The War on Drugs: A good idea?

[Ed]

I have noticed a number of posters have said things to the effect that we should not have a war on drugs, legalize this, legalize that. I was wondering, what would the the realities be if drug laws could be changed? What would you change and why? How would it work? Be specific, "it would be, you know, like, uh, you know, cool man" is not an argument for anything (except, perhaps, forced sterilization). Be elequent.

[Jon_in_london]

Damn! I just typed out a 10 squillion word essay and then my PC crashed. Thanks Bill!!!! :mad:

To recap- there are two arguments, the moral and the pragmatic.

Firstly the moral: If someone smokes a joint, pops a pill schnarfes a line or takes a trip, then dances a bit listens to some music and chats with some other people- do you think its morally justifiable to lock that person up alongside murderers and rapists? If you do, then I would say its YOU that the public needs protection from, not the user.

If someone is addicted to something nasty like heroin then that person needs help. They do not need to be punished. The punitive approach to drug law enforcement has failed as evidenced by the ever-growing % of young people 'experimenting' with drugs.

If someone commits a crime while under the influence then they should be punished for the crime. There is an argument that drugs should stay illegal as users may commit crime to obtain their fix. Which is bizzare logic. These poeple need help- they need a comprehensive regime to get them off drugs. Locking them up in a prison where they will just get more drugs isnt really going to help- as soon as they get out, they will be back to aquare one.

More anon.

[shanek]

Are you asking what I, personally, would change if there were no more drug laws?

Well, not much, really. I don't do drugs now and I wouldn't do drugs then, either.

I would be able to live in less fear of the government taking my car, house, etc. without so much as even charging me with a crime.

I would live in a safer country without all of the violence caused by drug gangs fighting over turf.

I'd likely have a lot more money to support my family with since one of the biggest tax burdens on a state and local scale would be eliminated.

Oh, and I wouldn't have to worry about dealers trying to hook my kids at school.

All in all, it would definitely be A Good Thing.

[heath]

I support decriminalisation rather than necessarily legalisation. I've tried several "illicit" drug in my day and found some of them quite enjoyable. A close relative likes them so much they've spent a large proportion of their life in jail for (non violent) crimes committed to feed their habit.

Decriminalising removes the profit margin that brings crime and drugs so close together. Cheaper drugs removes the incentive for organised crime to get involved (no profit) and reduces a lot of the indirect costs (burglary, muggings, prostitution etc) caused by chronic drug users trying to pay for them.

Sure a lot of people that may not otherwise have used drugs might use them or use them more. Sure a lot of those people could become addicted and possibly even die if given easier access to drugs. IMO this is less costly to society as a whole than the current situation.

Of course decriminalisation should only apply to adults and penalties for supplying drugs to children should be severe, as the profit in supplying to them would be low there wouldn't be much incentive.

[c0rbin]

Poor offenders go to jail.

Wealthy offenders go on vacation.

Alcohol and tobacco claim hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

Heroine is an epidemic only if white kids partake.

I think people have their priorities wrong when it comes to fighting drug abuse.

I am not sure what the answer is, just, IMO, criminalizing the human urge to feel good is not the solution.

Though it looks good on TV.

[GrapeJ713]

Of course if no one did drugs then there would be less problems, but that is a fantasy. But whatever negative consequences there are of re-legalization, they would be miniscule compared to the negative consequences of the drug war. Such as, Millions of dollars going to criminals, if it were legal the price would come down and the gov't could tax and regulate it, and the profits would go to legal companies instead of criminals. Also millions of dollars wouldn't go to combat an unwinnable war and instead could be used to combat terrorism and crimes where there is actually a victim.

[Ed]

Fair enough.

What drugs should be legalized (decriminalized, whatever) and what is the underlieing principle?

[Shane Costello]

Aren't drug laws a fairly recent phenomenon? I've read that up until the early decades of the 20th you could shoot up or smoke whatever you liked (come to think of it, Sherlock Holmes was a coke addict).

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ed
Fair enough.

What drugs should be legalized (decriminalized, whatever) and what is the underlieing principle?

All drugs should be decriminalised with only the most addictive ones not being legalized.

The underlying priciple being mainly addictivness and lethality (at the required dose).

Another moral imperative for deciminalizing drugs is quality control. One of the most dangerous things about many drugs is that you dont know excatly what you are taking and how much of it. In fact this was given to me at school as the major reason for not taking LSD. Decriminalise and bring in quality control and this problem disappears.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Aren't drug laws a fairly recent phenomenon? I've read that up until the early decades of the 20th you could shoot up or smoke whatever you liked (come to think of it, Sherlock Holmes was a coke addict).

Holmes was supposedly a morphine/opium addict. Indeed most drug laws appeared around 1930sish.

During victorian time you could buy opium at your local news agent.

[EdipisReks]

i think drugs should be decriminalized, but not necessarily legalized. the reason that i don't think drugs should be legalized is that i don't want to see Cigarette companies get even richer by selling low grade marijuana cigarettes for $20 a pack. government distribution centers for hard narcotics would probably be for the best (kinda like the current state stores for alcohol), while marijuana and smokable opium can be grown and sold by licensed "garden stores". absinthe and laudanum go back into bars and the green hour can be fashionable again.

for decriminalization to work, however, there need to be strict laws to punish those who commit crimes while under the influence of narcotics. considering how there are many offenders with 15 DUI's on their record while maintaining a drivers license, i don't see this ever happening.

[c0rbin]

Aren't drug laws a fairly recent phenomenon? I've read that up until the early decades of the 20th you could shoot up or smoke whatever you liked (come to think of it, Sherlock Holmes was a coke addict).

Holmes was a fictional character.

;)

But yes, this century has really been this country's forray into criminalizing drugs. Thick history on this subject, makes for interesting reading that I recommend. It has it all, commerce, social programs, crime, sex, gender issues. Good stuff.

Interesting to see Heroin parafinalia(sp?) available in a Sears catalog around the turn of the century.

[heath]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Another moral imperative for deciminalizing drugs is quality control.

For quality control you would need legalisation, that is a whole can of worms that pretty much any govt today would stear clear of (rightly I think). Perhaps after a couple of decades of decriminalisation this would be possible but not yet IMO.

[svero]

Well I've discussed this with you before and as you may remember I'm in favor of legalization across the board. For instance I wouldn't make a different law for heroin than I would for pot.

My feeling is that people should be punished when they do something which directly harms others or can be shown to be reckless. Drunk driving is an example of a reasonable preventative law. Drugs are like alcohol in that some people are able to take them responsibly and some people aren't. Some people drink a few beers while watching the game on sunday and others drink themselves into the gutter. Usually the reasons have less to do with alchohol and more to do with other factors including, in some but not all cases, chemical addiction.

With regards to drug prohibilition the key question is - what is the goal of prohibition? What are we protecting ourselves as a society from?

Now let's suppose that I was operating the license bureau where you get your drivers license renewed every few years and there are long lineups. Suppose I want to make the time to serve each customer quicker? How would I approach solving this problem? I'd first study the problem and then I'd come up with some solution and implement it. Now suppose the solution I decided on was to install one of those machines where you take a number. Now a month later I measure the waiting time and discover that with the number machine people are waiting even longer than they were before. What should I do? Scrap the machine and try another approach? I think that's analogous to the drug prohibition except that we never took the time to measure those things that we're suppose to be protecting people from before and after. With govts it seems that it's far easier to do something than to undo it.

So back to the first question. What is the drug prohibition suppose to do for us? Protect us from addiction? Protect us from harmful acts by people on drugs (like driving stoned)? Protect us from drug related crime? what? If we measure those things with and without prohibition how is society better off as a whole?

Well we don't have to guess at this entirely. We can look at drug related crime before prohiition and after. We can look at countries like Switzerland that have tried different approaches and see what effects they've had. And last, but not least, we can experiment ourselves.

My feeling having looked at these things and thought about it is that drugs should be licensed and taxed, drecriminalized, and the proceeds used to provide the extra medical care required in cases of addiction. I believe as a society we'd be better off dealing with drug addiction as a medical problem than as a criminal one. I believe the current prohibition approach is not working if the goals are indeed to improve the lives of individuals in society.

Of course many would argue that the goal of drug prohibition is in fact entirely different. That an endless unwinable war gives govts a mechanism to implement changes they want under the guise of protecting your kids from a heroin dealer in every schoolyard. So from the point of view of those in power it may be that they look at the drug prohibition and say "yes it's succeeding admirably" because their goal wasn't to improve the life of john smith who, unfortunately found himself addicted to heroin and then spent 20 years in prison.

I just thought I should add... Drug prohibition like all SMASHING DOWN things is a good political tool. Politicians like changes they can implement right away. They don't like changes that benefit society as a whole 6 yrs down the road. It's easier to get elected on the platform "Im protecting your kids from the horror of cocaine addiction" than on "studies have shown that a drug clinic system will decrease drug related deaths by 3% over the next 6 yrs"

[Jon_in_london]

The amzing thing is that even though the drug laws are so obviously an untter unqualified failure in every regard, no politicain has the bollocks to change anything because they are so scared of being attacked by the 'moral majority' (which is neither) for being soft on drugs.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


All drugs should be decriminalised with only the most addictive ones not being legalized.

The underlying priciple being mainly addictivness and lethality (at the required dose).



Okey dokie. Therefore I might be able to administer antibiotics to myself. If I see an ethical drug ad on the TV for Nexium, let's say, I can go out and buy it? In essence, it seems you are saying, no more Dr. perscriptions. Is this what you mean?

[Ed]

Another question. About 33% of automobile accidents in the US are substance related. One would expect this to go up with easy drug access. Similarly, 63% (I think) ER cases are substance related (legal and illeagal) and this would doubtless go up.

What are the implications for legal liability on the part of the drug companies (or even the government). Please spare me the warnings argument, any decent lawyer could still bring a suit. Point is now there are entities to sue. What do you think the dollar implications are?

[heath]

Originally posted by Ed


Okey dokie. Therefore I might be able to administer antibiotics to myself. If I see an ethical drug ad on the TV for Nexium, let's say, I can go out and buy it? In essence, it seems you are saying, no more Dr. perscriptions. Is this what you mean?

Lets say "recreational drugs" then. Knowing that we mean stuff that is illegal now that is used for, well, fun.

[Ed]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
Of course if no one did drugs then there would be less problems, but that is a fantasy. But whatever negative consequences there are of re-legalization, they would be miniscule compared to the negative consequences of the drug war. Such as, Millions of dollars going to criminals, if it were legal the price would come down and the gov't could tax and regulate it, and the profits would go to legal companies instead of criminals. Also millions of dollars wouldn't go to combat an unwinnable war and instead could be used to combat terrorism and crimes where there is actually a victim.

OK. So in your mind the money saved is spent already for "good" things? Is that correct?

[Soubrette]

As an aside

The implication is that Sherlock Holmes used morphine or cocaine - but definitely cocaine - an injectable 7% solution (whatever the hell that means :eek: ).

As to whether he was an addict - he appears to be a user rather than an abuser ie he can give it up when he wants to ;)

Sou

[Ed]

Originally posted by heath


Lets say "recreational drugs" then. Knowing that we mean stuff that is illegal now that is used for, well, fun.

Hang on. Are you saying that legalization is for a class of drugs that people enjoy using? If I get enjoyment from self medication is it not inconsistant to have classes of drugs?

What about major anesthetics, Halothane for example? How about serious hypnotics? Many drugs can be abused. And it can be "fun". If I am willing to experiment for "fun" should I not be allowed to?

As an aside Halothane is eminently sniffable and potent as hell. A bit dangerous but .....

[heath]

Originally posted by Ed
Another question. About 33% of automobile accidents in the US are substance related. One would expect this to go up with easy drug access. Similarly, 63% (I think) ER cases are substance related (legal and illeagal) and this would doubtless go up.

What are the implications for legal liability on the part of the drug companies (or even the government). Please spare me the warnings argument, any decent lawyer could still bring a suit. Point is now there are entities to sue. What do you think the dollar implications are?

This is part of why I think legalisation would need to come long after decriminalisation. You would likely see an initial increase in these sorts of things that IMO would trail off but to a higher level than now, that's when the legalisation and govt regulation phase should kick in.

I also think the cost both monetary and social of this would be less than that caused by they current situation.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Soubrette
As an aside

The implication is that Sherlock Holmes used morphine or cocaine - but definitely cocaine - an injectable 7% solution (whatever the hell that means :eek: ).

As to whether he was an addict - he appears to be a user rather than an abuser ie he can give it up when he wants to ;)

Sou

Watson, as an MD, expressed significant concern over his drug use.

[Ed]

Originally posted by heath


This is part of why I think legalisation would need to come long after decriminalisation. You would likely see an initial increase in these sorts of things that IMO would trail off but to a higher level than now, that's when the legalisation and govt regulation phase should kick in.

I also think the cost both monetary and social of this would be less than that caused by they current situation.

So then, in your opinion, we have sort of a legal wild west for a while? You do realize (Remember I am speaking about the USA) that the liklihood of legislation limiting torts is nil, right? We can't get tort reform now, thanks to our lawyers.

You "think" the cost would be less? I can understand that position. There is, however the law of unintended consequences. At the very least medical, and therefore insurance, costs would undeniably increase. God knows what the costs would be associated with lawsuits.

Regarding social costs. What would happen with the abuse rates amoung children? They would go up, obviously but what kind of increase is an "acceptable social cost" in your mind?

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
Are you asking what I, personally, would change if there were no more drug laws?

Well, not much, really. I don't do drugs now and I wouldn't do drugs then, either.

I would be able to live in less fear of the government taking my car, house, etc. without so much as even charging me with a crime.

Do you live in fear of that now? I believe that the RICO provisions that allowed for some of those abuses was changed a couple of years ago

I would live in a safer country without all of the violence caused by drug gangs fighting over turf.

Is gang violence part of your mileau now? Do you think that gang violence is all drug related or will you allow that there are other social issues that contribute to it? With cigerattes at $50+ a carton, might not gangs enter the tobacco trade?

I'd likely have a lot more money to support my family with since one of the biggest tax burdens on a state and local scale would be eliminated.

Completely unknown, but In my opinion, unlikely

Oh, and I wouldn't have to worry about dealers trying to hook my kids at school.

True, it would be other kids, just like with alcohol and smokes


All in all, it would definitely be A Good Thing.

Perhaps, but not at all clear

[JoxterTheMighty]

I don't understand how any sane and rational person can support the drug war with a clear conscious. The socal cost of the war is far greater in terms of lives lost and ruined than any addiction problems could generate. There is plenty of evidence from countries that have decriminalized that shows that crime and usage goes down after the laws are softened.

Personally I feel that legislating morality is about as productive as teaching a pig to sing. Drugs are a medical issue and not a criminal issue and need to be addressed as such. If the drig war agencys were to be demolished and replaced with education and treatment programs not only would loads of taxpayer money be saved but drug users would be able to stop living in fear and thier quality of life would go up, possibly causing them to no longer want to indulge.

I know of a lot of places that refuse to start a drug testing program in the workplace because management knows they will loose most of thier top people. Drug users can be and are some of the most useful and productive people in our society.

-Joxter-

Potheads Against Drugs! :D

[heath]

Originally posted by Ed


So then, in your opinion, we have sort of a legal wild west for a while? You do realize (Remember I am speaking about the USA) that the liklihood of legislation limiting torts is nil, right? We can't get tort reform now, thanks to our lawyers.

I don't see what this has to do with tort reform. You would have just as much right to sue under decriminalisatoin as you would now. If drugs were legalised the govt would be opening itself to many more suits, from all sides, making this a silly option in the short/medium and maybe even long them.


You "think" the cost would be less? I can understand that position. There is, however the law of unintended consequences. At the very least medical, and therefore insurance, costs would undeniably increase. God knows what the costs would be associated with lawsuits.

You "think" they will rise. Cheaper drugs would mean purer drugs (less cutting with cheap alternatives to boost profits) so less health impact in that regard. Heroin for one, in it's pure form, is "harmless" other than being able to stop your heart in sufficient doses. It is completely washed from your body and leaves no lasting effect (other than physical and emotional withdrawal).


Regarding social costs. What would happen with the abuse rates amoung children? They would go up, obviously but what kind of increase is an "acceptable social cost" in your mind?

It doesn't logically follow for me that it would increase. What's the correlation between drug abuse and child abuse? If you mean neglect then poverty from chronic drug use would be less of a problem if the cost of drugs were reduced by, say, a factor of 10. A drug user with no fear of going to jail for their addiction may be more likely to seek help from social services as well.

[Jon_in_london]

Everyone here seems to be assuming that drug use will massively increase following decriminalising/legalising drugs.

I dont think this is neccesarily- MJ use rates in Holland are typically lower than in most comparable countries.

[Frostbite]

The best weapon against drugs is EDUCATION and TOLERANCE. It's useless to tell the kids to "Say NO to drugs", because there's a black market out there, always been there and always will. The correct way to go is to give drugs as an option to the kids, while still keeping it illegal in most cases, and tell the kids about the CONSEQUENCES of drug consumption. Most kids aren't that stupid. Most kids should be made to understand that for every action there are consequences and responsabilities. So instead of telling a kid he'll go to jail if he's caught with a ziploc full of hash, he should be told that taking drugs will not solve his problems, it will not make him happier, it will not make him more socially accepted or respected. Drugs is a one-shot deal, it's nothing long-term like a good friendship or a good investment.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Frostbite
it will not make him happier, it will not make him more socially accepted or respected. Drugs is a one-shot deal, it's nothing long-term like a good friendship or a good investment.

*cough*cough*

The whole reason there isnt an REAL EDUCATION about drugs is that the truth would lead to questions like "so, why are they illegal?" and "so, you can actually have quite a lot of fun with drugs then?"

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


*cough*cough*

The whole reason there isnt an REAL EDUCATION about drugs is that the truth would lead to questions like "so, why are they illegal?" and "so, you can actually have quite a lot of fun with drugs then?"

Exactly. Well for starters, getting addicted to drugs could make you sell everything you own, get your brain damaged or get tied up with gangsters, etc. Those are the responsabilities and consequences I'm referring to. I am not, of course, against moderated consumption of certain drugs like marijuana. It never really hurt anyone that way.

[Jon_in_london]

Agreed Frosty, But the problem is that drug education today EXAGGERATES HORRIBLY the negatives of taking drugs (which do of course exist), while poo-pooing the positives (which are also fairly abundant). This gives a very distorted impression to the educatee. So, when the educatee goes ahead and smokes a spliff he/she will soon arrive at the conclusion that he/she has been lied to in a dispicable manner.

Which destroyes the education regime entirely.

[Frostbite]

Heh yeah, I remember the "education" about drugs we had in high school. Not a lot of insight from a grumpy and neurotic old hag who never even had a beer or had fun in her entire pathetic life and who made her mind about drugs from watching Schwarzenegger movies.

[Underemployed]

Ahh, drugs, drugs, drugs.

Many great British families built their fortunes through the legal (though forced) opium trade with China. The latter half of the 19th Century saw huge numbers of Chinese do nothing but sit in opium dens, supplied by English traders with the full support and encouragement of Parliament. When the Chinese leaders tried to put a stop to it, the new-fangled "Limited Companies" got the British navy to invade.

In the mid 1870's, plant lice attacked French vineyards and caused a national wine shortage. Absinthe, made from industrial alcohol, went from high-priced luxury item to the mass-market drink of choice. Reputed to have hallucinogenic qualities, the drink also had a ritualisitc way of consumption, with devotees allowing sugar cubes to be dissolved slowly into the glass, each drop changing colour as it hit the "green fairy". Orginally sold as a health tonic, it was vilified by the authorities and eventually banned in France in 1914, in part due to the influence of the wine industry but mainly because it was seen as a drink of the degenerate. It is now sold openly in Prague. I have a bottle and have tried it - it's just like Pernod.

By 1917, there was only three weeks worth of food for the population of England. The state took effective control over production and distribution of food. To boost productivity, the "Licensing Laws" we all know and love were introduced, which were successful in reducing drunkenness convictions to 20% of their pre-war level. They have yet to be repealed.

On March 22, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the 21st amendment, making wine and beer with up to 3.2% alcohol legal. In the thirteen years it lasted, alcohol prohibition had succeeded in making a new kind of criminal very rich.

There is no great point to all this, save perhaps that allowing or forbidding people to do certain things tends to have huge and unforseen consequences. I side with those who would let people do as they please in this respect. I would rather have on my conscience the fate of the unfortunate addicts, whose families would have a legitimate claim against a bona fide company, than the fate of the unfortunate addicts whose criminal activities only serve to bolster the coffers of those who supply them.

[fishbob]

The "War on Drugs" has been lost. The "War on Drugs" has failed to stop or probably even reduce drug use, at huge cost to society and the taxpayer.

Time to try something different. Could more people be jailed or become addicted? I find that hard to believe.

I am tired of paying for the consequences of drug use. I don't want to support the DEA, the prison system, or any other bloated govt bureacracy. At the same time, those people who do use drugs need to stay out of cars, stay out of heavy equipment, keep from hurting themselves and others.

I believe that safety and treatment programs, and prison sentences for those who endanger others, could be operated for the same price as the war on drugs and would have to be more effective. Paid for by user fees, taxes on the products instead of taxes on income.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
About 33% of automobile accidents in the US are substance related. One would expect this to go up with easy drug access.

Why?

And how many of those "substances" are alcohol?

Similarly, 63% (I think) ER cases are substance related (legal and illeagal) and this would doubtless go up.

Why?

And what portion of this represents the legal substances?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Do you live in fear of that now? I believe that the RICO provisions that allowed for some of those abuses was changed a couple of years ago

If that's true, then it hasn't had any effect, as asset forfieture still goes on and is a way for many polcie departments to fund themselves.

Is gang violence part of your mileau now?

Not at home, but it is an issue when I travel.

Do you think that gang violence is all drug related or will you allow that there are other social issues that contribute to it?

Most of it is drug related. Not all, of course, but the vast majority.

With cigerattes at $50+ a carton, might not gangs enter the tobacco trade?

They already are.

There's even a black market for toilets.

Our government is fscking stupid...

Completely unknown, but In my opinion, unlikely

Why?

True, it would be other kids, just like with alcohol and smokes

Go ask some high school kids. Most of them will tell you it's easier to get marijuana than alcohol.

Perhaps, but not at all clear

What reason do we have to believe it would be any different than after Prohibition was repealed?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Heh yeah, I remember the "education" about drugs we had in high school. Not a lot of insight from a grumpy and neurotic old hag who never even had a beer or had fun in her entire pathetic life and who made her mind about drugs from watching Schwarzenegger movies.

Heh, we had some nonce from the navy come to give us a talk. He brought with him a suitcase of samples to show us and so effective was his talk that................................someone from our 'class' stole his magic mushrooms!!!! :eek: :D :cool: :p

[Shane Costello]

How feasible is a relaxed attitude to currently illicit drugs in an environment where attitudes to a legal drug like tobacco is becoming increasingly prohibitive? Just wondering.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
How feasible is a relaxed attitude to currently illicit drugs in an environment where attitudes to a legal drug like tobacco is becoming increasingly prohibitive? Just wondering.

The prohibitive attitiude towards tobacco is due to the increased realisation that tobacco is nasty, addictive, carcinogenic and generally very bad for you indeed. I would never recommend that tobacco be made illegal but I do support restrictions on smoking in public- even though I smoke myself.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
The prohibitive attitiude towards tobacco is due to the increased realisation that tobacco is nasty, addictive, carcinogenic and generally very bad for you indeed. I would never recommend that tobacco be made illegal but I do support restrictions on smoking in public- even though I smoke myself.

As are drugs in general. The libertarian argument for liberalizing the drug laws are that people have a right to fill themselves wioth nasty, carcinogenic and addictive things if they so wish, without the government telling them they can't.

[OdderMensch]

Can I be lazy and just link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19906) to a past thread?

if so I'll just elaborate from there :D

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Ed
Another question. About 33% of automobile accidents in the US are substance related. One would expect this to go up with easy drug access. Similarly, 63% (I think) ER cases are substance related (legal and illeagal) and this would doubtless go up.

Doubtless? I'd wager the need for emergency care for addicts and abusers of the currently illeagl drugs would dramaticly drop, even with a possible rise in use. Why? Better purity control, better quality of product and a more regular supply for maintaining an addiction. Also in a legal enviroment drug users would be less likely to abuse the drugs, legal or illegal, because drug use would not have the legal repercusions it does now.

What are the implications for legal liability on the part of the drug companies (or even the government). Please spare me the warnings argument, any decent lawyer could still bring a suit. Point is now there are entities to sue. What do you think the dollar implications are?

Less then the implications of lives lost in the current trade. Today if a addict gets a tainted hit or ripped on a deal, the only recourse is private action. This could be anything from violence to vandalism, but as you go further up the chain the profits become larger and the stakes get higher. I'd much rather see a $5 million dollar suit against a manufactuer for unsafe product than see another drug related killing in the streets of my hometown. :(

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


As are drugs in general. The libertarian argument for liberalizing the drug laws are that people have a right to fill themselves wioth nasty, carcinogenic and addictive things if they so wish, without the government telling them they can't.

Point is, while I may have the right to smoke- other people also have the right to not inhale my second-hand smoke. Thats why I generally support public smoking bans.

Tobacco is very addictive which is why I'd say you also need stricter controls over its distribution.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Ed

Okey dokie. Therefore I might be able to administer antibiotics to myself. If I see an ethical drug ad on the TV for Nexium, let's say, I can go out and buy it? In essence, it seems you are saying, no more Dr. perscriptions. Is this what you mean?

I have always wondered when the practice of docters writeing perscriptions came under direct control of the government. State boards of docters are one thing, but a Federal ban on what drugs docters can give thier patients? It is beyond preposterous that our congess could have the medical knowledge required for such a task.

I see being a docter as a large part of the 'licenceing scheme' that i would use to end the war. Docters would diagnos addiction, recomend treatment and review and aprove drug licences of the 'hardcoree' recreational users.

As for ethical drug ads, I'm torn. I am all for free speech, but I do support restcirctions on advertising drugs. The current crop of drug ads offends me. All of them, from the anti-drug ads to the take drugs ads. :mad: One minute the goverment is telling me they will toss me in jail for smokeing a doob at a concert, the next I see If I ever get out of jail and have trouble preforming with women, I can get Viagra to help me out. :confused:

[BillyTK]

On the one hand it's clear that drug prohibition has failed, with the result being increasing prison populations rather than decreasing drug user populations. If anything, prohibition contributes to drug misuse and associated problems because prohibition is the reason that the drugs black market exists. For instance, heroin, whilst addictive, is less toxic than paracetamol; but its the activity of the black market in adulterating heroin with everything from concrete dust to paracetamol to drain cleaner which causes black market heroin to be so dangerous [Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,506559,00.html)].

On the other hand, there’s alcohol: in the UK the http://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/Newsdesk/Press%20Releases%202000/11.05.00.htm]estimated ( of alcohol abuse is: UKP 3.3 pounds a year; heavy drinking is blamed for up to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/a-b/872428.stm]33,000 ( [url) deaths a year; http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Report+-+Alcohol+and+young+people+-+%28m%29?OpenDocument]increases ( who drink regularly and in the amount they consume; and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2817781.stm] ( [url) 1 in 13 people being dependent on alcohol, which is the twice the total for drug addiction. Yet alcohol is completely legal. I have no idea whether decriminalising drugs would have a positive or negative effect on people’s drinking habits, but one thing seems clear; either culturally or genetically, as a nation we’re predisposed to substance use (and abuse) and IMO that’s the basis that the debate needs to progress from.

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by BillyTK
-snip-

I have no idea whether decriminalising drugs would have a positive or negative effect on people’s drinking habits, but one thing seems clear; either culturally or genetically, as a nation we’re predisposed to substance use (and abuse) and IMO that’s the basis that the debate needs to progress from.



I know that the day pot is legalized and I can walk down to the corner store and buy some nice kindbud I will stop drinking! The only reason i drink is to get a legal buzz. I used to be against using pot until a freind told me that it would help my migrane headaches and offered to let me have some of his. I was hesitant at first because I had never done any kind of illegal drugs but the meds the Dr gave me made me feel like sh*t and had very unplesant side effects. Not only did it work like a charm on my headaches but I really liked the mello moods it put me in. :D

-Joxter-

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Ed
Fair enough.

What drugs should be legalized (decriminalized, whatever) and what is the underlieing principle?


As to the underlieing principle for me this quote from Nietzsche sums up my prespective well.
Prohibitions without reasons. A prohibition, the reason for which we do not understand or admit, is almost a command not only for the stubborn but also for those who thirst for knowledge: one risks an experiment to find out why the prohibition was pronounced. Moral prohibitions, like those of the Decalogue, are suitable only for an age of subjugated reason: now, such a prohibition as "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not commit adultery," presented without reasons, would have a harmful rather than a useful effect.

The idea to me isn't so much what drugs shoud be legal and what drugs shouldn't, its that mankind (well Americans at least ;)) should be free to decide for themselves what drugs to take. This does not mean opening up the complete pharacopia and selling it at discount prices at the corrner store. It means removeing the criminal prohibition on the general use of mind and mood altering substances.

The example you make, of wanting to self administer antibiotics does show the complexity of this issue. Certain substances that we put into our bodies can have effects on the general population, thus warenting some control in distribution. But the situation we have now is one of complte prohibition, a total ban on use and research, and is totally out of sync with the idea of a free society.

With a total black market we have no control, with a legal market we, the people, gain some level of social control.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I have no idea whether decriminalising drugs would have a positive or negative effect on people’s drinking habits, but one thing seems clear; either culturally or genetically, as a nation we’re predisposed to substance use (and abuse) and IMO that’s the basis that the debate needs to progress from.


I agree with you. I belive humans are hard wired to seek out new experiences, it kept the hunters and gathers moveing and allowed us to populate the entire planet, makes us find better food sources and easier ways to do work. We crave variety, and for good or ill, drug use can alters the mind and the mood and presents us with experinces that would otherwise be missed.

[Dancing David]

Cocaine should not be legalized, it is adictive as nicotine. In 1945 50% of the uhmericun population smoked. gee what about all the death legalizing cocaine would bring about.

The war on drugs has been as effective as the DARE program, problem is it makes money for local governments.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Cocaine should not be legalized, it is adictive as nicotine. In 1945 50% of the uhmericun population smoked. gee what about all the death legalizing cocaine would bring about.

The war on drugs has been as effective as the DARE program, problem is it makes money for local governments.

Cocaine isnt addictive. Crack is addictive though..

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Cocaine should not be legalized... These are my arguments, from a previous thread (with some minor changes), against prohibition of drugs. 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. If prohibition of drugs was repealed, I believe a significant portion of this criminal activity / violence would disappear.

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. This is a similar case to point (1) above.

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.

My question to you is, which of the above reasons do you think don’t apply to Coke?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Cocaine isnt addictive...

You've obviously never known anyone that was addicted to cocaine. I can tell you from first hand experience that it is addictive.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by RichardR
These are my arguments, from a previous thread (with some minor changes), against prohibition of drugs. 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. If prohibition of drugs was repealed, I believe a significant portion of this criminal activity / violence would disappear.

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. This is a similar case to point (1) above.

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.

My question to you is, which of the above reasons do you think don’t apply to Coke?

Hear Hear!!

But you forgot (c) drugs are fun.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Hear Hear!!

But you forgot (c) drugs are fun. I didn't forget it. ;)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


You've obviously never known anyone that was addicted to cocaine. I can tell you from first hand experience that it is addictive.

Furry muff, I must be mistooken.

[Dancing David]

Richard R. : believe me I understand all the arguments I believe that it is the Mob that wants to keep drugs illegal.
It is just given the lethality of cocaine, I am not so sure. I do not support the criminalization of mj, nor of most of the illegal drugs, I have some questions about XTC and neuro toxicity but i am not a rights stealing rightist.

Just concerned about the health costs of legalizing cocaine. I maintain that alcohol is the hardest of all drugs.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Richard R. : believe me I understand all the arguments I believe that it is the Mob that wants to keep drugs illegal.
It is just given the lethality of cocaine, I am not so sure. I do not support the criminalization of mj, nor of most of the illegal drugs, I have some questions about XTC and neuro toxicity but i am not a rights stealing rightist.

Just concerned about the health costs of legalizing cocaine. I maintain that alcohol is the hardest of all drugs. Your arguments are muddled.

The arguments I have put forward apply to Cocaine and to virtually all other drugs.

[Dancing David]

So would it (theoreticaly) be good to legalize another drug that is as damaging as alcohol. I am not saying that any drugs should be illegal, just that we should consider the longterm cost to our society of all those people having mytrial valve prolapse and other heart conditions.

No where in your arguments do you even address anything close to a cost/benefit ratio for drugs. As stated in other threads , I do agree with the legalization of most drugs, I just question the wisdom of legalizing cocaine. I don't suppose you ever worked in detox have you? I have.

(And please save your muddle for yourself.It's very unlikely they are your arguments, my friends made all those argument before I even got high,I am a child of the seventies , whats your age?)

[Ed]

A question related to the cost of drugs. Why would government controlled drugs be cheaper than the criminal drugs today? It seems to me that the feds would tax hell out of it if for no other reason than to avoid the charge of "addicting the whole country with free drugs". (in this case in the minds of some cheap=free).

Point is that there might be an adulteration problem even so.

Anybody have stats on drug use by socio-economic measure? If it skews to the less fortunate, it seems that there would be a lively trade in cut government drugs.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the moral component of the goverment making money from addicts?

Finally, given the obvious problems with smokes and COOH, is a greater good served by making more intoxicants readily available?

Really finally. No one has really addressed my question of where the line for legalization is. It sorta sounds like if each persons drug of choice is legalized the country would be a better place. I would really like a better answer. Why not anti-biotics, birth control pills, and so on.

Also, the problem of anorexia is a real problem with young girls. Can anyone comment on the ramifications of easy amphetamine availability on this very fragile segment of the user base?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So would it (theoreticaly) be good to legalize another drug that is as damaging as alcohol. I am not saying that any drugs should be illegal, just that we should consider the longterm cost to our society of all those people having mytrial valve prolapse and other heart conditions. All problems that occur whether drugs are legal or not.

Originally posted by Dancing David
No where in your arguments do you even address anything close to a cost/benefit ratio for drugs. As stated in other threads , I do agree with the legalization of most drugs, I just question the wisdom of legalizing cocaine. I don't suppose you ever worked in detox have you? I have. Detox? Let me see, that would be in the US, right? Where drugs are illegal. So your experiences in detox, in a country where drugs are illegal, has shown you some bad things you want to end, and you think the way to do this is to…. make Cocaine illegal (well maybe, not sure). Do you see the muddle here?

Originally posted by Dancing David
(And please save your muddle for yourself.It's very unlikely they are your arguments, Oh really? And on what evidence do you base that claim?

As for muddle, who said this:

“I am not saying that any drugs should be illegal”

and

“I just question the wisdom of legalizing cocaine”

Well, which is it?

How about this:

“Just concerned about the health costs of legalizing cocaine. I maintain that alcohol is the hardest of all drugs”

Is the second sentence a complete non sequitur?

Which of my arguments don’t apply to cocaine. Alternatively, what are your arguments for not wanting to make drugs illegal (apart from, maybe, Cocaine)? And how is Cocaine an exception to those arguments?

Originally posted by Dancing David
my friends made all those argument before I even got high,I am a child of the seventies , whats your age?) What’s my age? Are you kidding – do you think you’re still in school. And I’m 50 this year. Now, can you debate my actual points or is there something else about your past you think will impress me?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Ed
A question related to the cost of drugs. Why would government controlled drugs be cheaper than the criminal drugs today?True, the government could always mess things up by taxing the hell out of it. But think about this: a gram of Crystal Meth costs $100 now. ONE GRAM.

Originally posted by Ed
Point is that there might be an adulteration problem even so. Not sure what you mean by this.

Originally posted by Ed
Anybody have stats on drug use by socio-economic measure? If it skews to the less fortunate, it seems that there would be a lively trade in cut government drugs. Always a risk. That’s why I think sales need to be controlled. But most people who sell drugs, do so so they can get a reliable supply of cheap drugs for themselves. Making them legal takes away this incentive.

Originally posted by Ed
Does anyone have any thoughts on the moral component of the goverment making money from addicts? Well, addicts represent a cost to society in some way. If taxes help pay for that cost then I wouldn’t have a problem. The gvt. didn’t force them to become addicts.

Originally posted by Ed
Finally, given the obvious problems with smokes and COOH, is a greater good served by making more intoxicants readily available? Not sure what COOH is. But I really don’t see many more people doing hard drugs. Use of pot would probably go up (and so perhaps alcohol down – a good thing perhaps). Maybe some new people would try Ecstasy. But I think most would stay away from Meth, Crack or Heroin. People who are prepared to take these do so already.

Originally posted by Ed
Really finally. No one has really addressed my question of where the line for legalization is. It sorta sounds like if each persons drug of choice is legalized the country would be a better place. I would really like a better answer. Why not anti-biotics, birth control pills, and so on. I think if there is a demand, and adults are made aware of the risks, the same arguments apply. The thing is, people can get these drugs now and would still be able to get them through their doctor, so would there really be a demand? Possibly for Prozac, Vicodin etc.

Originally posted by Ed
Also, the problem of anorexia is a real problem with young girls. Can anyone comment on the ramifications of easy amphetamine availability on this very fragile segment of the user base? Trust me, methamphetamine is very easy to get now. Making it legal for adults, and controlling, it will likely make it harder for minors to get (and I guess the young girls you refer to would be minors). In any case, I doubt it would make it easier.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by RichardR
All problems that occur whether drugs are legal or not.

Detox? Let me see, that would be in the US, right? Where drugs are illegal. So your experiences in detox, in a country where drugs are illegal, has shown you some bad things you want to end, and you think the way to do this is to…. make Cocaine illegal (well maybe, not sure). Do you see the muddle here?

Oh really? And on what evidence do you base that claim?

As for muddle, who said this:

“I am not saying that any drugs should be illegal”

and

“I just question the wisdom of legalizing cocaine”

Well, which is it?

How about this:

“Just concerned about the health costs of legalizing cocaine. I maintain that alcohol is the hardest of all drugs”

Is the second sentence a complete non sequitur?

Which of my arguments don’t apply to cocaine. Alternatively, what are your arguments for not wanting to make drugs illegal (apart from, maybe, Cocaine)? And how is Cocaine an exception to those arguments?

What’s my age? Are you kidding – do you think you’re still in school. And I’m 50 this year. Now, can you debate my actual points or is there something else about your past you think will impress me?

Whats the deal Richard do you think that all people should just bow down because you can type and put numbers before your posts?(You come off as really arrogant, maybe not inteded yeesh, but your preaching to the choir )

I am a rational libertarian who is just saying that I am not sure legalizing cocaine would be a good thing? Whats the matter must all bow down before you? That smacks of fascism.

How would legalizing cocaine make it any less lethal, I did not say it should or shouldn't ever be legalized, just that I have concerns for the impact that legalization could have.

Are you sure you can read, or have I just tripped the Richard R. trigger and you just spew what ever. My posts contained neutral language and I statements, I feel that legalizing cocaine could be bad for the health of the people who would go purchase it.

The point about your age is that you seem so overbearing. I am a libertarian who for a long time believed that all substances should be legal, come hell or high water. I don't believe that criminalizing drugs does anything other than make the mob wealthy.

After helping people who wanted the help to quit using, and helping the people who didn't I came to realize that legalization won't solve all the problem either.(That is a personal belief by the way, I am not telling you what to think)

So if you are so sure in your beliefs then why are you acting like some religious nut case. No amount of you acting wierd is going to stop me from wonedring, should we legalize cocaine? What about all the people who would have heart attacks? Can a guy wonder.

Geez it's bad enough that I can't smoke dope without the man going bannanas and now you go all crazy just cause I state a personal opinion.

End of my week, read ya later, alligator.

Quoth the Raving- "Whatever"

[JoxterTheMighty]

Using cocaine is a bad idea and is bad for you, this I agree with. Getting robbed, beat up, or even shot and killed trying to buy cocaine is also bad for you. If I were to count the social costs from the latter case and compare them to the former I am pretty sure that legalizing cocaine will result in much less crime and suffering and add up to a greater savings of tax dollars even if treatment and education programs are in place.

Cocaine has no special privlige among abusable substances that would make prohibition a good choice. All abusable drugs are bad if taken in excess, heck everything in exsistance is bad if done to excess. Treat the problems and dont incarcerate the symptoms.

-Joxter-

Potheads against drugs!

[Ed]

Originally posted by JoxterTheMighty
[B]Using cocaine is a bad idea and is bad for you, this I agree with. Getting robbed, beat up, or even shot and killed trying to buy cocaine is also bad for you. /B]

One might argue that something that is bad for you and so impacts one's judgement that one would risk mayhem to obtain it ought to be illeagal. Tell me, would you support daily drug testing for those upon whose judgement human lives depend?

[RichardR]

Dancing David:

Wow, what a mad rant. You need to read your last post and ask yourself, which one of us is acting crazy? It’s not me.

Just to refresh your memory, I asked you a simple question, namely which of the above reasons do you think don’t apply to Coke? That's all. You didn’t answer. (People rarely do answer that one. I don’t think there is one.) Don’t blame me if you actually replied with muddled thoughts, followed by failed attempts to sound superior. And now you’re sore because I called you on it.

If you want to try growing up, you could answer my question. Or not reply at all. But if you just come back with another crazy rant I’m going to ignore it and you in future.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Ed
One might argue that something that is bad for you and so impacts one's judgement that one would risk mayhem to obtain it ought to be illeagal.I think very few coke users risk getting shot so they can score. The people carrying the guns are quite a bit higher in the food chain than the dealer that the average user buys from.

[Fade]

Ed:

Drugs cost so much because dealers can set their own prices.

Drug dealers tend to threaten (and everything up to, and including, murder) eachother so that they have 0 competition. What this means is that they are the sole source of a given substance. What this means is that they can charge a thousand times as much for it as it cost to make. There are no ethics involved.

What would happen with legalization is these drug pushers would immediately disappear. Now, neighbourhood whatever would have clean, well made cocaine for common consumption. The price would be reasonable (inasmuch as our system would monitor itself and companies would have to be competitive without resorting to shooting!), and a lot of the more terrible health problems related to drugs would clear up significantly.

As has been mentioned before, the biggest problem with any drug is it's purity. I have seen many people who started smoking crack, and wound up taking a joint laced with crack, and fermaldahyde, or something else that is equally lovely. They can wind up insane, or mentally retarded, or dead. Not because of the drug (which obviously will cause problems, but not on this level) is horrible, but because the other substances are.

Rich white cocaine users hardly suffer the same sort of symptons of drug abuse that poor drug users suffer. White collar drugs tend to be high quality.

As per the Netherlands, I would expect to see an immediate increase in drug consumption, followed by a sharp decrease a year or three later. It's ridiculous to put forth the idea that drug use would rise substantially for any length of time. People who want drugs NOW can get drugs NOW. It's not even a tiny bit difficult. Me, a person who abhors drug use, knows of four different people to go to in order to get anything my little heart desires.

The positive benefits of decriminalization would be immediate and enormous.

First, the tax burden we pay for our prisons would nearly half. I believe figures point to nearly half of people in prison being in there for drug or drug related crimes.

Second, the immense tax revenue generated by controlled, taxable sales of drugs would be a huge boost to our economy. There would be no more multi-millionaire drug kingpins. Instead, the money would continue to circulate through our own economy.

Third, addicts wouldn't fear coming out. Face it, very few people are happy being addicted to drugs. Most would at least TRY to give it up. Right now, you will not be arrested or charged with a crime if you turn yourself in for treatment. However, this isn't very common knowledge, and the CHANCE that they could be arrested keeps many users using silently, never trying to seek help.


Anyway, none of these arguments matter.

Why do you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body?

Answer is, you don't. Same applies for the government. This is our freedom we're talking about, and yet many seem to think freedom means "whatever I think is best for others."

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by Ed


One might argue that something that is bad for you and so impacts one's judgement that one would risk mayhem to obtain it ought to be illeagal. Tell me, would you support daily drug testing for those upon whose judgement human lives depend?

On the job testing for critical jobs, heck yea! As long as the testing can distinguish if the person is using or otherwise impared on the job ONLY. Whatever anyone does on thier own time is strictly thier own business.

The substance should not be illegal but an addictive personality that is so impared should seek treatment for thier obvious medical problem.

-Joxter-

[JAR]

I support the legalization of marijuana.

But what I find funny is that I know people who are in high school who want marijuana to be legalized. They evidently think that its legalization will mean that they can use it legally.

Alcohol isn't legal where I live for people under 21 years of age, so why would marijuana be. So, if marijuana is legalized, then these high school students are probably still going to have to wait until they are 21 years of age if they want to use it legally.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ed


One might argue that something that is bad for you and so impacts one's judgement that one would risk mayhem to obtain it ought to be illeagal. Tell me, would you support daily drug testing for those upon whose judgement human lives depend?

Oh, it may seem to be a nice idea to make the stuff illegal- but instead of stopping the use and distribution of the stuff- prohibition has brought with it all the massive social problems outlined in this thread already.

Again I ask you, do you think its moral to incarcerate someone- along with murderers and rapists, thereby ruining the rest of their lives and probably introducing them to a life of more serious REAL crime- All for that most heinous offence of getting a bit high?

If you think that someone who takes a drug, listens to music, dances a bit, and chats to some nice people and then goes to bed- deserves to be lumped along with serious and violent criminals then I maintain that it is YOU that needs therapy and YOU that society needs to be protected from.

[fishbob]

On the job testing for critical jobs, heck yea! As long as the testing can distinguish if the person is using or otherwise impared on the job ONLY. Whatever anyone does on thier own time is strictly thier own business.Any employer should be able to decide whether to hire drug free employees. Who decides which jobs are "critical"? The business owner that wants to make a profit is who. I shouldn't have to pay smokers for 8 hours a day, when they take 6 or 8 10-minute smoke breaks a day. I shouldn't have to pay higher insurance premiums because of employees self-induced illnesses. Work is trading your productive time and ability for cash. The employer certainly has the right to get the best effort possible, and should not be forced to pay for impaired ability or less productive time.

Prohibition has been shown to to be ineffective in stopping drug use (alcohol in the US in the 1920s, everthing in the US from the 1960s until today, heck - even alcohol in Saudi Arabia). I remember a news story from the mid 1980s that said that 5 of the world 10 wealthiest people in the world were South American drug lords. Murdering, smuggling, vicious scum of the earth were filthy rich because of US prohibition on cocaine - at huge waste of taxpayer money.

Addiction is a terrible disease. We need treatment for addicts, we need jail for those that endanger others (driving under the influence, etc), we need truthful education about the effects of the various drugs (alchohol and tobacco included), we need to get rid of DEA and the other ineffective 'War on Drugs' agencies. We need to not be so stupid.

OK - finished ranting. Anybody want to bet on whether the current laws will change in the next 10 years?

[heath]

Originally posted by JoxterTheMighty
Treat the problems and dont incarcerate the symptoms.


Very pithy. Your own work? :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Furry muff, I must be mistooken.

Not completely; cocaine is psychologically addictive rather than physiologically addictive like heroin; it's the feeling of pleasure with coke use that causes dependency, whereasheroin usage changes the physiology of the brain.

The only thing is, because an addiction is psychological doesn't mean it's any easier to overcome than a physiological dependency.

[svero]

Originally posted by Ed
Really finally. No one has really addressed my question of where the line for legalization is. It sorta sounds like if each persons drug of choice is legalized the country would be a better place. I would really like a better answer. Why not anti-biotics, birth control pills, and so on.

Also, the problem of anorexia is a real problem with young girls. Can anyone comment on the ramifications of easy amphetamine availability on this very fragile segment of the user base?

In Thailand a perscription is not required for antibiotics. I found it funny that thousands were recently killed there in a drug crackdown on speed (which imho led to an increase in gun related crime and petty theft - not to mention the far reachine implications of extra judicial justice and human rights abuses) which has limited effects on the good of the population whereas I can buy strong antibiotics over the counter which has far reaching effects for anyone who might develop a bacterial infection. Antibiotics is perhaps one case where there are very good reasons to limit availability.

As for speed and young girls... well... Where there's a will there's a way. Light ampetamines are available in a variety of over the counter medications as well as food products like coffea which has an amphetamine like effect. Girls can throw up their food, not eat etc... They can do all kinds of damage to themselves. The problem that has to be addressed I think is the one that leads young girls to become anorexic in the first place. Attacking amphetamines is attacking the symptom not the disease, and while it can help in some cases it doesn't necessarily solve anything in most. I think drug purchasers should be licensed and the drugs sold through clinics where abuse can be monitored and medical help can intervene or at least people can be educated about the downside of what they're doing to themselves. A girl who's concerned about her weight and decides to score some speed and ends up in jail is a REAL tragedy.

[Dancing David]

Richard R. , I have read each of your points and understand them, how ould any of your eight points effect the toxicity of cocaine use.

As I said before I agree with all your points and understand them, they are the same arguments that i have heard my whole life and have used since 1975 myself.

I understand the illegal drug trade and it's consequences.

It just happens that cocaine, taken over long periods has a devestating effect on the human body. How would legalizing it address that?

I am assuming:
A. If legal it would be readily available.
B. If legal the price would be lower.
C. The addictive nature of cocaine is inherent in it blocking MAO
D. The negative consequences of cocaine use are not from it being illegal, IE they aren't part of the chemicals used to create cocaine but in the subsatnce itself.

You don't care but I do understand the arguments, I just wonedr what would happen if it was legal? Would half the people in the US become addicted, would they then have heart attacks as a consequence.

I AGREE that keeping it illegal will not do anything to stop people from using. I AGREE that there are many negative consequences to keeping subsyances illegal. I AGREE that every point you have made is valid.

I don't care if it is legal or not. Just wonder how many people would die from it? (It is a very different substance than the 'evil' heroin. Most people can live very sucsessfully as heroin addicts, same for alcohol, and most substances)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Fade
Ed:

Drugs cost so much because dealers can set their own prices.

Drug dealers tend to threaten (and everything up to, and including, murder) eachother so that they have 0 competition. What this means is that they are the sole source of a given substance. What this means is that they can charge a thousand times as much for it as it cost to make. There are no ethics involved.

Explain to me, in simple terms, how this is any different from a government monopoly.

What would happen with legalization is these drug pushers would immediately disappear. Now, neighbourhood whatever would have clean, well made cocaine for common consumption. The price would be reasonable (inasmuch as our system would monitor itself and companies would have to be competitive without resorting to shooting!), and a lot of the more terrible health problems related to drugs would clear up significantly.

Perhaps. Without a shread of proof it sounds sorta idealized to me. And these bad guys, they just fade into the woodwork? Might they simply burn out legit stores and continue with their trade? Might they simply terrorize people away from the legit stores, buy the stuff legally and then adulterate and resell it?

As has been mentioned before, the biggest problem with any drug is it's purity. I have seen many people who started smoking crack, and wound up taking a joint laced with crack, and fermaldahyde, or something else that is equally lovely. They can wind up insane, or mentally retarded, or dead. Not because of the drug (which obviously will cause problems, but not on this level) is horrible, but because the other substances are.

Aren't drugs cut with that stuff to enhance or alter the high? Why would that change?

Rich white cocaine users hardly suffer the same sort of symptons of drug abuse that poor drug users suffer. White collar drugs tend to be high quality.

Wealthy folks get the best of everything

As per the Netherlands, I would expect to see an immediate increase in drug consumption, followed by a sharp decrease a year or three later. It's ridiculous to put forth the idea that drug use would rise substantially for any length of time. People who want drugs NOW can get drugs NOW. It's not even a tiny bit difficult. Me, a person who abhors drug use, knows of four different people to go to in order to get anything my little heart desires.

The tulip guys live in a somewhat more homogenious society than we do, I don't know how far you can take parallels, particularly in the case of a massive social experiment.

The positive benefits of decriminalization would be immediate and enormous.

Yes, but noone has addressed the less than pleasent issues.

First, the tax burden we pay for our prisons would nearly half. I believe figures point to nearly half of people in prison being in there for drug or drug related crimes.

so everyone with a drug conviction gets released? OK. Now all those petty dealers are on the street (and big ones too, I guess) what do they do with themselves now that their profession does not exist?


Second, the immense tax revenue generated by controlled, taxable sales of drugs would be a huge boost to our economy.

this is sorta what I mean. Are the prices high or low? And it boosts our economy how exactly? It appears that the drug money, rather than being in communities now goes to Washington, right?

There would be no more multi-millionaire drug kingpins.

Never cared one way or the other about them

Instead, the money would continue to circulate through our own economy.

How is it taken out of circulation now? You must realize that you must do something with cash, invest, spend, whatever. That puts it in circulation.

Third, addicts wouldn't fear coming out. Face it, very few people are happy being addicted to drugs. Most would at least TRY to give it up. Right now, you will not be arrested or charged with a crime if you turn yourself in for treatment. However, this isn't very common knowledge, and the CHANCE that they could be arrested keeps many users using silently, never trying to seek help.

Nonsense. The very existance of a methodone program suggests that this is not true. God, every two bit hollywood wannabe dries out. Noone gets arrested for that

Anyway, none of these arguments matter.

Why do you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body?

Me? I don't care what you do as long as it does not effect me. On principle I don't care to subsidize your mediacal or insurance nor do I particularly enjoy being around people that are fucced up (Their jokes are not very funny).

Answer is, you don't. Same applies for the government. This is our freedom we're talking about, and yet many seem to think freedom means "whatever I think is best for others."


yes indeed. and that is precisely what you are doing

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by heath


Very pithy. Your own work? :)

A Joxter T Mighty original :D

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
It just happens that cocaine, taken over long periods has a devestating effect on the human body. How would legalizing it address that? It wouldn’t. But then neither does prohibition. It’s just that, as we (apparently) both agree, prohibition ADDITIONALLY has all the consequences I listed.

This is what you are saying that I don’t understand:

Originally posted by Dancing David
I just wonedr what would happen if it was legal? Would half the people in the US become addicted, would they then have heart attacks as a consequence.
But then you say:

Originally posted by Dancing David
I AGREE that keeping it illegal will not do anything to stop people from using. So, IF keeping it illegal doesn’t stop anyone from using it, HOW will making it legal cause any more people to become addicted?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ed
so everyone with a drug conviction gets released?

How about just those whose convictions are based on use, sale, or possession among consenting adults?


OK. Now all those petty dealers are on the street (and big ones too, I guess) what do they do with themselves now that their profession does not exist?

One option might be to go legit, now that their "profession" is legal. Either way, isn't keeping someone in prison who did not belong there in the first place something of a sledgehammer approach to preventing any potential employment problems they might encounter?


Originally posted by Fade
Why do you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body?

Answer is, you don't. Same applies for the government. This is our freedom we're talking about, and yet many seem to think freedom means "whatever I think is best for others."

Originally posted by Ed
yes indeed. and that is precisely what you are doing

What have you been reading? Looks to me like Fade's post suggests a definition of freedom that allows individuals to make such choices for themselves. Can you identify any statements that would suggest otherwise?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by RichardR
It wouldn’t. But then neither does prohibition. It’s just that, as we (apparently) both agree, prohibition ADDITIONALLY has all the consequences I listed.

This is what you are saying that I don’t understand:


But then you say:

So, IF keeping it illegal doesn’t stop anyone from using it, HOW will making it legal cause any more people to become addicted?

Just wondering, it would be cheaper, more available, what would happen?

[RichardR]

You’re suggesting that more people might use drugs (including Cocaine), if they were legal, because they would be cheaper and more readily available.

First of all, that seems to conflict with your statement “keeping it illegal will not do anything to stop people from using”. To me that is the same as saying “keeping it expensive and hard to get will not do anything to stop people from using”. Or, making it cheap and readily available (ie legal), will not cause any more people to use it. So, legal or illegal, the same number of people will use it. That’s why I’m puzzled by your position on this. Unless I’ve misunderstood something

In truth, we don’t know if drug use would increase with legalization. We have evidence (from Holland - quoted by another poster), that it would not. The veracity of using comparisons with Holland have also been questioned. My opinion is that use of pot would increase. Possibly Ecstasy too. I doubt if use of Cocaine or other hard drugs would increase by very much. That is because Coke (ditto Meth, Crack etc), is considered to be dangerous and addictive, and most people would not want to take the risk of trying it. I believe the risk takers have already done drugs, already have found a source for Coke if they want it, and will already be doing it.

That’s just an opinion of course. But I can support it with an anecdote. ( ;) ) There is this guy I know, late 40s, married, teenage kids, recently been successful in business so he doesn’t really have to work anymore. My guess is he did drugs as a teen. He lives in the same street as a friend of mine, and recently approached this friend to ask him if he (my friend), knew where he could get hold of some Coke. (The guy had no connections, you see.) My friend didn’t want to be any part of that and said “no”. Anyway, a couple of weeks later, this guy turns up at my friend’s house obviously (for anyone who knows about these things), “Coked up”. Turns out, he found a source, somehow. So this middle aged white guy with no contacts, living in suburbia, managed to get some Coke within a couple of weeks. My conclusion – people who want to do it will find some. The corollary – people who don’t do it now won’t want to do it even if easily available – may not be true in all cases. But I see no reason to believe Coke use would increase by much. Just an opinion, of course. But then we don’t have much empirical evidence anywhere, as it’s never been tried (that I know of).

[Ed]

Originally posted by WMT1



Originally posted by Fade
Why do you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body?

Answer is, you don't. Same applies for the government. This is our freedom we're talking about, and yet many seem to think freedom means "whatever I think is best for others."

Originally posted by Ed
yes indeed. and that is precisely what you are doing


What have you been reading? Looks to me like Fade's post suggests a definition of freedom that allows individuals to make such choices for themselves. Can you identify any statements that would suggest otherwise?

I have been reading this thread, thank you for inquiring.

The point, if you consider carefully, is that what you do to your self impacts me to a greater or lesser extent. Whether it revolves around increased medical costs, redistribution of services, a moral atmosphere, development of new laws and so on. Your freedom indeed impacts me.

Of course, if you do whatever it is in your own home, don't have drug related medical problems, etc. That is to say you do not force a change of my personal environment on me in any way whatsoever, I could care less what you do.

[RichardR]

Ed – I thought I’d reply to a couple of your points:

Explain to me, in simple terms, how this is any different from a government monopoly.

None. But I wouldn’t propose a government monopoly to supply drugs. I like capitalism – but with controls.

Perhaps. Without a shread of proof it sounds sorta idealized to me. And these bad guys, they just fade into the woodwork? Might they simply burn out legit stores and continue with their trade? Might they simply terrorize people away from the legit stores, buy the stuff legally and then adulterate and resell it?

Not if the supply was controlled to stop people buying large quantities. And with a reliable cheap supply, there is little motive for the low level dealer (ie the one you actually buy from), to keep selling drugs.

Aren't drugs cut with that stuff to enhance or alter the high? Why would that change?

No, what happens is that fake stuff (easier to make), is sold now as real. For example, many if not most Ecstasy deaths are thought to be the result of something sold as Ecstasy which is not. Just look at what these “Ecstasy” pills are made of. (http://www.dancesafe.org/labtesting/) Ecstasy is MDMA. Look at the ones containing Ketamine (dangerous when mixed with other drugs, especially GHB), or DXM (dangerous – especially if inadvertently mixed with MDMA). PMA used to be a big problem and is very dangerous, although I don’t see it in any of those pills. Also see one containing 5-MeO-DiPT (“Foxy”), which can really mess you up and is nothing like Ecstasy.

The tulip guys live in a somewhat more homogenious society than we do, I don't know how far you can take parallels, particularly in the case of a massive social experiment.

True. See my post to Dancing David above, though.

Yes, but noone has addressed the less than pleasent issues.

I’m not convinced there would be that many of them.

so everyone with a drug conviction gets released? OK. Now all those petty dealers are on the street (and big ones too, I guess) what do they do with themselves now that their profession does not exist?

Go back to their regular jobs? Most petty drug dealers are just that.

Me? I don't care what you do as long as it does not effect me. On principle I don't care to subsidize your mediacal or insurance nor do I particularly enjoy being around people that are fucced up (Their jokes are not very funny).

Unless hard drug use increases, the costs you mention wouldn’t increase either. And (as I say above), I’m not convinced hard drug use would increase much. Of course, this is difficult to prove, one way or the other. I would propose tight controls on sale, and a phased introduction of legalization. It would be a huge change that would require careful management.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Fade
Why do you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body?

Answer is, you don't. Same applies for the government. This is our freedom we're talking about, and yet many seem to think freedom means "whatever I think is best for others."

Originally posted by Ed
yes indeed. and that is precisely what you are doing

Originally posted by WMT1
What have you been reading? Looks to me like Fade's post suggests a definition of freedom that allows individuals to make such choices for themselves. Can you identify any statements that would suggest otherwise?

Originally posted by Ed
I have been reading this thread, thank you for inquiring.

Great. Then why didn't you provide anything to support the contention that Fade thinks freedom means "whatever I think is best for others", as I asked?


The point, if you consider carefully, is that what you do to your self impacts me to a greater or lesser extent.

Not in every case, it doesn't. And wherever it does, get specific about the nature of the "impact", and I'll be happy to address it. And just to respond to the examples you did mention ...


Whether it revolves around increased medical costs,

If someone else's medical costs are affecting you, then that is the problem, and that is where your complaint should be, not with the right of people to make potentially unhealthy choices for themselves.


redistribution of services,

Not sure what "services" you're referring to here, but my response would probably be similar to the previous one.


a moral atmosphere

What the hell does that mean? Do you want everything outlawed that might violate someone's sense of a "moral atmosphere"?


development of new laws

What new laws?


Your freedom indeed impacts me.

"Impacts" is far too vague a characterization to justify interfering with that freedom. And so far, your specific examples don't seem to amount to much either.

Incidentally, did you miss my questions about releasing drug offenders?

[Ed]

My honest to god belief is that I like the idea of a somewhat drug addelled population. There are a few reasons for this:

1-often you can find that creative types enjoy some stimulation, a lot or a little does not matter. This thins the ranks a bit in business since there is very little that is done better when one is high (except for below exceptions). Also, drug use implies a weakness in the minds of some and a wispering campaign against a drug using competitor can be quite effective, legalization or no.

2-We need people to do shlt jobs. Real stoners are good at repetitive tasks that would drive a stright person to suicide; for example - car washing, edging of lawns, garbage picking up with those long sticks with the point at the end, putting fliers under auto wipers, cleaning windshields at intersections, directing traffic at municiple dumps, ticket takers at movies, people that put fortunes in fortune cookies, people that moderate boards, and so on.

3-some will die of overdoses. Too bad but it does clean out the gene pool.

[Ed]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed
so everyone with a drug conviction gets released?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How about just those whose convictions are based on use, sale, or possession among consenting adults?


sorry, I missed it. Sure, they can skedaddle. Can we double the sentences of those that sold to kids or have violence associated with their arrest?

I don't really care if drugs are legalized or not. I would like consistancy in that it should be all or none. Negative ramifications (real or potential) probably would not affect me very much. I'd like to see some sort of registry akin to what exists for child abusers for anyone who sells drugs to kids (or makes them available). I'd like to see insurance rates adjusted to take into consideration the risks associated with certain drug use.

I started this tr\hread to ascertain what thinking is behing the liberalization of laws. It seems fairly clear to me now.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
How about just those whose convictions are based on use, sale, or possession among consenting adults?

Originally posted by Ed
sorry, I missed it. Sure, they can skedaddle. Can we double the sentences of those that sold to kids or have violence associated with their arrest?

If that's what it would take to let the others go, I'd probably be okay with it.


I don't really care if drugs are legalized or not. I would like consistancy in that it should be all or none.

Okay. Let's go with "all".

[Ed]

double post

[Ed]

I think that there is good reason for a major overhaul of our drug laws.

I also think that some of the reasons/support put up here are a bit flakey. Remember that we are talking about 6% of the population that uses this stuff (I read 6.3% on some site, correct the number if I am wrong). Let me also say that I do not believe that we will see any significant change in drug laws during our lifetime.

As you read the notes below, remember that the USA is highly conservative politically and morally. A sad fact but a fact nontheless. We might be the most sexually repressed group of people on the face of the earth. For sex read "pleasure", in spite of what our enemys might say.

Some difficulties that I have with some points brought up in discussion (I am speaking now from the PR/marketing viewpoint).

- The rather complete dismissal of the possibility of any change in level of drug use. Holland is a nice country, they have many chubby blond chicks. They have coo-coo clocks, chocolate and tulips, their male children, seemingly, wear outlandish garb and finger dikes. I doubt that their experience is directly translateable due to the differences of their population with the US, as well as attitudeinal stuff that I surmise but can not prove. Suffice it to say that naked boobs are not a big deal in Europe but bring out the TV cameras here. There are differences. There might be surveys of "future intent to use" but I have not come across them. Arm waving does not eliminate or reduce this concern.

- The minimization of the impact on kids. Maybe this is true. An answer is NOT "they can get it now". That addresses no concern and is an arrogant dismissal of the fears of most parents (ie. those folks who vote)

- Health costs will not skyrocket, they might go down. Here the Tulip eater experience might be worthwhile. drug related admissions pre and post 1970 would be informative as well as the complaint. I would love to see this data. At this moment, the only information presented is anecdotal.

- Litigation will be an issue. I can't prove it except to say look around you (if you are in the US)

- Prison costs will be reduced. Not bloody likely. Warehousing prisoners is an industry here. They have their lobbyists. Perhaps I am just cynical but beaurocrats do not give up budget lightly. Any residents from PA here? Still paying that tax surcharge for the 1911 Johnstown flood? You betcha. Putting this up as a benefit is begging to get slapped down, IMHO.

- What happens to the released prisoners? "They go back to what they were doing". Maybe, maybe not. Having a prison record is not a joke when it comes to employment. Of course, this will disproportionately effect black folks. Innocent black folks will be tarred by the same brush (:D ) so you might look for class action lawsuits and such. Against whom? Anyone or thing involved with prisoner release efforts.

- the moral climate. I trolled a question regarding this, the answer was "What the hell does that mean? Do you want everything outlawed that might violate someone's sense of a "moral atmosphere"?". If one does not understand the import of this question one is pissing up a rope when it comes to the drug legalization issue. The short answer to the question raised is "Yes." You minimize the moral sentiment in this country at your peril. Last time I looked (this is a bit dated so correct me) you could not get the Playboy channel in Cinncinatti. You had to cross the river to Covington to go to a tittie bar. Also, I think that there is only one tittie bar in Chicago. We are a nation of bluenoses and saying "f off, I don't care if you are offended, I like it" will go over like a turd in a punchbowl. This one is the killer.

- From a general PR standpoint, the notion of releasing thousands of "angry black men(tm)" from prison will provide for charming conversation during the Forth of July festivities in Ashford NC (Greenwich CT too, I might add)

- No major company will come within 10^100000 miles of distributing "dangerous" drugs in the USA. OK, the government does it. Charming, another buerocracy with a presence everywhere. This is not a crowd pleaser. I remember when they opened methodone clinics in NYC. It was ugly.

-What should be legalized? It appears that those that want to get high want it to be their drug while libertarians want all of them available. I kept asking for principles and felt sorta thwarted. The odds of "everything" are non-existant, as they should be, IMO. One might make a thin argument for antibiotics but the public health concerns are too great. The idea of people shooting themselves up with some of the stuff I mentioned is stupid (sniffing Halothane? I tried it once, a whiff, like an open bottle a foot away from my nose and some hand movement to sniff it. I was knocked unconcious.) The Government should not let stuff like that out. However, I do believe that lethal highballs should be available for those that want them. Perhaps just pot. It is the biggest drug of abuse and seems pretty innocuous.

-drugs are not dangerous as long as (fill in the blank). No. Drugs are dangerous, how they are dangerous varies by individual. Cocaine is massively addicting and do very bad things if you have a problem with your heart. I suppose if a person gives informed consent and they want to use a drug, more power to them. Anyway, making this argument is wrong as often as it is right so I would ignore it. Perhaps some law could be constructed to cover this.

-laws someone, naively, questioned whether laws would be an issue "what new laws" as I recall. New laws on every aspect of drug use in an unsupervised setting, that's what laws. Laws to get revenue, laws to limit liability, laws about where they can be used, laws about the containers that they are in, laws about idiot americans that fly to a foreign country with them and end up getting rear ended in a Turkish prison. We have 25,000+ gun laws and if you think guns are contoversial, just wait and see what happens with regard to drugs. Again, I sense an attitude of minimization of the issue. Oh yeah. Every municipality can pass there own law. So, my town (which does not allow the sale of COOH, BTW) can outlaw drugs, or drugs in blue containers, or whatever they wish. If your car gets stopped and you have a joint you can find yourself in the slammer. Only around it is a consititutional ammendment ... good luck on that one.

- What do drugs cost. I heard low (to put those dratted pushers out of business) and high (to fund government sponsered rehab and education facilities). Again, a guess. It will be like other sin products (COOH and smokes) ie. very high:D. This will be mealtime for every spender in Washington. And I would wager that the $ would go for (in size order) Overhead, other stuff, it's intended purpose. Social security is supposed to be sacrosanct. Need I say more?

- Pushers are out of business, drugs will not be adulerated. Perhaps. If there is a profit to be made, it will be made. Dismissing this potential is wishful thinking.Remember, the criminal aspect of drugs in very ingrained. I will allow that this would be a passing fad.

There is only one argument that is a winner on this issue, and, paradoxically, it is totally consistant with the political climate. That is, Government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. It co-opts the basic conservative agenda as well as various left leaning agendas (Pro-choice, right to death). The rest of the arguments in favor are just too complicated and open to argument. Oh, the fairness argument regarding the disproportionate number of blacks in the slammer is probably a non starter unless done well and carefully.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ed
- The rather complete dismissal of the possibility of any change in level of drug use.

I haven't dismissed the possibility, I just don't consider it relevant. If drug use goes up, then it goes up. It's not government's place to keep people from making potentially unhealthy choices for themselves.


- The minimization of the impact on kids. Maybe this is true. An answer is NOT "they can get it now". That addresses no concern and is an arrogant dismissal of the fears of most parents (ie. those folks who vote)

No, it's not. What is arrogant is to support the criminalization of activities for adults based on what people don't want their kids doing.


- What happens to the released prisoners? "They go back to what they were doing". Maybe, maybe not. Having a prison record is not a joke when it comes to employment. Of course, this will disproportionately effect black folks. Innocent black folks will be tarred by the same brush (:D ) so you might look for class action lawsuits and such. Against whom? Anyone or thing involved with prisoner release efforts.

I have no idea what kind of argument you're trying to make here. But it might help if you went back and answered a question that was in my first post to you. Just to remind you - isn't keeping someone in prison who did not belong there in the first place something of a sledgehammer approach to preventing any potential employment problems they might encounter?


- the moral climate. I trolled a question regarding this, the answer was "What the hell does that mean? Do you want everything outlawed that might violate someone's sense of a "moral atmosphere"?".

What "question" are you claiming to have "trolled"? The questions of mine that you just quoted were in response to a statement of yours, not a question.


If one does not understand the import of this question one is pissing up a rope when it comes to the drug legalization issue.

You're a little too full of yourself here, and too dismissive of the responses you sought when you started the thread. It isn't a lack of understanding of the importance of "moral climate", it's a rejection of it. One person's freedom should not depend on someone else's moral sensibilities.


The short answer to the question raised is "Yes."

Then you might want to take a closer look at the question. I'm not sure you realize just how dangerous that answer makes you appear, or how embarrassed you should be by it. Just to remind you what you're saying "yes" to, the question was - Do you want everything outlawed that might violate someone's sense of a "moral atmosphere"?


You minimize the moral sentiment in this country at your peril.

As long as people leave each other alone, I don't given a rat's ass about the "moral sentiment in this country". Peaceful people should be able to determine their own "moral sentiment", without having the "moral sentiment" of others imposed on them.


Last time I looked (this is a bit dated so correct me) you could not get the Playboy channel in Cinncinatti. You had to cross the river to Covington to go to a tittie bar. Also, I think that there is only one tittie bar in Chicago. We are a nation of bluenoses and saying "f off, I don't care if you are offended, I like it" will go over like a turd in a punchbowl. This one is the killer.

Nope, it's all the more reason to join those telling the bluenoses to "f off". The lack of people doing so is what allows them to prevail. You just seem to be arguing against taking a stand against a majority.


- From a general PR standpoint, the notion of releasing thousands of "angry black men(tm)" from prison will provide for charming conversation during the Forth of July festivities in Ashford NC (Greenwich CT too, I might add)

:rolleyes: Yeah, that's a good reason to keep'em locked up.


- No major company will come within 10^100000 miles of distributing "dangerous" drugs in the USA. OK, the government does it. Charming, another buerocracy with a presence everywhere. This is not a crowd pleaser. I remember when they opened methodone clinics in NYC. It was ugly.

I haven't argued for this, but if it's a result of legalization, I'll take that particular "ugly" over the ugliness of imprisoning people for activities involving consenting adults any day of the week, thanks.


-What should be legalized? It appears that those that want to get high want it to be their drug while libertarians want all of them available.

Not necessarily "available". Just not prohibited.


I kept asking for principles and felt sorta thwarted.

What's wrong with the principle of respecting the right of adults to run their own lives?


The odds of "everything" are non-existant, as they should be, IMO. One might make a thin argument for antibiotics but the public health concerns are too great. The idea of people shooting themselves up with some of the stuff I mentioned is stupid (sniffing Halothane? I tried it once, a whiff, like an open bottle a foot away from my nose and some hand movement to sniff it. I was knocked unconcious.) The Government should not let stuff like that out. However, I do believe that lethal highballs should be available for those that want them. Perhaps just pot. It is the biggest drug of abuse and seems pretty innocuous.

:confused: What the hell happened to "I don't really care if drugs are legalized or not. I would like consistancy in that it should be all or none"?


-drugs are not dangerous as long as (fill in the blank). No. Drugs are dangerous, how they are dangerous varies by individual.

Sky diving is dangerous too. So is mountain climbing, and a host of other things I could probably think of. Do I even need to ask the obvious question here? :D


Cocaine is massively addicting and do very bad things if you have a problem with your heart.

A good reason for choosing not to use it. Not a good reason for jailing those who do.


I suppose if a person gives informed consent and they want to use a drug, more power to them.

Now you're talkin'.


-laws someone, naively, questioned whether laws would be an issue "what new laws" as I recall.

You've got to be kidding. You make a reference to "new laws" without being the least bit specific, and then refer to a call for clarification as naive? Yeah, that always enhances civil debate. Between this, and your earlier comments about Fade's position, one thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that you are a hell of a lot more condescending than you have any room to be. If you're going to start a thread, and expect people to participate in it, you might give some serious thought to being a little less sloppy in your own responses, and more respectful of those who respond to you.


New laws on every aspect of drug use in an unsupervised setting, that's what laws. Laws to get revenue, laws to limit liability, laws about where they can be used, laws about the containers that they are in, laws about idiot americans that fly to a foreign country with them and end up getting rear ended in a Turkish prison.

All still preferable to jailing citizens for involvement in consensual activity with other adults.


We have 25,000+ gun laws and if you think guns are contoversial, just wait and see what happens with regard to drugs.

What the hell are you talking about? The drug war is already controversial. And neither the prospect of new laws, nor the potential for any mismanagement of legalization (or any related controversy) is a justification for continuing the prohibition. You just seem to be providing one flimsy argument after another.

Incidentally, do you remember all the problems associated with drugs before the drug war began? Oh wait ... never mind.


There is only one argument that is a winner on this issue, and, paradoxically, it is totally consistant with the political climate. That is, Government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body.

Thank you! That's essentially the basis for my position on this issue. Does this mean you're on board after all?

[Dancing David]

By the way ,
I think that the War on Drugs is a horrible idea.

a. It was implemented in a fashion which punishes users as much as the dealers.
b. it just drives the price up.
c. it gives local governments too high a stake in going after anyone they can, instead of the ditribution network.
d. it is harder to get treatment than it was when the war started.

it makes as much sense as 'war on rock music'.

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by Ed
I think that there is good reason for a major overhaul of our drug laws.

I also think that some of the reasons/support put up here are a bit flakey. Remember that we are talking about 6% of the population that uses this stuff (I read 6.3% on some site, correct the number if I am wrong). Let me also say that I do not believe that we will see any significant change in drug laws during our lifetime.




94.1 million Americans aged 12 or over (41.7% of the US population aged 12 and over) have used an illicit drug at least once in their lifetimes.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, Results from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume 1. Summary of National Findings (Rockville, MD: Ofice of Applied Studies, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1 & p. 110, Table H.2.


According to the National Household Survey, in 2001, 28.4 million Americans aged 12 or over (12.6% of the US population aged 12 and over) used an illicit drug. Of these, 21.1 million were White, 3.1 million were Black, and 2.9 million were Hispanic.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, Results from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume 1. Summary of National Findings (Rockville, MD: Ofice of Applied Studies, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1; p. 110, Table H.2; p. 102, Table G.4; and p. 122, Table H.14.


Drug War Facts (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/druguse.htm)

The 6% number is most likely regarding the people who are frequent users (actually more like 5.8% [4.8% pot, 0.7% Cocaine, 0.2% Crack, and 0.1% Heroin]) and if you count occational users (at least once a year but less than once a month) that number jumps to almost 12%, hardly an insignificant portion of the population. I agree that some of the reasons given have been on the flaky side but the data suggests that if drugs were legalized the usage rates would go down and crime associated with drug abuse would also decrease.

A comparison between Amsterdam and the US shows that "permissive" drug policy works.

Occational marajuana usage in the Netherlands is 4.5% compared to the USA at 9.3%

Occational Cocaine use is 0.6% V.S. 1.9% in America

Frequent use of Heroin in the USA is 0.1% and is too low to track in Holland!

These numbers alone should be enough evidence to dismantle our drug war but the lies and disinformation campaigns of the DEA and politicians that dont want to be seen as "soft on crime" are perpetuating this horrible miscarrage of justice. I strongly urge everyone to read up on all the facts and put emotion aside so you can make a logical and informed choice. My hope is that the vast majority of you will see the insanity of this drug policy and urge your legislators at both the federal and state level to end drug prohibition.

"Building more prisons to address crime is like building more graveyards to address a fatal disease".
Robert Gangi, Executive Director of the Correctional Association of New York



-Joxter-

Stats source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, Results from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume 1. Summary of National Findings (Rockville, MD: Ofice of Applied Studies, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1; p. 110, Table H.2; p. 129, Table H.21; and p. 130, Table H.22.

[Boo]

I came upon this thread a little late, if I repeat another poster it is unintentional.

I currently reside in a state in the US where Heroin fatalities exceed traffic fatalities. We are the only state in the US where this situation exists.

My job brings me into contact with people daily that abuse drugs. The most common one is alcohol, next are perscription. From my perspective I would rather deal with someone under the influence of marijuana then alcohol or many of the perscription drugs that are abused.

I would like to see the decriminilization of cannabis. Let the government pay farmers to grow it, let the government regulate it, then tax it and sell it as they do tobacco or alcohol. If an individual prefers to buy in bulk , then sell it loose in the amount equivalent to a pack. The only hold back I see to this is that as of yet there is not a test that can quantify THC. If the government can't legislate a 'legal limit' that determines "under the influence"
they won't legalize it.

As for the other currently illegal "hard" drugs, the only solution I can find that makes sense are regulated houses that you would check into for a set time frame depending on the drug you intend to use while there. With trained staff that can handle both a bad trip and provide basic medical support as needed.

Just a few thoughts.

Boo

[Fade]

Explain to me, in simple terms, how this is any different from a government monopoly.

Irrelevant strawman. I have to say I expected more from you, but whatever.
Perhaps. Without a shread of proof it sounds sorta idealized to me.

Uh, it's exactly what happened in the Netherlands.

And these bad guys, they just fade into the woodwork?

The biggest drug lords would probably turn to organized crime.. oh wait that already happened.

The two-bit drug pushers WOULD fade away, as they would no longer have a stranglehold. Once the frightened populace no longer depends on their drugs, they can let the authorities brush them away.

Might they simply burn out legit stores and continue with their trade? Might they simply terrorize people away from the legit stores, buy the stuff legally and then adulterate and resell it?


Oh, you mean like the way tobacco is bought, repackaged, and resold?

OH WAIT. THAT DOESN'T EVER HAPPEN BECAUSE TOBACCO IS CHEAP TO MAKE.

Where are you getting these bizarre ideas from?

Aren't drugs cut with that stuff to enhance or alter the high? Why would that change?

Irrelevant strawman.

Read. Comprehend. Post.

Wealthy folks get the best of everything

Very good. When you realize that wealthy folks are paying 1000% markup, you'll realize that with regulated legal drugs, everyone will have access to cheaper pure drugs.

Yes, but noone has addressed the less than pleasent issues.

Because there aren't any.

1. Drugs being illegal does not, in any way, make drugs less accessible.

2. Drug laws time and again create crime, while sustaining the conditions that create those crimes.


The only "less pleasent" side of the issue is that self important drug czars would all lose their cushy jobs.

so everyone with a drug conviction gets released? OK. Now all those petty dealers are on the street (and big ones too, I guess) what do they do with themselves now that their profession does not exist?

Do you even live in our world?

Most people in jail for drug crimes are in for possesion. Snort coke and get caught, and you can often go to jail for a LONGER amount of time than somebody who has commited murder.

this is sorta what I mean. Are the prices high or low?

Give me 100 dollars and I can produce 100,000 dollars worth of Crystal Meth in my bathtub.

And it boosts our economy how exactly?

Uh duur bluh...

Right now drug money circulates mainly through street pushers onto out-of-country drug kingpins. Money goes away.

Tax the drug. Make it legal and open. No more shady dealings, because you can get it from.. say.. a pharmacy. Money is recirculated through local economies. On the larger sense, the tax revenue benefits us all.

It appears that the drug money, rather than being in communities now goes to Washington, right?


This makes no sense, i'll just ignore it.

Never cared one way or the other about them

Of course. They aren't often inner city black men. So, they're a-okay.

How is it taken out of circulation now?

uh.. duuurrr.. bluh..

You must realize that you must do something with cash, invest, spend, whatever. That puts it in circulation.


Not when that money circulates out of the country.

Nonsense. The very existance of a methodone program suggests that this is not true. God, every two bit hollywood wannabe dries out. Noone gets arrested for that

Slight difference in culture, sparky. The words "methadone program" might as well be french to Jane Crack Whore in New York.

Me? I don't care what you do as long as it does not effect me. On principle I don't care to subsidize your mediacal or insurance nor do I particularly enjoy being around people that are fucced up (Their jokes are not very funny).

Yet you support a system which creates more medical bills due to impurities, and more taxation due to our prison costs which are likely twice as high as they actually need to be.

You really haven't thought this through at ALL, have you?

yes indeed. and that is precisely what you are doing

Nonsensical, unsupported pissing.

[Fade]

Thanks, Joxter.

I have had this exact exchange so many times that I really don't care to find numerous links sighting the ineffectual nature of the drug war compared to the examples of what legal drugs do in a western society.

For those of you who missed it, let me explain about the drug cycle a little bit:

First you have Joe drug user. Joe works, but he also likes to smoke a little crack. One day Joe buys some crack from Gary that is impure, and cut with something nasty (let's say dried paint) and has a heart attack because of it. He recovers, but now he has a medical bill a mile long because his drugs were impure.

Now let's focus on Gary. Gary is a common street pusher. He gets his drugs from Charles, who tells him to cut it with whatever he can find cheaply.. paint, flour, baking soda, sugar. Whatever.

Charles is an intermediate between Gary and Jose. Jose mass produces crack cocaine in Venezuela, and ships it here secretly. Jose has nearly a hundred million dollars US.

Jose employs hundreds of intermediates, who themselves employ thousands of street pushers across the US.

Now let's look at Malcolm. Malcolm grew up in the slums, and got addicted to crack. Since Arnie the drug king pin in Cuba died and all his intermediates are gone, Jose now sells crack for twice as much as before. Malcolm can no longer afford it, so he robs an old woman at gunpoint to steal HER money. She is now in the hospital, and Malcolm gets caught, and goes to jail, both for drugs and assault.


That is the cycle.

Now let's repeal drug laws.

Joe no longer has a heart attack, and thus no medical bills, because his drugs now cost 1/10th to 1/100th as much, because the markup is what one would expect in a capitalist society where legal competition takes place. No burden on the public.

Gary either works legally for the drug companies, or some other job, or has commited some crime and is in jail.

Same for Charles.

Jose has no ties to the US, his millions are still where they belong (in the US).

Malcolm can afford his habit with a regular job, and had never commited a crime to get more money in the first place.


See the pattern? The people who are commiting the "crimes" and getting caught were the ones taking the drugs, or selling them. Basically good people were forced into a more seedy life to support their own habits due to artificial markup to support the real criminals overseas (as well as some domestic)

The real criminals get rich.

Our own people go to jail, burdening our own tax system, while their money is sent elsewhere.

We lose. They win.

[karl]

Originally posted by Fade
Joe no longer has a heart attack, and thus no medical bills, because his drugs now cost 1/10th to 1/100th as much, because the markup is what one would expect in a capitalist society where legal competition takes place.

That might be true if hard drugs were sold like groceries, but any legitimate business distributing for example crack in the US would immediately open itself to multi-million-dollar lawsuits ("Next on Oprah: My daughter got high and jumped off a building") regardless of the drug being legal. So you will never have that kind of well-oiled capitalist system when it comes to drugs. All the major distribution channels would still have to be controlled by criminal organizations, which aren't known for passing their savings on to the customers or taking kindly to a bit of healthy competition.

There would be a price drop, for the same reason the street price of drugs sometimes drops today -- an increased supply. Couriers would be able to bring more drugs into the country and less would be confiscated by the authorities. But perhaps 1/2 or 1/3 is more realistic than 1/10.

[BillyTK]

The total Federal drug budget for 2002 was $18,882,800,000 according to the National Drug Control Budget (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/03budget/index.html), which works out at approximately $200 for every American aged 12 or over who uses an illicit drug at least once in their lifetimes; or approximately $660 per American aged 12 or over who has used an illicit drug; or $1348 per American who uses drugs on a regular basis; or $9400 for every American who uses hard drugs on a regular basis.

This is meaningless but fun: The War on Drugs Clock (http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm); watch the money being spent per second on the War on Drugs.

[Dancing David]

Sorry fade but Jose will still have the heart attack if he uses crack cocaine on a regular basis, not all the heart attacks are caused by the impurities.

I agree, break up the cartels and you break up the majority of the criminal problem.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Boo
As for the other currently illegal "hard" drugs, the only solution I can find that makes sense are regulated houses that you would check into for a set time frame depending on the drug you intend to use while there. With trained staff that can handle both a bad trip and provide basic medical support as needed.No, I don’t think that would work.

When people do drugs they want to do them at home, at a club, at a party or at some other venue of their choosing. They do them with friends, often spur of the moment, with the purpose of having fun. They don’t want to check in to a government facility where they can be watched over. That’s not fun, no one would go, IMO.

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by karl


That might be true if hard drugs were sold like groceries, but any legitimate business distributing for example crack in the US would immediately open itself to multi-million-dollar lawsuits ("Next on Oprah: My daughter got high and jumped off a building") regardless of the drug being legal. So you will never have that kind of well-oiled capitalist system when it comes to drugs. All the major distribution channels would still have to be controlled by criminal organizations, which aren't known for passing their savings on to the customers or taking kindly to a bit of healthy competition.



"Next on Oprah: My daughter took too much Asprin and died"

The drugs would be packaged and labeled with tons of health warnings all over the box and would most likely have "EULA" like seals that would protect them from lawsuits. When was the last time a cough syrup company was sued for a kid trippin on a bottle of that junk? Drug companies would market thier own brands of Cocaine, Heroin, etc. and make tons of money. Treatment centers would sprout up in every city supported by taxes on the drugs. Happy stoners would get baked in the park and might get a ticket for public intoxication or disorderly conduct if they get out of hand. The world would be a happier place ( Cue music ) (fade to people dancing in park)(roll credits)(fade to black)

-Joxter-

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by RichardR
No, I don’t think that would work.

When people do drugs they want to do them at home, at a club, at a party or at some other venue of their choosing. They do them with friends, often spur of the moment, with the purpose of having fun. They don’t want to check in to a government facility where they can be watched over. That’s not fun, no one would go, IMO.

Actually, while I don't see it as a total solution, Herion clubs might well spring up as a result of the end of the war. I could also forsee more massive and better organizd rave type events. But the majority of drug use will, and should remain in the home.

Imagine ShroomLand, and cheesy places that try to recreate the mystery of the old Chinese Opium dens. :D

[Jim Lennox]

Some questions for those who support the War on Drugs (not that anyone here does).

How many millions of people do you think we ought to put prison for drugs to have the best results?

For Drug Enforcement Officers: What would you do if you got your fondest wish? What would do if, tomorrow morning, you woke up and every drug user in America was lined up outside your door with a bag of dope in one hand and a signed confession in the other?

For Devout Christians: What would Jesus do if we gave this problem to Him? Would He build bigger prisons? Or would He build hospitals and schools?

I have here a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years. Every one of them recommended decriminalization. Do you agree that the overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization?

It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in prison, which includes $150,000 for arrest and prosecution, about $150,000 for a new prison cell, and about $30,000 per year times at least five years. For the same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred people. Which do you think is the better deal?

From here. (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ACTIVIST/showstop.htm)

[JoxterTheMighty]

DEA Uses RAVE Act Threats to Block Montana NORML/SSDP Benefit

by Phillip S. Smith, Editor,

Montana

An agent of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA ) used threats of RAVE Act prosecutions to intimidate the owners of a Billings, Montana, venue into a canceling a combined benefit for the Montana chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ( http://www.norml.org ) and Students for Sensible Drug Policy ( http://www.ssdp.org ) last week.

The RAVE Act, now known officially as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, championed by Sen. Joe Biden ( D-DE ), was ostensibly aimed at so-called raves, the large electronic music concerts often associated with open drug use, but was so broadly written that opponents argued it could be applied against any event or venue where owners or organizers did not take sufficiently repressive steps to prevent drug use. Opposition to the bill stalled it in the Senate last year, but this year Biden stealthily inserted it into the enormously popular Amber Alert Bill, which passed last month and was signed into law by President Bush.

While the Billings event was advertised as a benefit concert for two local groups interested in drug law reform - not as a drug-taking orgy - it still attracted the attention of the DEA. On May 30, the day the event was set to take place, a Billings-based DEA agent showed up at the Eagle Lodge, which had booked the concert. Waving a copy of the RAVE Act in one hand, the agent warned that the lodge could face a fine of $250,000 if someone smoked a joint during the benefit, according to Eagle Lodge manager Kelly, who asked that her last name not be used.

"He freaked me out," Kelly told DRCNet. "He didn't tell us we couldn't have the event, but he showed me the law and told us what could happen if we did. I talked to our trustees, they talked to our lawyers, and our lawyers said not to risk it, so we canceled," she said. "I felt bad. I knew the guys in the bands."

Primary event organizer Adam Jones was unavailable for comment, having been arrested and jailed by his probation officer for switching work-study jobs at Montana State University-Billings without first informing him. He is on probation for possession of psychedelic mushrooms. It has been speculated, but not yet confirmed, that the probation officer, described in unprintable terms by several local sources, was responsible for siccing the DEA on the benefit.

"The DEA guy kept talking about Adam Jones," Kelly said. Jones apparently got the hint. In a message relayed from jail, Jones announced that we was resigning from SSDP and NORML and foregoing further drug reform efforts until he is free from the clutches of the state. That probably spells the temporary demise of Teachers Against Prohibition ( http://www.teachersagainstprohibition.org ), a group that education major Jones founded after having run smack up against drug war reality with his arrest ( http://www.drcnet.org/wol/278.html#teachersagainstprohibition ).

DEA Denver regional office spokesman Bill Wyman confirmed to DRCNet that an agent had visited the Eagle Lodge to warn of possible RAVE Act violations and their consequences, but deferred a more detailed response to Special Agent in Charge Jeff Sweet, whom Wyman promised would call back shortly. We're stilling waiting for that call.

"This confirms all our fears about the RAVE Act," said Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance ( http://www.drugpolicy.org ), which spearheaded opposition to the bill, succeeding in blocking it last year. "This isn't about drug parties or raves, it's about having a club to hold over people's heads, whether its hemp festivals, circuit parties, dances, whatever. The RAVE Act is being used to suppress political speech. This is exactly what Sen. Biden said would not happen, and now it's happening," he told DRCNet.

Biden's office did not respond to repeated DRCNet inquiries about whether the Montana intimidation effort was what he intended the act to accomplish. But Biden wasn't alone in his silence. None of the three members of the Montana congressional delegation, Sens. Max Baucus ( D ) and Conrad Burns ( R ), and Rep. Dennis Rehberg ( R ), responded to DRCNet inquiries either.

Other national drug reform organizations also expressed shock and outrage. "This looks like the first application of the RAVE Act, and this is a very scary precedent, said NORML Foundation head Allen St. Pierre. "Preemptively shutting down a First Amendment-protected event is something that just doesn't happen in America," he told DRCNet. "This is absolutely what we feared and predicted would happen if the RAVE Act passed. Isn't Montana known for being resistant to federal encroachment? This should make them mighty uneasy."

"This is just more evidence that the current administration is engaged in a culture war targeting medical marijuana patients, glass blowers, festival goers and young people," said SSDP national director Shawn Heller.

"Wow," said Marijuana Policy Project communications director Bruce Mirken. "This appears to be a clear violation of the purpose and intent of the law. The RAVE Act's sponsors said repeatedly it was to crack down on people knowingly allowing open drug use," he told DRCNet. "To use it to crack down on reform organizations is an outrageous First Amendment violation. If laws, no matter how wrongheaded, aimed at drug use and distribution are used to intimidate efforts to discuss reform or raise money for reform, we are getting really Orwellian. I really hope the folks up there sue and sue hard."

Montana activists are also worried but undaunted. Missoula Hempfest organizer and Montana NORML spokesman John Masterson told DRCNet the threat of RAVE Act prosecutions was being carefully considered. "The Hempfest committee just spent most of our last meeting talking about this," he said. "We have more than 5,000 people each year in a Missoula city park. Is the DEA going to come after the city? We are meeting with local attorneys to discuss this, but we're not talking about canceling Hempfest. Screw that."

And the drug reformers are mobilizing. A conference call among NORML, SSDP, MPP, Montana NORML and the Montana ACLU was set for Thursday night or this morning. "We may have a coalition up to fight this by the end of the day," St. Pierre said Thursday. "The Drug Policy Alliance warned us the RAVE Act would be used to suppress free speech, and they haven't been proven wrong. Looks like we have our first case."


Get active now people before the DEA takes away all your rights!!

-Joxter-

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Some questions for those who support the War on Drugs (not that anyone here does).

How many millions of people do you think we ought to put prison for drugs to have the best results?

For Drug Enforcement Officers: What would you do if you got your fondest wish? What would do if, tomorrow morning, you woke up and every drug user in America was lined up outside your door with a bag of dope in one hand and a signed confession in the other?

For Devout Christians: What would Jesus do if we gave this problem to Him? Would He build bigger prisons? Or would He build hospitals and schools?

I have here a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years. Every one of them recommended decriminalization. Do you agree that the overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization?

It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in prison, which includes $150,000 for arrest and prosecution, about $150,000 for a new prison cell, and about $30,000 per year times at least five years. For the same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred people. Which do you think is the better deal?

From here. (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ACTIVIST/showstop.htm)

Yea man you tell them!! The war on drugs is a total waste of taxpayer funds and the worst moral crime ever in the history of mankind!!

Even the christians are for cannibus legalization!!!
Christians for Cannabis (http://www.christiansforcannabis.com/)

[karl]

Originally posted by JoxterTheMighty


"Next on Oprah: My daughter took too much Asprin and died"

The drugs would be packaged and labeled with tons of health warnings all over the box and would most likely have "EULA" like seals that would protect them from lawsuits. When was the last time a cough syrup company was sued for a kid trippin on a bottle of that junk?

The key words being "too much". Anything can be overdosed, but drug companies whose products cause death or injury even at the prescribed dosage do get sued on a regular basis. I doubt "Warning: may cause hallucinations, permanent brain damage, heart failure and suicidal behavior" is going to cut it. And the EULA seal might not even be valid if the buyer is an addict. I'm not an expert, so perhaps I shouldn't try to predict the outcome, but under the US legal system lawyers have always found ways to turn personal tragedy into dollars. It seems unrealistic to assume that hard drugs would be an exception.

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by karl


The key words being "too much". Anything can be overdosed, but drug companies whose products cause death or injury even at the prescribed dosage do get sued on a regular basis. I doubt "Warning: may cause hallucinations, permanent brain damage, heart failure and suicidal behavior" is going to cut it. And the EULA seal might not even be valid if the buyer is an addict. I'm not an expert, so perhaps I shouldn't try to predict the outcome, but under the US legal system lawyers have always found ways to turn personal tragedy into dollars. It seems unrealistic to assume that hard drugs would be an exception.

Death Rate (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm)


Tobacco - 430,700
Alcohol - 110,640
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs - 32,000
Suicide - 30,575
Homicide - 18,272
All Licit & Illicit Drug-Induced Deaths - 16,926
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin - 7,600
Marijuana - 0

(1998): "In 1998 a total of 16,926 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Table 20). The category 'drug-induced causes' includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes accidents, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are newborn deaths due to mother's drug use." The total number of deaths in the US in 1998 was 2,337,256.

Source: Murphy, Sheila L., Centers for Disease Control, "Deaths: Final Data for 1998,", National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 11 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, July 24, 2000), pp. 1, 10, from the web at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvs48_11.pdf .


(1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)

Source: Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, 1992;92:21-4.



Given these statistics I think the litigation angle is bieng blown way out of proportion. I dont see the alcohol and tobacco companies getting sued to death (certainly losing a large portion of thier profit margin in tobbacco's case). Asprin makers are not too worried about the 7000+ deaths each year in thier industry so I do not think cocaine/heroin manufacturing companies will be put off by the legal consequences of 16,000+ deaths a year in thier industry either. I may sound cold talking about death in this manor but it is exactly how the bean counters will think about it.

I firmly believe, based on evidence from countries that have decriminalized, that if given a clean and legal source of drugs, fatalities will dramatically drop because the drugs will be pure and any fillers used will be safe and non-toxic.

[Dancing David]

Those statistics are way to low, they only count the ones that include official death certificates with that as the cause of death.

Oh get real, alot more than 30,000 people commit suicide every year, and how many car accidents are alocohol related?

Still doesn't mean that drugs shouldn't be legal, just means that coroners lie all the time about cause of death.

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Those statistics are way to low, they only count the ones that include official death certificates with that as the cause of death.

Oh get real, alot more than 30,000 people commit suicide every year, and how many car accidents are alocohol related?

Still doesn't mean that drugs shouldn't be legal, just means that coroners lie all the time about cause of death.

(1998): The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 1998, there were a total of 30,575 deaths from suicide in the US.

Source: Murphy, Sheila L., "Deaths: Final Data for 1998," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 11 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, July 24, 2000), Table 10, p. 53, from the web at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvs48_11.pdf .


That is quite real.
If you dispute the data please contact the CDC and find out why thier numbers are "Way Too Low".

My point is that the actual data shows that our perceptions are biased and unreliable. Most people, when presented with the hard facts, act out in disbelief. Check the data, find a provable error, please show that I am wrong because I would really like to know if I am spouting out nonsence.

-Joxter-

[Dancing David]

There are a lot of reasons that the reporting of suicide is low, and I am sure that the CDC is aware of them. The question is , have you ever considered it?

Suicide doesn't get reported for a lot of reasons,
take asphyiaxtion, if someone dies because they leave the stove on and no windows open. If there is not a suicide note then the intention to harm ones self is not evident. Coroners do not interview friends as to the mental state of someone prior to thier death. (At least in my county they don't)
Then you have drug overdosing, there are reasons why a coroner would put 'cardiac arrest' when actually the person overdosed. First there is intent, did the person mean to overdose? The drug caused thier heart to stop beating so it's cardiac arrest.
Then there are car wrecks, it is impossible to determine intent after the crash, unless you talk to the family, many people who are depressed do crash thier cars on purpose.
Then there is the reluctance of coroners to declare a death a suicide for other reasons, the impact on the family, the loss of insurance benefits, etc.

I am very sure that any one at the CDC who compiles death statistics is aware of the under reporting of suicide.

My point was not about the legalization of drugs but that you can't trust death statistics.

Gee I am not saying that you are spouting nonsense, just that as any statistics you have to consider the experimental err. If I called you foolish or such then I am sorry.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JoxterTheMighty


(1998): The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 1998, there were a total of 30,575 deaths from suicide in the US.

Source: Murphy, Sheila L., "Deaths: Final Data for 1998," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 11 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, July 24, 2000), Table 10, p. 53, from the web at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvs48_11.pdf .


That is quite real.
If you dispute the data please contact the CDC and find out why thier numbers are "Way Too Low".

My point is that the actual data shows that our perceptions are biased and unreliable. Most people, when presented with the hard facts, act out in disbelief. Check the data, find a provable error, please show that I am wrong because I would really like to know if I am spouting out nonsence.

-Joxter-

In the UK, coroners are often loathe to record a death as being caused by suicide because of the stigma it carries, they'll often record it as misadventure or even note the specific cause--for instance, heart failure in the case of overdose--to save the victim's family further grief. Might this also be the case in the US?

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I am very sure that any one at the CDC who compiles death statistics is aware of the under reporting of suicide.

My point was not about the legalization of drugs but that you can't trust death statistics.

Gee I am not saying that you are spouting nonsense, just that as any statistics you have to consider the experimental err. If I called you foolish or such then I am sorry.

Taking errors into account if you add up everything below alcohol excluding homicide you still have 87,101 deaths vs 110,640 for alcohol. If the death rates from drugs were to double (33,852) then you would have about the same amout as the listed suicides.

My overall point here is that these numbers are so small that the companies that would manufacture cocaine and heroin and LSD etc. would not really be concerned with the legal costs. Lawyers would get about as much from suing for crack OD as they would for an accidental child death from asprin, would that bankrupt thier operation? Legal fees would just be added into the cost of doing business and the price of the drugs raised accordingly.

The best approach to combat such harshness from corporations would be to launch education programs to teach the truth about drug use and to offer treatment to those who need help with addiction problems.

I apologize if I came off a bit too defensive, I get attacked rather frequently by people that think I am just some druggie loon and dismiss everything I say as garbage not worth thier consideration. I am still getting used to properly debating with sane and rational people :p

-Joxter-

[karl]

Originally posted by JoxterTheMighty

My overall point here is that these numbers are so small that the companies that would manufacture cocaine and heroin and LSD etc. would not really be concerned with the legal costs. Lawyers would get about as much from suing for crack OD as they would for an accidental child death from asprin, would that bankrupt thier operation? Legal fees would just be added into the cost of doing business and the price of the drugs raised accordingly.


Unfortunately you can't count that way. One type of death isn't necessarily equivalent to another in terms of legal consequences. It has more to do with psychology, controversy and perceived danger. Alcohol and tobacco have been de-dramatized from centuries of use. Pain killer medicine isn't that far behind. Marijuana seems to be slowly catching up, informally, in the US. But whether you approve of them or not, hard drugs are still too emotionally charged in the general population. It would take decades of legalized use to change that -- decades your approach wouldn't have.

Even if you consider yourself to be the one who holds the right answers, you need to acknowledge the fact that very few people think like you do. Look around. Based on the opinions you encounter here, try to picture the day after your proposed legalization, how much easier it would still be to get a jury to approve a lawsuit against someone who makes crack than against someone who makes aspirin. If you think people will be swayed by those death statistics, think again. It's more deeply rooted than that.

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by karl


Even if you consider yourself to be the one who holds the right answers, you need to acknowledge the fact that very few people think like you do. Look around. Based on the opinions you encounter here, try to picture the day after your proposed legalization, how much easier it would still be to get a jury to approve a lawsuit against someone who makes crack than against someone who makes aspirin. If you think people will be swayed by those death statistics, think again. It's more deeply rooted than that.

I acknowledge that only a handful of people think like I do. Only a precious few are able to see through the emotional issues involved and grasp the truth. I and others like me are working hard to dispel the myths and paranoia surrounding the drug culture and to educate on the what the true hazards of drug use are.

Hard drugs like crack and heroin are bad and nobody I know uses them nor are they wanting to start. Just because something is bad does not make it right to criminalize it though. I do not wish to trivialize the horrors associated with drug abuse but they do need to be viewed in a truthful light.

[Dancing David]

The issue I have is that alcohol is as hard as crack and harder than heroin.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

for a government to declare war on its own people, and jail them for decades for simple possession (when corrupt, criminal CEOs get off virtually scott free in the same country).

The US declaring war on its own people seems daft IMHO.

[fishbob]

Deaths due to: Marijuana - 0 I have trouble with these stats. The little teens are told pot is bad, then they try pot and find that it is no big deal. They hear the coke and heroin and ecstacy are bad, they think - hey we have been lied to before, so lets try them.

Six kids in my neighborhood were hospitalized over the weekend from a bad batch of ecstacy. One girl - not quite 16 - died. The rest will probably recover.

Education and real answers and treatment would have to be better than continuous propaganda and maintaining the broke-down and useless War on Drugs.