the same problems. (Obviously.) But as most of the pressure to keep drug manufacture illegal comes from the US (and maybe other Western countries), I think this might change.

Ok thanks

Please don’t distort what I wrote. I didn’t say if everyone gave up drugs then terrorists would find another source of income

If I have distorted what you've written it is because I have misunderstood what you are saying. There is no intention to distort.

The point I was trying to make was that by what I understood to be your reasoning both society giving up illegal drugs or by Government making them legal would give the same net effect. I was not trying to imply in any way that you said what you 've quoted.

I said that IF the argument is that if drugs were made legal then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do, then I will say that if everybody stopped doing drugs then the terrorists would just find another from of crime to finance what they do. Either way, the “drugs finance terrorists so stop doing drugs” argument is bogus.

I agree. I thought that was what I was trying to say :confused:

Yes you might, because you would be saying exactly the same thing. Your statement is meaningless.

Which is why I said it - because it seems to me that the two statements are synonymous.

Bzzzt – wrong. Bad analogy Sou. Legal guns can be used in crime just as can illegal ones. Guns are used IN the crime. Guns are not used in crime because the guns are illegal. They are used because they are handy for protecting yourself.

Hmmm I suppose I was thinking that while a gun was being used illegally it was by definition an illegal gun.

Why should I? You tell me what you think the downside is.

Richard - I'm not interested in a debate where two people firmly entrenched in their positions throw around phrases like "straw man" and "provide the links" at each other. I want to explore positions and stuff. Like I've said already once today I think our styles are basically incompatible.

But thank you for taking the time to provide your point of view :)

Sou

[shanek]

Great article in the new Liberty Magazine (sorry, it's not online yet):

The FBI says that Hezbollah, an Islamic terrorst group, has been partially financing itself buying cigarettes in North Carolina (where cigarette taxes are low) and reselling them in Michigan (where cigarete taxes are high). The lesson for state legislators? If you impose high taxes, you are supporting terrorism.

:p

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Soubrette
I think these are the points I'm trying to explore Richard. Is there any evidence that none of the money will? I suspect the reality of the situation is that it will be somewhere along the line of none at all and all of it. But we can't really say can we? My original point was that repealing drug prohibition would significantly reduce organized crime activities. I accept your point that not all this activity would disappear, as drug gangs would to some extent branch out into other illegal activity. I do think it’s reasonable to conclude, though, that organized crime / turf war killings etc would decrease. I thought you were originally saying that organized crime would not decrease at all. I now believe you agree that crime would decrease, although maybe you don’t think it would be reduced by as much as I think it will.

Originally posted by Soubrette
I know the cigarette smuggling is a big problem in certain areas of the UK as is the drug industry. I'm afraid I have no more information than that. As Odder mentioned it is hard to estimate the size of these things even if you've researched them - which I certainly haven't.

But one thing I certainly agree on - cigarettes are bought in places where they are cheaper and make legally then smuggled into the UK and sold. But that wasn't the point I was making (I dont' think ;)) I don’t think the smuggled cigarettes have been illegally manufactured in some back street shop. They are all brand name cigs, just sold at the cheaper (no tax) price. So that is one difference between cig smuggling and drugs. Now, if the government decided to tax drugs too highly there would be an incentive for smuggling. Otherwise I really don’t see many people continuing to manufacture their own. (Except for pot, perhaps.) So we need to be sure the gvt. wouldn’t tax it too much. But since we know they’re not going to repeal prohibition perhaps the point is moot. ;)

Originally posted by Soubrette
I was only trying to make the point that making something legal doesn't necessarily take out the black market in it. Reduces it, though. ;)

Originally posted by Soubrette
No - you said that you couldn't think of any thing that could take the place of drug smuggling - I gave an example of something they could do instead. OK.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Actually my position is fluid on this one Richard - and I am pro-legalisation. I am interesting in exploring the pros and cons though. That means - for me - looking at both sides of the argument and trying to refute them both. Agreed. I’ve thought about this a lot and examined all sides, I think.

Originally posted by Soubrette
The point I was trying to make was that by what I understood to be your reasoning both society giving up illegal drugs or by Government making them legal would give the same net effect. I was not trying to imply in any way that you said what you 've quoted. OK. But if terrorism is financed in any major way by drugs, I believe that by repealing drug prohibition the world over, a major source of income could be denied the terrorists. Of course they would look for other sources but an easy source would have been removed.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Richard - I'm not interested in a debate where two people firmly entrenched in their positions throw around phrases like "straw man" and "provide the links" at each other. I want to explore positions and stuff. Like I've said already once today I think our styles are basically incompatible.Perhaps I should have put some :D :D :D in my original post. You see, here I was, saying I didn’t want to get into a great debate, yet answering your questions anyway, and then you decided to give me another piece of homework to do. ;) I couldn’t believe it!

Anyway, having seen at close hand the way hard drugs can take over people’s lives, I don’t believe in a free for all. I believe distribution would need to be controlled. It could be done, though.

[BobK]

I've seen some of those "drugs finance terrorism"commercials and the one thing I noticed is, there is no mention of what percentage of the money spent buying drugs goes to terrorism.

If it was a significant amount I would think they would say something to the effect...
"Do you know that 10 cents out of every dollar spent on drugs goes to finance terrorism?"

They leave the viewer to make their own assumtion about the relationship.

Since they do not indicate any figures at all, I can only assume that the amount going to terrorism is not very significant.

Probably no more significant than contributing to charity finances terrorism.