Saving all the money spent on the ridiculous "war against drugs".
Undermining drug enterprises that are tied in with violent crime.
Reducing the number of people in prison in this country by an enormous margin, by releasing people who never hurt anyone, but were found in possession of a baggie of pot.
Making it possible to plant hemp for the thousands of non-drug related purposes it can serve.
Reducing the violence in other countries by denying them US weapons, which are so often traded for drugs.
The simple fact that Prohibition was always a bad idea and always will be, and that personal liberty deserves to be taken a little more seriously in this country.
The easy availability of cannabis as an analgesic.
The removal of drugs as a counter-culture symbol and a "forbidden fruit" that's just asking to be abused.
Honestly, what's the point of squandering our resources on criminalizing drugs? How much of our GDP goes into it? Add up the law enforcement that's dedicated to it (DEA, local and state police), the court time dedicated to it, the food and space and guards needed to hold violators in prison, not to mention the need to build new prisons just to hold drug offenders... and that's not even considering the social cost.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm completely with you.
I'd like to hear the other side, because I really can't see it any more. (All I have is the flimsy rhetoric they use on school children.)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Agreed. And there's more!
Truth-in-labelling laws could ensure that the exact contents and dosage are consistent across batches, cutting down on accidental overdosing due to not getting what one expects.
Generating tax revenue on drug sales
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Glen Greenwald had a piece in Salon recently talking about the Portugal's 2001 legalization of all drugs. Pretty interesting reading, for all that it's frustratingly vague on specifics. He's going to be presenting a more in-depth, 50 page paper on the subject on April 3rd at the Cato Institute. If I lived in DC I'd be there in a heartbeat, but since I don't I'll have to make due with watching video of it when I get home from work that night. I'm actually more interested in reading the paper than I am in listening to the presentation, though.
In any case, the short version of the Salon article is that decriminalizing drugs has been very, very good for Portugal, and that none of the negative results predicted by those who wanted them to remain illegal have come to pass.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I was pleased to see legalization getting some coverage in the mainstream news, albeit an opinion piece.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Unfortunately, Obama's answer in today's virtual town hall meeting about legalizing pot indicates that he hasn't changed his mind on the subject.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I hope what holds us back isn't the fear that legalization will just make it harder for parents to communicate their values to their children.
I think it's a real cost, and one that America is a bit slow to pay in other contexts. Many parents fear that society is teaching their children to be promiscuous, to value glitter over meaning, etc. They're right. It makes their job harder.
I just don't think that particular cost, when it comes to "drugs", is anything near the costs exacted by the policies we've had for the last few decades.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Unfortunately, Obama's answer in today's virtual town hall meeting about legalizing pot indicates that he hasn't changed his mind on the subject.
Yeah, but it's pretty awesome that both state and federal laws have to be broken to make an arrest. No more raids in California. Now the states can effectively regulate the legalization to some degree.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's policy. Not law. That means it's subject to the whim of whoever is in office. It isn't enough.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The 'forbidden fruit' part is kind of a non-starter when people use it to try to say that it will make it so that less people are inclined to abuse it.
If you make pot legal, there'll be more abuse of the drug, no doubt. But it's hardly relevant because the costs incurred by saving this percentage of people from themselves is too slim and we do more damage to too many other people in the process.
That's it, though. Just a minor quibble.
On the whole I think we're on the fast track to seeing drugs like pot and mdma legalized, and it's only being hindered by some people's hardliner approach when they demand that all drugs be made legal including heroin and cocaine, which isn't going to happen.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, there's the cost of having to admit that, as a culture, the US has been making a really colossal mistake for the past fifty to eighty years. Really, the collective OOOPS ought to be audible to China. How much money has been spent on this thing?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Money's the least of it. How many people died, and how many kids grew up with one parent in jail because of it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I like how by not legalizing drugs for so long we can push mexico into being a nearly failed state.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
It will be a very long time before drugs get legalized.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: It will be a very long time before drugs get legalized.
How long? What obstacles in particular will be long lived? (Let us know so we can get to work on them.)
Portugal's example might be compelling, if not to the US (we think we're specialer than most countries) then to other countries. If enough of them follow suit in the next 10 to 15 years, it might actually get some attention here.
Is that a very long time? Or do you think it will be a lot longer than that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Money's the least of it. How many people died, and how many kids grew up with one parent in jail because of it?
Not very many, among the people who actually make decisions. I suspect that "waste of tax money" is a stronger argument here than "waste of lives", although it shouldn't be.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The 'forbidden fruit' part is kind of a non-starter when people use it to try to say that it will make it so that less people are inclined to abuse it.
<pet peeve>Fewer; not less</pet peeve>
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If you make pot legal, there'll be more abuse of the drug, no doubt. But it's hardly relevant because the costs incurred by saving this percentage of people from themselves is too slim and we do more damage to too many other people in the process.
Well, is that how it worked with prohibition? I mean, there was less use of alcohol during prohibition, but was there less abuse?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's it, though. Just a minor quibble.
On the whole I think we're on the fast track to seeing drugs like pot and mdma legalized, and it's only being hindered by some people's hardliner approach when they demand that all drugs be made legal including heroin and cocaine, which isn't going to happen.
I don't see why not? At the very least, reclassify them as legal narcotics that require a prescription. No one is suggesting that heroin be over-the-counter.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm actually still waiting for someone to present the downside of legalization, rather than just stating that it won't happen. Yes, that means you, SoaPiNuReYe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't see why not? At the very least, reclassify them as legal narcotics that require a prescription. No one is suggesting that heroin be over-the-counter.
That's just the thing, though. Plenty of people are suggesting that they be free for purchase, that it is unethical to have a government regulate them, on the grounds that the right for people to elect to consume whatever drugs they choose to is sacrosanct, and that free markets should end the artificial constraint of the manufacture of drugs; in effect, if Pfizer can sell blood pressure medicine, and I'm not allowed to sell home-brewed meth, that's unfair, caveat emptor, non-aggression principle, etc etc.
For a lot of people arguing and even organizing the legalize movement, the issue is a binary card with no middle ground.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If you make pot legal, there'll be more abuse of the drug, no doubt.
Greenwald doesn't give numbers in the piece I linked to near the beginning of this thread, but from what he said it sounds like this wasn't the case for drugs in general. Part of the reason I'm looking forward to getting my hands on his paper is to get a better idea of exactly what the numbers are. I'm hoping that he's ridiculously detailed.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Here is the DEA's anti-legalization argument. Aside from their clear bias in the interest of job security (partly kidding), there is a shallow treatment of several important issues. Like this:
quote:The Legalization Lobby claims that America’s prisons are filling up with users. Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.
FIVE PERCENT OF FEDERAL INMATES ARE THERE BECAUSE OF SIMPLE POSSESSION. This is supposed to be reassuring? NO ONE should be in federal prison because of simple possession. Nowhere does this "fact" sheet acknowledge the cost that is paid by the families and former employers of those people. Nowhere does it compare the cost of catching and prosecuting those people with just letting them possess some drugs.
Let alone that "simple possession" is not a very transparent term. How many people are in there because they had a BIG bag o'pot?
It's a dodge, not an answer to the concern.
quote:The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years, while cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent. Ninety-five percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards.
First, I don't believe the estimates. They have no way of knowing how many people successfully (undetectably) use illegal drugs.
Second, it's obvious they aren't including legal drugs in this estimate. (With the advent of dozens of popular new drugs in the last 20 years, I mean.) So what about abuse of legal drugs?
Third, juxtapose the above with the following:
quote:Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.
Are they succeeding, again? I can't tell. ETA: And how does the narrow question of whether more murders are committed under the influence or desire-to-be-under the influence tell us ANYTHING useful at all?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Naw, I don't buy the idea that more people overall end up abusing a drug than would abuse it if it were freely legal for sale because they're attracted to society's legal mandate or social labeling of it that make it a deviant or rebellious act.
At best it is an wild hypothetical. Personally, I think it's straight-out false.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Okay. Here's one:
How do you determine when someone is too stoned to drive? To operate heavy machinery? We have good methods of determining this with Alcohol, yet many thousands of lives are lost in drunk driving accidents each year. Driving stoned isn't as severe as driving drunk, but when people are high their reaction times are greatly hindered. Legalizing marijuana will greatly increase the likelihood that people will smoke pot *while* driving, which can be a great danger to anyone else on the road. I'm sorry, but your "personal liberty" should not allow you to endanger my life or the lives of anyone else for the sake of "recreation". Nor does it diminish the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility.
Further, of your list, the following are complete conjecture:
* Saving all the money spent on the ridiculous "war against drugs". * Undermining drug enterprises that are tied in with violent crime.related crimes.
Legalizing Marijuana will do nothing to stop the trade in other illicit drugs. Legalizing cocaine et al will do nothing to stop violent drug related crime. You will either have people killing themselves with drugs, killing/injuring people while *on* drugs (the prospect of someone driving through town while on an Acid trip, let's just think about that one, shall we?), or killing others to get/sell drugs. You *cannot* control the more highly addictive drugs, and if you try you will only increase the strength and profit gained by groups that depend on illicit sales, which will in turn increase the level of violence, not decrease it. For example, Amsterdam recently made moves to shut down a large number of Marijuana bars and other sections of the red light district because of a strong *increase* in influence by organized crime groups which was in turn hurting the tourism industry.
* Reducing the violence in other countries by denying them US weapons, which are so often traded for drugs.
Bull...crap. The weapons are out there. Whether they are bought with drugs or with pesos makes no difference. As long as there are greedy evil people and weapons to have, they're going to have them.
* The removal of drugs as a counter-culture symbol and a "forbidden fruit" that's just asking to be abused.
So, basically this says that we should give stupid people who can't control their own actions what they want because they're stupid and incapable of using a single amount of self control? Right. That's *really* going to advance our civilization and improve the state of humanity as a whole.
The only real solution to the drug problem is for people to stop taking drugs. Period. Unfortunately, an extraordinarily large number of people in this country are too immature and selfish to realize that they can live a very happy and enjoyable life without drugs. Every single one of those people spends their lives making excuses for why they do drugs, and very little else. It's sickening. Just grow up.
Realistically, I don't really care too much about it when people take drugs. Cause it lowers the bar and makes people, like me, who avoid mind altering substances altogether look so much better. And it opens up lots of opportunities for me to take the selfish idiotic pothead's job, and paycheck, and enrich my own life and those of people around the world. So go ahead. Keep on toking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So, basically this says that we should give stupid people who can't control their own actions what they want because they're stupid and incapable of using a single amount of self control? Right. That's *really* going to advance our civilization and improve the state of humanity as a whole.
Well, I mean, prohibition was arguably successful at reducing the potential range of alcohol abuse rates. The issue is that this tenuous benefit is overwhelmed by the cost.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I liked the first part of your post a lot more than the second half, Boris. You started out with things that can be argued, like public safety concerns and the potential futility of trying to regulate the legal things that might continue to flourish in a black market.
You then triumphantly closed with a rant about how illegal drug users are universally worthless, stupid, and lacking all self control.
See how you kind of changed direction there?
I do have a question for you. Do you obey all laws all the time? If not, are you stupid, selfish, and idiotic?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't see why not? At the very least, reclassify them as legal narcotics that require a prescription. No one is suggesting that heroin be over-the-counter.
That's just the thing, though. Plenty of people are suggesting that they be free for purchase, that it is unethical to have a government regulate them, on the grounds that the right for people to elect to consume whatever drugs they choose to is sacrosanct, and that free markets should end the artificial constraint of the manufacture of drugs; in effect, if Pfizer can sell blood pressure medicine, and I'm not allowed to sell home-brewed meth, that's unfair, caveat emptor, non-aggression principle, etc etc.
For a lot of people arguing and even organizing the legalize movement, the issue is a binary card with no middle ground.
Well, in point of fact, I'm in favor of no regulation whatsoever. But that's not feasible at this point in time. It would take an enormous change in the entire philosophical makeup of the American people. Whereas legalization may just be do-able. And yes, there are people who will claim it's a slippery slope to <gasp> actual government non-involvement in individual lives. All I have to say to them is, "From your mouth to God's ears". But it won't happen any time soon.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.
"Major trafficking offenses"? In other words, selling a product that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Some might call that entrepeneurship. Some might even spell it correctly. But those are clearly people who are less lazy than I am.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I don't think they *are* worthless or stupid. But a sizable percentage of them certainly *act* like it. The "counter culture" as a whole is a textbook case of levity gone out of control. But then, I see the person who spends their free time smoking pot and then complaining about how they can't get anywhere financially as one of the world's greatest ironies.
Regardless, lately people are showing an astonishing lack of self control in their actions, and it's doing more to hurt our society than anything else.
I'm sorry, but you are not guaranteed the right to do what you want when you want. Recreation is not a right of any kind. It's a luxury provided by the fact that we don't have to spend 16 hours of every day tending crops and trying desperately to simply survive the next winter. I would be all for legalizing drugs if this nation could show that it was capable of acting responsibly with that freedom. As it is, too many people aren't even capable of acting responsibly with alcohol and cigarettes.
edit: I do have a question for you. Do you obey all laws all the time? If not, are you stupid, selfish, and idiotic?
For the most part, yes. I have a bad habit of downloading movies and TV shows that i readily admit is entirely selfish and stupid. I am also slowly moving away from that as I increase my financial capabilities by studying and improving my professional abilities instead of wasting time with frivolous recreation (I nearly doubled my paycheck in less than 6 months because I did almost nothing but study instead of wasting that time playing World of Warcraft like I had been). Aside from that, yes, I do in fact obey all of the laws that I know of to the best of my ability. I haven't even been pulled over by a police officer in nearly 4 years.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.
"Major trafficking offenses"? In other words, selling a product that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Some might call that entrepeneurship. Some might even spell it correctly. But those are clearly people who are less lazy than I am.
It's true. Treating the argument that illegalization of drugs fills up our jails needlessly with the trite "but MOSTLY only the dealers!" response is not helpful. A more interesting question is whether we have a bunch of crime-prone citizens who will find SOME way to deserve jail either way, or if we could actually reduce the prison population significantly by legalizing drugs, and if so, then you factor those savings into the total picture.
Boris exemplified a moralistic attitude: they're doing BAD things! There's a problem with moving from that to "therefore they should be punished." A potentially slippery slope in its own right. What else bad must we criminalize? If you answer "only those things that are so bad that criminalizing them nets a benefit to society" then we're back to the question of whether we're netting a benefit, and I really haven't seen a very good argument that we are.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.
"Major trafficking offenses"? In other words, selling a product that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Some might call that entrepeneurship. Some might even spell it correctly. But those are clearly people who are less lazy than I am.
It's true. Treating the argument that illegalization of drugs fills up our jails needlessly with the trite "but MOSTLY only the dealers!" response is not helpful. A more interesting question is whether we have a bunch of crime-prone citizens who will find SOME way to deserve jail either way, or if we could actually reduce the prison population significantly by legalizing drugs, and if so, then you factor those savings into the total picture.
Boris exemplified a moralistic attitude: they're doing BAD things! There's a problem with moving from that to "therefore they should be punished." A potentially slippery slope in its own right. What else bad must we criminalize? If you answer "only those things that are so bad that criminalizing them nets a benefit to society" then we're back to the question of whether we're netting a benefit, and I really haven't seen a very good argument that we are.
You should also take into account how long the average "in possession" criminal spends in jail. In many states, you end up with a day in the county lockup. Sometimes you get a ticket. Other places you get your drugs confiscated and a slap on the wrist.
But this also depends on what you were doing when you got caught. Does the person who is smoking a joint while driving deserve only a slap on the wrist for endangering others lives? As I mentioned earlier, there is no current way to prove that a marijuana smoker is too incapacitated to drive. There is likely no way to prove something like that to the demands of our legal system. As such, the possession charge's sentencing must take that into account. I think you would be hard pressed to prove that a single person who was sentenced to a great deal of prison time was guilty of *only* possession.
edit: as for determining what should be legal/illegal, how about we determine that on the potential harm that could be/is inflicted on society by a specific act. A person who drives a car under the influence of alcohol could potentially cause a great deal of property damage and result in a loss of life, therefor the act itself is illegal and punishable by time in prison, probation, and the loss of legal driving privileges. It doesn't take much to think of the level of harm to society that occurs because of drug use. We have historical record of times when illicit drugs were legal in this country, and it was not even remotely the happy utopia that legalization pundits seem to believe in.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Did you just argue that sentencing for drugs should presume more guilt than can be proven?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
No. I argued that there are situations in which "simple drug possession" is not just simple drug possession. As well as the fact that there are a myriad of situations where drug possession basically gets you a slap on the wrist. I do have to ask, what exactly does it take to get busted on a *federal* drug charge? Most of the time, "simple possession" charges are handled by local law enforcement. You have to get busted by the DEA in order to get charged federally, and the DEA doesn't make it a habit to go around busting individual drug users. As a result, the federal sentencing guidelines are very different from local guidelines.
And now, I have to go to the store and run errands, and by the time I get back this thread will have moved on to a point that it isn't worth my time to get caught back up in. Have fun, and enjoy the popcorn.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
There's also the fact that many of the harms associated with drug use stem from prohibition. People going broke because of drugs? If drugs weren't artificially pricey due to being outlawed than one would not need to squander his earnings/savings because of drug use. How about health risks like AIDS/overdosing? If drugs were legal then addicts wouldn't share needles, and the purity of the drugs would be considerably safer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Be prepared for the entire time space continuum to rip apart but I'm in full agreement with Lisa on this issue.
I'm currently living in a country that has a serious are rapidly growing organized crime problem because of the illegal drug trade. As the US has tried to stem the drug trade from Columbia, its simply shifted over to these region and the effects have been devastating to this country. If they manage to stop the hemorrhaging of drugs and guns through this region, it will simply shift the crime and suffering to some other part of the globe.
I'm strongly opposed to the use of most of these drugs, but the harms the come from the illegal drug trade are a hundred times worse than any harms that come from the use of these drugs. And the harder the US tries to enforce the drug laws, the worse those harms get. We've spent billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs and yet anyone who wants them can still get them. We'd be far better off in most every respect if we simply legalized the drug trade and regulated it like we do with alcohol. We could then take a small fraction of what we've spent on prisons and enforcement, and put it into truthful education and rehabilitation programs.
I'm sick of reading in the newpapers, almost daily, about babies being killed caught in the crossfire of rival drug Lords. Its got to stop and the only realistic way to stop is to legalize the trade.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"Major trafficking offenses"? In other words, selling a product that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Some might call that entrepeneurship.
Just so we're not overlooking something...drug dealers aren't kindly but shrewd-minded businesspeople. Maybe some are, but in order to be a big fish in that pond...you don't get there by doing nice things.
Could we avoid as a society creating these people? Yes, I believe we could. But let's not beat around the bush either.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: How do you determine when someone is too stoned to drive? To operate heavy machinery? We have good methods of determining this with Alcohol, yet many thousands of lives are lost in drunk driving accidents each year. Driving stoned isn't as severe as driving drunk, but when people are high their reaction times are greatly hindered. Legalizing marijuana will greatly increase the likelihood that people will smoke pot *while* driving, which can be a great danger to anyone else on the road. I'm sorry, but your "personal liberty" should not allow you to endanger my life or the lives of anyone else for the sake of "recreation". Nor does it diminish the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility.
Oh, I'm absolutely with you on this. I think that any action that's committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be treated as 100% premeditated. Kill someone while driving drunk and stoned, and it's 1st degree murder. That's completely aside from questions of legalization. But yes, I would demand that this be put into law along with drug legalization. It's insane that we don't treat under-the-influence actions this way already. It would be compounding the insanity to maintain that negligence while legalizing drugs.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Further, of your list, the following are complete conjecture:
* Saving all the money spent on the ridiculous "war against drugs". * Undermining drug enterprises that are tied in with violent crime.related crimes.
Legalizing Marijuana will do nothing to stop the trade in other illicit drugs. Legalizing cocaine et al will do nothing to stop violent drug related crime. You will either have people killing themselves with drugs, killing/injuring people while *on* drugs (the prospect of someone driving through town while on an Acid trip, let's just think about that one, shall we?), or killing others to get/sell drugs. You *cannot* control the more highly addictive drugs, and if you try you will only increase the strength and profit gained by groups that depend on illicit sales, which will in turn increase the level of violence, not decrease it. For example, Amsterdam recently made moves to shut down a large number of Marijuana bars and other sections of the red light district because of a strong *increase* in influence by organized crime groups which was in turn hurting the tourism industry.
I wasn't talking about only pot.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: * Reducing the violence in other countries by denying them US weapons, which are so often traded for drugs.
Bull...crap. The weapons are out there. Whether they are bought with drugs or with pesos makes no difference. As long as there are greedy evil people and weapons to have, they're going to have them.
They don't have all that many pesos.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: * The removal of drugs as a counter-culture symbol and a "forbidden fruit" that's just asking to be abused.
So, basically this says that we should give stupid people who can't control their own actions what they want because they're stupid and incapable of using a single amount of self control? Right. That's *really* going to advance our civilization and improve the state of humanity as a whole.
Actually, yes.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The only real solution to the drug problem is for people to stop taking drugs. Period.
Hmm... and how's that working out so far?
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Unfortunately, an extraordinarily large number of people in this country are too immature and selfish to realize that they can live a very happy and enjoyable life without drugs.
Or, you know, maybe they like it. Why should you care if someone eats a hamburger or a pizza or drinks a bottle of Coke or snorts white powder up his nose? Or smokes some weed instead of taking Tylenol when he has a headache? Why -- and how -- does that hurt you?
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Every single one of those people spends their lives making excuses for why they do drugs, and very little else. It's sickening. Just grow up.
Grow up and do what Boris thinks you should do? Why? I mean, you could take "drugs" out of everything you've written here and substitute "God" or "religion", and you'd have a letter perfect KoM post.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm strongly opposed to the use of most of these drugs, but the harms the come from the illegal drug trade are a hundred times worse than any harms that come from the use of these drugs. And the harder the US tries to enforce the drug laws, the worse those harms get. We've spent billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs and yet anyone who wants them can still get them. We'd be far better off in most every respect if we simply legalized the drug trade and regulated it like we do with alcohol. We could then take a small fraction of what we've spent on prisons and enforcement, and put it into truthful education and rehabilitation programs.
Entirely agreed.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Or, you know, maybe they like it. Why should you care if someone eats a hamburger or a pizza or drinks a bottle of Coke or snorts white powder up his nose? Or smokes some weed instead of taking Tylenol when he has a headache? Why -- and how -- does that hurt you?
Does it hurt the child when their parents sit on the couch stoned instead of spending time with them? Or the family members of the heroin addict who overdosed? How much welfare money goes to the guy who sits on his butt all day smoking weed instead of looking for a job? Does it hurt society as a whole when people decide that "recreation" is more important than trying to continually improve oneself and in turn improve society? It may not harm me directly, but the build up harms everyone indirectly.
I'm sorry, but it is delusional to believe that legalizing and "controlling" substances like cocaine and heroin will stop the illicit trade in *these* drugs either. Once a heroin addict has gone over their allotted amount for the week/month/year where do you think they'll turn for another hit? You do realize that there is a very large illegal trade in both Alcohol and Tobacco in the United States, right? Legalizing narcotics would actually *increase* the price of drugs in this country as the government takes the option to tax it heavily. And those who can't afford to get drugs legally will turn where? How about the kids who are going to experiment with it anyway? Where will they get their drugs? Are you suggesting we make "recreational" drugs freely available to everyone regardless of age? Congratulations, you just killed half the class of 2012 because they ODed on Heroin.
No, I'm sorry. You are flat out wrong. Legalizing drugs would result in an *increase* in demand for illegal drugs (drugs not sanctioned by medical organizations) and the drug lords will see increased profits as they offer a way around the increased prices of legal drug sales. All of a sudden we're spending the same amount of money to curtail the illegal drug trade *and* facing the prospect of ever-increasing drug addiction rates and the strain that *that* would put on our already flagging health system.
But hey, just for fun, why don't you give me some suggestions on how you would control the legal drug industry. Go ahead. Let me shoot some holes in it.
edit: Yeah. Yeah I know. Me neds lern to spll.
[ March 27, 2009, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:It will be a very long time before drugs get legalized.
Personally, I'm pretty strongly against drugs. I've never used any illegal drugs, and I can honestly say that they don't hold any appeal whatsoever to me. At this point in my life, I don't even consume alcohol. All of these points are merely personal decisions; I'm not proselytizing my viewpoint onto anyone. I'm merely explaining my background.
In the past year, I have experienced two incidents that have led me to believe that the 'war on drugs' is involving way too many innocent casualties. I learned, through some additional facts and another perspective, about one incident that nearly snared me while I was in college.
Apparently, my freshman-year roommate was quite the pot-head. (I'll use the pseudonym John for him.) I wasn't completely oblivious to this, but looking back, I realize I was taking my life in my own hands by pretending that John wouldn't endanger me with his decisions. The facts I've stumbled upon pretty much confirm my suspicions: he was hiding stuff in our room.
When our neighbors were busted for smoking pot, the police were called, and they brought their canine companion. Even though both John and I, were out, off-campus, during the incident, the police wanted to search our room. The rooms are joined by the bathroom, so this isn't unreasonable. We weren't friendly with our neighbors, though, so the door was kept locked, from our side, at nearly all times.
I gave them permission to enter and search, being the trusting individual that I am. Hindsight clearly shows this was a mistake, but what the heck, I'm telling a story and I might as well be honest.
I found out, through the resident assistant of our floor, who continues to be one of my good friends, that the room search situation boiled down to one exchange. This was held out-of-earshot of me. I only learned of this recently.
"Officer, I know these guys, and I know they don't like their neighbors. They always keep their bathroom door locked. It was locked when I arrived for this incident, and you noticed it was locked when you arrived. There's no chance they entered the other room. There's nothing in their room."
Later that night (or earlier that morning...if you were paying attention to the details) John came back and I relayed to him the details of the incident (as I knew them at the time).
There was a slight, almost indiscernible pause.
"Did they find anything?" he asked me.
"Should they have?!" my mind screamed back, but I said nothing. Oh yes, I remember thinking this. It's one of those self-conscious thoughts that leaves an indelible print upon your memory.
If it weren't for the vouching, I'm pretty sure my life would have turned out differently. My RA knew some facts that I didn't at that time, and he was wise enough not to toss me to the wolves, despite my own stupidity.
This incident continues to dwell on me, and it's one of the main reasons that I think our drug laws are incredibly draconian. If this stupid system almost snares me, then it's got to be wrong. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Grow up and do what Boris thinks you should do? Why? I mean, you could take "drugs" out of everything you've written here and substitute "God" or "religion", and you'd have a letter perfect KoM post.
You say that like it's a bad thing!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, in point of fact, I'm in favor of no regulation whatsoever. But that's not feasible at this point in time.
No food regulation? No drug regulation? Snake oil for the masses, caveat emptor, etc?
Sounds like it's not just infeasible in this point in time, but pretty much overall.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I'm sorry, but it is delusional to believe that legalizing and "controlling" substances like cocaine and heroine will stop the illicit trade in *these* drugs either. Once a heroine addict has gone over their allotted amount for the week/month/year where do you think they'll turn for another hit? You do realize that there is a very large illegal trade in both Alcohol and Tobacco in the United States, right? Legalizing narcotics would actually *increase* the price of drugs in this country as the government takes the option to tax it heavily. And those who can't afford to get drugs legally will turn where? How about the kids who are going to experiment with it anyway? Where will they get their drugs? Are you suggesting we make "recreational" drugs freely available to everyone regardless of age? Congratulations, you just killed half the class of 2012 because they ODed on Heroine.
Unless you're talking age restriction bypassing, in effect, 'i buy you a pack/40 while you wait outside the gas station' there is a nearly negligible illegal trade in alcohol and tobacco in America. I am using those words judiciously but still trying to be fair. I could just as well say 'entirely negligible.' the legal availability and sale of regulated goods destroys the profit motive for a black market, much what would happen to pot. You would see a disintegration of the cartel networks due to usurpation by legit markets, and the holdouts would be homegrown industries which would inevitably fade.
You're also overstating the reaction that would occur to the legalization of drugs. Heroin becoming legal tomorrow doesn't mean that half the class of 2010 suddenly goes welp it's legal now let's suddenly go become junkies Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Does it hurt the child when their parents sit on the couch stoned instead of spending time with them? Or the family members of the heroine addict who overdosed? How much welfare money goes to the guy who sits on his butt all day smoking weed instead of looking for a job? Does it hurt society as a whole when people decide that "recreation" is more important than trying to continually improve oneself and in turn improve society? It may not harm me directly, but the build up harms everyone indirectly.
Is this unique to drugs? What about the parents who ignore their children/jobs in favor of: television, sports, gambling, World of Warcraft, strip clubs, etc?
What you say about people chosing "recreation" over "responsiblity" is very valid... but drugs aren't the only form of recreation that is chosen. Is it any different if a parent is ignoring their child because they're stoned, or if they're ignoring their child because they're at the track all day?
The problem is the choice itself, not which option is chosen. If a parent chooses X over their child or their job, there's the root... regardless of what X is. And you can't go around making every one of those options illegal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, in point of fact, I'm in favor of no regulation whatsoever. But that's not feasible at this point in time.
No food regulation? No drug regulation? Snake oil for the masses, caveat emptor, etc?
Sounds like it's not just infeasible in this point in time, but pretty much overall.
It actually would be feasible when you know where your food comes from and have a personal relationship with the people who produce it.
Of course, that pretty much rules out buying food from large corporations (it's tough to have a personal relationship with a big corporation), as well as most highly processed foods.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Unless you're talking age restriction bypassing, in effect, 'i buy you a pack/40 while you wait outside the gas station' there is a nearly negligible illegal trade in alcohol and tobacco in America. I am using those words judiciously but still trying to be fair. I could just as well say 'entirely negligible.'
I take it you've never been to Kentucky. And yes, I over-exaggerated what would happen with legalized drugs. I can't help it, I grew up in the south But you can't ignore the fact that any age restriction will result in individuals below that age trying harder to get a fix. I mean, I've seen studies that show enormous numbers for under-age drinking, some as high as 80%. One study concluded that there were 3300 teen deaths linked to alcohol in one year(this was done in 1995, it was the best I could find since I've wasted too much time on this thread already). Can you think of any way that we can prevent even higher numbers of teenagers killing themselves and others as a result of under-aged drug use?
Comparing the ability to control alcohol and tobacco to controlling substances like heroin and cocaine is dishonest at best. The level of addiction tied to heroin in particular is unbelievably intense. What amount of heroin should it be legal to purchase? Enough to get high once a day? A week? A month? Start giving me some numbers here. If you want to legalize drugs, you have to think about this stuff seriously. How would you control it? Because I can guarantee that no matter how stringent your controls, those who get addicted to heroin are going to get to a point where they have to start buying drugs illegally. With heroin being legal, how many more people would get to this point than do now? How likely would it be for someone who uses legal heroin to keep their job for even a short period of time?
Then you run into another issue. Legalizing drugs won't make the cartels disappear. It won't make those underworld channels go away in a puff of smoke. Even if legalizing drugs drops their profit and ability to gain from the illegal drug trade, they will still exist and they will start to move on to something else. What do they move on to next? Increased prostitution? Human trafficking and slavery? Weapons smuggling (Funny that many of the same people who support the legalization of drugs on the belief that prohibition increases illegal activity have no such qualms about outlawing firearms, but that's beside the point)? Legalizing drugs will not remove the level of greed and corruption that fuels the drug trade. Just like they move to a different country when the heat gets too high, they'll start moving to another illicit trade when the profit gets too low.
edited...cause heroines are awesome.
[ March 27, 2009, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, in point of fact, I'm in favor of no regulation whatsoever. But that's not feasible at this point in time.
No food regulation? No drug regulation? Snake oil for the masses, caveat emptor, etc?
Sounds like it's not just infeasible in this point in time, but pretty much overall.
It actually would be feasible when you know where your food comes from and have a personal relationship with the people who produce it.
Of course, that pretty much rules out buying food from large corporations (it's tough to have a personal relationship with a big corporation), as well as most highly processed foods.
So no medications at all then? No food for those of us who live in urban areas?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Is this unique to drugs? What about the parents who ignore their children/jobs in favor of: television, sports, gambling, World of Warcraft, strip clubs, etc?
No, it is not *unique* to drugs, and I have seen what too much World of Warcraft can do to some people, but it is very much more pronounced with drug addiction. The physical addiction brought on by drugs greatly affects the ability of a parent to care for their children. Further, that physical addiction fuels a need to spend more money to avoid the low that follows the high. It's an ever downward spiral that is much more severe than could occur as a result of a psychological addiction to Television or video games. There is a very real possibility that legalizing drugs could result in even more parents choosing to resort to ever stronger narcotics in order to escape the stress of, work, life, even being a parent. Those people would likely spiral downward continually until they reach a point where things get so bad that the state is forced to take away their kids, which in turn would put greater stress on an already strained social services system, doing further harm to those children who cannot grow up in a stable environment.
Seriously, though. The start of this thread was a question about what could possibly go wrong with legalizing drugs. How many have I already named?
I'll make a quick suggestion to everyone before I go to bed. There was a period in American history when all of those drugs were perfectly legal. Go study it before you state that legalizing drugs would be a good thing. There was a time when Coca-Cola contained Cocaine. In the late 1800's a Philanthropic society sent out free samples of heroine to morphine addicts. In 1903 the levels of heroine addiction became so severe and such a problem for society at the time that congress voted to ban it outright. That's where the "War on drugs" started. You will not be able to convince me that such a situation will not occur again if we legalize drugs. And you should think about that very seriously before you put your full weight behind your support of legalization. Even a small percentage of the population getting addicted to heroine/cocaine/whatever would result in some very very major problems for our society. Legalizing drugs is the easy quick solution. And more often than not, the quick easy solution doesn't fix the whole problem, but instead just hides the sore and lets it fester.
[ March 27, 2009, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm also strongly opposed to the use of drugs of any sort for recreational purposes, including relaxation, but I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs, including not needing a doctor's prescription to by legal drugs. The money we make in taxes on the drugs should be earmarked for drug treatment programs and education about the true dangers of using drugs.
I'm reading now about ADHD, dyslexia, and other developmental brain problems. When my mother was having kids, the doctors told them it was fine to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. They said none of that gets through to the babies. The rise of female smoking happened particularly around WW2. Now it's looking like cigarette smoking while pregnant is a major cause of brain disorders in those mothers' babies. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a terrible birth defect, but even minor alcohol consumption by a mom during pregnancy can cause all sorts of problems in her children that can impact their entire lives. And that was legal drug use that was sanctioned by doctors at the time.
So using drugs is something that should always be done with care and awareness of the possible side-effects. Only drugs with benefits that outweigh the potential risks, both known and unknown, should be used ever. Recreational drug use is just a very bad idea. "Hey, let's pour all this poisonous garbage into our brains and then laugh at how stupid it makes us act" is about as smart as it sounds. Brains are delicate devices. Hammering them with chemical sledgehammers is contraindicated.
And it's not even fun much of the time. It makes people feel sick quite often. When it does give pleasure, it is all the while gradually rewiring the brain toward receiving pleasure only from the drug and not from the normal happy things of life: family and friends, triumphs and accomplishments, sports and work well done. Each time you use a drug that tickles the dopamine receptors in your brain, you're training them to respond less strongly to true good happy things, and more strongly to the drug. Over time, faster or slower depending on your genetics, the drug can turn you from a normal decent happy person into a drug-crazed junkie who would sell his or her grandmother (or steal from her) to get a fix.
Why take even a small step down that road? Why not just choose to say no thank you instead?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
heroine = female hero heroin = illegal drug
Please.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
1. Age restriction will make SOME individuals below that age try harder to get a fix. LESS individuals below that age will get a fix. Age restriction is not a principle we want to tamper with.
2. I have been to Kentucky.
3. My comparisons are neither disingenuous nor dishonest, not that it's particularly relevant because I neither advocate legalizing hard drugs nor think it is likely at all that we will do so.
4. Legal heroin would make it so that more people would become heroin addicts. Overall the benefits for that 'sacrifice' would be the argument you would make in favor of legalization, as in 'no more unregulated product killing people,' 'no more cartel growth in messko,' etc
5. Let's use a little harsh adult language here to underscore a point: were the united states to legalize all drugs, the cartels in mexico would be, how you say, proper ****ed. You might as well put a cup over a flame. The collapse would be gratifyingly instantaneous compared to other types of reform. They cannot simply 'move on' to similarly productive lines because nothing, absolutely nothing, exists that provides them with the profit motive and the enterprise environment that drugs do. You can't magically substitute it with another illicit trade; these aren't nether-gaps filled only through desire and willpower.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 1. Age restriction will make SOME individuals below that age try harder to get a fix. LESS individuals below that age will get a fix. Age restriction is not a principle we want to tamper with.
2. I have been to Kentucky.
3. My comparisons are neither disingenuous nor dishonest, not that it's particularly relevant because I neither advocate legalizing hard drugs nor think it is likely at all that we will do so.
4. Legal heroin would make it so that more people would become heroin addicts. Overall the benefits for that 'sacrifice' would be the argument you would make in favor of legalization, as in 'no more unregulated product killing people,' 'no more cartel growth in messko,' etc
5. Let's use a little harsh adult language here to underscore a point: were the united states to legalize all drugs, the cartels in mexico would be, how you say, proper ****ed. You might as well put a cup over a flame. The collapse would be gratifyingly instantaneous compared to other types of reform. They cannot simply 'move on' to similarly productive lines because nothing, absolutely nothing, exists that provides them with the profit motive and the enterprise environment that drugs do. You can't magically substitute it with another illicit trade; these aren't nether-gaps filled only through desire and willpower.
On point 5. This assumes that the cartels gain *all* of their money from drug trafficking. One very popular racket in some countries is kidnapping. You grab someone off the street, demand that their family pay, say 500 dollars for them, let the person go if they do, if not they just drop the kidnapped person off a cliff. Then there's the slave trade. And others. Just because the cartels won't be able to get quite as much profit out of something else as they could selling drugs doesn't mean they won't *try*. And the alternative could be a hell of a lot worse than what we're dealing with now.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: heroine = female hero heroin = illegal drug
Please.
Pff...dang it. Stupid spelled almost the same but with completely different meaning words...
edit: There...I feex. Mostly. I hope.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Appreciated. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:On point 5. This assumes that the cartels gain *all* of their money from drug trafficking.
It absolutely does not. It relies on the assumption that there are no similarly productive lines of criminal interest, which is true. The cartels as they are now cannot exist except as a creation dependent upon the massive drug trafficking industry generated by U.S. drug policy and the resultant environment of demand.
This is a far cry from saying that legalizing drugs will end all cartel-related crime overnight because the only thing criminals in mexico can possibly profit from is drug shipments.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I've written and deleted without posting four responses to Lisa and the Rabbit's arguments. I think the gay marriage discussions have made me gun shy about posting in contentious threads.
I don't believe that the savings of legalizing any currently illegal drugs will be worth the social and health costs that legalization will incur. My opinion is largely based off the costs I perceive from tobacco, alcohol, and prescription opiates, as well as the inability to regulate them effectively.
I think the trade-off would be between the criminal violence and interdiction costs we see associated with the drug trade currently and the domestic abuse, vehicular deaths, ill-health effects (destroying families, physical disease, psychological effects etc.), and increased treatment costs that I associate with the increased use and abuse of drugs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think the trade-off would be between the criminal violence and interdiction costs we see associated with the drug trade currently and the domestic abuse, vehicular deaths, ill-health effects (destroying families, physical disease, psychological effects etc.), and increased treatment costs that I associate with the increased use and abuse of drugs.
I guess my most serious problem with this is that I don't see that current laws significantly reduce the amount of drug abuse. Those people who want to use or abuse illicit drugs, seem to be able to obtain with relative ease under the current laws. Furthermore, the problems you list are most commonly associated with alcohol abuse and not particularly the use of illegal drugs. In the US, alcohol abuse is most common among teens and those in their early twenties for whom this drug is illegal. The problem with alcohol abuse among teens and tweens in the US is actually worse than in countries where the legal drinking age is lower.
If you look to places like the Netherlands that have far more liberal drug laws the the US, you don't see major problems with domestic abuse, vehicular deaths etc.
I just don't see any evidence to suggest that drug abuse and the harms that go along with it will increase dramatically if the drug trade is made legal.
And even if it does, I'm not sure you grasp the seriousness of the crime associated with the drug trade. We aren't talking about something that influences only a few people in inner cities, its devastating entire societies.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
Forget "drugs" for a second, what about PEPPERMINT?!
This has my one friend really steamed, and I can't say I like the prospect either. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I attribute a lot of the cross-national differences to differences in culture, rather than differences in policy.
I understand the devastation, at least in the abstract. I also spent a lot of time in the Netherlands, and understand, to some degree, the cultural and social costs associated with legalization. I do think we would see significant increases in usage of any drug we legalized, even if it were strictly regulated, if for no other reason than that the cost would drop dramatically, making it more feasible for people to engage in the behavior.
I might feel differently if I lived in Trinidad, or Ciudad Juarez. All I can speak to is my own experiences and beliefs, though, and those lead me to believe legalization is not worth the costs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm strongly opposed to the use of most of these drugs, but the harms the come from the illegal drug trade are a hundred times worse than any harms that come from the use of these drugs. And the harder the US tries to enforce the drug laws, the worse those harms get. We've spent billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs and yet anyone who wants them can still get them. We'd be far better off in most every respect if we simply legalized the drug trade and regulated it like we do with alcohol. We could then take a small fraction of what we've spent on prisons and enforcement, and put it into truthful education and rehabilitation programs.
Entirely agreed.
Me, too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Traceria: Forget "drugs" for a second, what about PEPPERMINT?!
This has my one friend really steamed, and I can't say I like the prospect either.
Conspiracy theory much?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit:
quote:I guess my most serious problem with this is that I don't see that current laws significantly reduce the amount of drug abuse.
We'll I suppose this is hard to measure, and again we haven't defined significance, but wouldn't legalization increase availability and therefore people (again not sure how large this group of people would be) who just don't know any drug dealers and don't think of themselves as criminal might be given enough of a push to experiment with drugs?
I mean as far as marijuana is concerned I am in complete agreement that at the very least decriminalizing it has a net positive effect on society as opposed to our current policy. I know for many people the fact drugs like cocaine and heroine are illegal does not deter them, but I think it's reasonable to believe that there are still people who believe the risks involved make "just trying it once" not worth it.
I do however believe that we could be doing a lot to treat drug addiction that we are not currently doing. Firstly I think there should be clinics where sanitary hypodermic needles are provided free of charge, needles are relatively speaking not very expensive, the diseases that could be prevented are. Also I wish we had heroin clinics where people could voluntarily go to lower their dependence by getting controlled doses, without any fear of legal repercussions.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we are wasting so much money on an unobtainable objective, but I've also see the ravages of drug addiction first hand with many lives other than the addict affected, I'd just hate to screw open the cap on something like this and find out a larger monster is being set loose.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Traceria: Forget "drugs" for a second, what about PEPPERMINT?!
This has my one friend really steamed, and I can't say I like the prospect either.
Conspiracy theory much?
Only now and then.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm sympathetic to the idea that we are wasting so much money on an unobtainable objective, but I've also see the ravages of drug addiction first hand with many lives other than the addict affected, I'd just hate to screw open the cap on something like this and find out a larger monster is being set loose.
I don't care so much about the money wasted, I care about the communities being destroyed by drug related crime. I've also seen the ravages of drug addiction first hand, I have no desire to see that problem increase. But right now I'm living in a country ravaged by the international drug trade. It's definitely changed my perspective. The damages caused by the illegal trade of drugs are indeed a hundred times worse than the damages from the drugs them self. You'd have to persuade me that drug addiction was going to be a hundred times worse if drugs were legal for me to even consider it a break even.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Just to answer one of the questions posed by Boris: if you don't ration access to the drugs, the black market will disappear.* Just like we don't ration access to alcohol or tobacco. (But do for pseudoephedrine .) You could either kill yourself or waste your life with alcohol, just like you can with unlimited opiates. It'd be your choice.
*You'd need to avoid taxing it out the wazoo. I believe that cigarettes have a black market because taxes have driven the cost up by an order of magnitude. Alcohol, not so much. But opiates and weed are actually not expensive things, so you probably COULD tax it at something like 10 times market value and still keep it cheap enough that addicts can get as much as they want without needing to resort to expensive black market alternatives.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the arguments against legalization if our drug prohibition wasn't such an abject failure.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I'm sympathetic to the idea that we are wasting so much money on an unobtainable objective, but I've also see the ravages of drug addiction first hand with many lives other than the addict affected, I'd just hate to screw open the cap on something like this and find out a larger monster is being set loose.
I don't care so much about the money wasted, I care about the communities being destroyed by drug related crime. I've also seen the ravages of drug addiction first hand, I have no desire to see that problem increase. But right now I'm living in a country ravaged by the international drug trade. It's definitely changed my perspective. The damages caused by the illegal trade of drugs are indeed a hundred times worse than the damages from the drugs them self. You'd have to persuade me that drug addiction was going to be a hundred times worse if drugs were legal for me to even consider it a break even.
Not to prematurely jump on to the slippery slope but where do we stop? What if drugs deteriorate into a lasting yet less significant evil in society, and something else comes up? People have posited weapons, human trafficking, kidnapping. It feels like we're treating a symptom rather than attacking the cause. Who knows, maybe there is no cure and society will always have these problems and all we can do is race from disease to disease. You're right that I haven't seen what goes on in places like Trinidad, but I've also seen what goes on in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. I'm certain there are people using drugs, but it's not nearly as large of a problem as it is out here because the penalty is so severe.
Having said that I'd actually be interested in drug studies dealing with those two countries and I think I'm going to try to find some after I get done with work today.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It'd be great if we could stop people from using harmful drugs.
But we can't. (Short of a significant loss of civil liberties.)
It'd be nice if the ravages of the illegal drug trade were enough to make illegal drug users stop using out of human decency.
But they aren't.
It'd be great if the people charged with enforcing drug policies were immune to corruption and manipulation.
But they aren't.
Wouldn't it be nice if throwing a lot of people in jail (and preventing them from raising their families, or contributing to the economy) served as enough of a deterrent to make it so we don't have to do the same things to their children?
It doesn't.
It'd even be nice if we could just confine the problem to the U.S., and say "well at least there's some marginal number of people who don't become drug addicts because of prohibition, and I think that outweighs the harms of the illegal trade in the U.S.."
But that rather dismisses the human suffering outside our borders directly tied to the demand for the illegal trade within.
I'd be thrilled to start with marijuana. It's probably the biggest opportunity: the most popular drug that isn't particularly dangerous by itself. (The one that serves to discredit anti-drug rhetoric, and is a "gateway" drug to an extent that derives from that fact.)
But here's the thing: nobody here needs anybody to tell them that being a heroin junkie is a bad idea.
That some people become junkies anyway will not change because it is legal. It will still look like an equally bad idea when it is legal!
What might improve, though, is our ability to identify and treat addicts. Hand out treatment program pamphlets at the pharmacy where you buy the stuff. Employers may choose to subsidize treatment - as they do with alcohol abuse - instead of simply firing addicts.
I don't see a great danger that the self interest that prevents most of us from doing hard drugs will be undermined by legalization. (It already prevents most of us from lying to obtain legal and - importantly - equally addictive painkillers.)
And we'll quit propping up the illegal drug trade, and quit incarcerating tens of thousands of people who otherwise can function in society.
Addiction might someday be solvable by medicine, but we don't have to wait for that to start undoing the harms that stem from forcing what seems like a nearly inevitable human behavior into a criminal underground.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If drug use is legal, would it still be legal for employers to fire for drug use and do random drug testing?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not to prematurely jump on to the slippery slope but where do we stop? What if drugs deteriorate into a lasting yet less significant evil in society, and something else comes up?
There isn't anything that could easily replace the international drug trade. First, there is a demand for recreational drugs in wealthier countries. That demand has remained very constant no matter what we do to punish those who use. Second, there are people in poor countries who are willing to fill that demand because a) they are enticed by the money users are willing to pay and b) they don't see growing coca or opium of cannabis as something inherently wrong.
Nothing else is going to fit that niche nearly so well. Why? Because there isn't anything else that is illegal in the US that so many people want any way. I just don't see any large fraction of Americans getting involved in human trafficking, ever. Kidnapping is relatively easy to stop if you have a functional justice system. Its just too easy to catch kidnappers unless they kill everyone they kidnap. And once people realize the kidnapped persons will be killed whether a ransom is paid or not, ransoms won't get paid and the profit disappears. Guns are already legal in the US.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If drug use is legal, would it still be legal for employers to fire for drug use and do random drug testing?
A growing number of companies won't hire smokers. Since they are getting away with that, I imagine companies would be able to set policies against the use of other drugs, and use testing to enforce the policy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
scholarette: presumably, since it isn't something that's forbidden to discriminate against. I suspect we'd see somewhat less drug testing as a condition of initial employment, but little drop in companies requiring employees be drug free. I think most of them are doing it because they find keeping employee drug use low improves performance, not because drugs are illegal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Not to prematurely jump on to the slippery slope but where do we stop?
At sensible policy that doesn't try to spend billions to accomplish nothing but make everything worse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just as one could get fired for showing up to work drunk, I imagine one could get fired for showing up to work stoned.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The reason drugs are illegal is because we associate them with certain behaviors that are damaging. The first step toward legalizing drugs should be to separate those behaviors from the crime of simple possession, or simple drug use, so that those behaviors can be targeted by the law. It's neither driving nor drinking alone that we find objectionable, but the two together are a crime. Likewise for any other drug, if you are in a position where drugs affect safety, it would be a crime to use the drug, whether it be driving, operating a nuclear power plant, or performing surgery.
One of the most damaging behaviors in this regard is drug pushing, which is damaging to the victim. The biggest stumbling block I see to legalizing drugs is that as it now stands, it would be legal to advertise them. Even the prohibition on cigarette and alcohol advertising is considered "voluntary" so as not to violate the 1st amendment, and specific exceptions are made, in the form of magazine and point of sale advertisements. I myself could not see legalizing drugs as an option unless there was a constitutional exception to the advertising of such poison.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think more drugs (with the possible exception of the ludicrously wide-spread marijuana) should be legalized, but I think that there is obviously a problem with the way drug offenses are prosecuted.
Legalizing something says, "it's not harmful enough for us to care about," yet we would still legislate the wearing of seat belts in cars and even having car insurance?
Most drugs are legislated against because we'd like a good excuse to destroy the chains of supply, when we find them, as we should. Obviously, this isn't working well because people get horribly rich off other people killing themselves--legally or illegally (cigarettes or heroin).
There was a time when many more drugs (although different from the ones we use today) were freely available. It didn't stop usage and people weren't okay with it. They legislated against it. The idea that cigarettes and alcohol were grandfathered in whereas other drugs like cocaine were not is not all that true: cigarettes and alcohol are only regulated (or banned for a much shorter period), rather than banned, because they kill people much more slowly than stronger drugs and their effects were far more subtle.
If prosecution is the problem, then it's prosecution that needs to change, not the illegality of poisons.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"yet we would still legislate the wearing of seat belts in cars and even having car insurance?"
How much of a problem is there with underground illegal trade in not wearing seat belts, or lack of car insurance?
You could improve the situation in the US by reducing drug penalties to infractions or minor misdemeanors.
But you'd still be ignoring the problems like what Rabbit described.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Legalizing something says, "it's not harmful enough for us to care about,"
I think that's incomplete. Legalizing it and not regulating it says "it's not harmful enough for us to care about."
Legalizing it and regulating it says "this is a potentially harmful substance that requires thoughtful supervision."
Sorry if I stepped on any toes, I just jumped into the conversation.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I find it unlikely they would legalize all types of drugs. The drug dealers would look to other products to import. Opium could become the new cool underground street drug or LSD would flood the market. I can't see PCP or Crystal Meth ever becoming legal. They bring what is most profitable for them. The chemists would be busy at work to make the latest and greatest product that isn't legal. The cartels that are already in the US would probably come to the surface in ways we've never forseen. Phoenix AZ, the #2 place in the world for kidnappings, many ransom related. We might realize rather quickly that we have an organized crime ring in every major city of this country that would put Capone to shame. The MS13 thugs would look to other sources of income. Home invasions perhaps. If they outlaw weapons there's a new product. Legalization of drugs will not put a criminal out of the business of being a criminal. He won't decide to get a respecitible job. Nonetheless, I do think they should decriminalize some drugs, particularly Marijuana, mushrooms or peyote. Difficult to understand outlawing an unprocessed plant.
[ March 28, 2009, 05:57 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Yes I know. This is a half-joke. But I've seen a lot of extremely helpful stuff get banned in the name of being "eco-friendly" lately. Usually these bans are pushed through by some of the same people who want to legalize extremely harmful drugs. So would someone like to tell me why it's okay for the deadbeat drug-addict dad to get his fix legally when I have to pay 5 times as much for an inhaler that holds 1/4 the amount of medicine and more importantly *doesn't work* half the time?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Sorry, I only skimmed though this thread, but...
You do realize that there is no such thing as legalization of drugs.
Right now there is one law that says, in essence, you can't have it, you can't do it.
However, if say POT is "legalized", there will be thousands of laws regulating and taxing it. Law controlling who can grow it and where, import/export laws, tax laws a all levels of government, purity laws, potency laws, consistency laws, sales licensing and taxation, distribution licensing, several levels of inspection, intoxication levels, etc....
This means a huge bureaucracy that needs to continually be fed money. That needs to be continually expanded.
And it is not just criminal laws, it is civil law, liability, and resulting law suits. It is health care costs. It is education and treatment.
But also notice, that in the beginning, we had relatively benign Mexican Pot. They cracked down on Mexico, and then we had expensive and potent Columbian pot. Then continued law enforcement drove that out of business and it was replaced with HYPER-expensive hybrid pot.
By so severely cracking down on Pot, they drove the price so high, that it became cheaper to get high on Crack and cookbook Meth. By making pot so expensive, it made it easier and cheaper for entry level people to start with massively destructive drugs...like Crack and Meth.
Law enforcement is not deterring drugs, it is simply raising the price, and pushing people toward more destructive alternatives.
If pot became completely decriminalized, Crack and Meth would be virtually gone from the scene in a year. What is the point of messing with something so dangerous to make, and so dangerous to use, when you could grow your own pot in the basement?
Oppressive government drug enforcement against Pot has actually created the gang culture that thrives around Crack and Meth.
At least that's my opinion .
Do I think Pot is harmless, absolutely not. I know from experience that it is very harmful. But it is far less harmful in many ways than alcohol. It is also safer to use than alcohol. I can't think of a single genuine case of someone overdosing on Pot. But people die of acute alcohol poisoning every year.
Just one man's opinion.
STeve/bluewizard
[ March 30, 2009, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
How about moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II?
quote: All President Obama needs to do is to declare that marijuana will move from being a Schedule I "dangerous controlled substance" to being listed as Schedule II.
This gets a bit arcane, but bear with me here. Federal drug laws differentiate between different drugs for different reasons. The list of Schedules runs from I to V (with I being the most dangerous, and V being the least). Substances change designations over time -- like what has happened to cold and allergy medicines (which contain the precursor for methamphetamine, and were more tightly controlled as a result). But the main difference between Schedule I and Schedule II is that Schedule I drugs have no medical use, while Schedule II drugs do.
Here is a partial list of Schedule II drugs (the DEA has the full list of all schedules for those interested): cocaine, opium, amphetamine (Dexedrine), Demerol, methamphetamine, Nembutal, PCP, and secobarbitol (Seconal). You read that right -- cocaine, crystal meth, opium, and PCP are considered "medically useful" in some situations, and marijuana is not.
--Enigmatic
Posted by randomguy1694 (Member # 12009) on :
If we start with legalizing marijuana where will it end? The war on drugs won't be over. We still will have cocaine and heroin. And while it is plausible that congress could vote to legalize marijuana, no sane congressman/woman will vote to legalize cocaine or heroin. It would be committing political suicide. Because most people will not vote for someone who wants to legalize drugs that are actually dangerous. Or even drugs that aren't dangerous. There's a reason that most people have never heard of the marijuana party.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If we start with legalizing marijuana where will it end?
That's the wrong way to think about it. Think, instead: should this be illegal? If your answer is "no," then let's not keep it illegal.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If we start with legalizing marijuana where will it end?
There are some straight forward questions that should be applied to every law besides whether the behavior proscribed by the law is undesirable. These are 1. Is law an effective deterrent and 2. Do the benefits of the law outweigh the cost? And by cost, I don't mean simply financial costs, I mean human and social costs as well. I think if you assess the laws that criminalize the possession and sale of marijuana, the answer to both those questions is very clearly no. The answer is probably the same for our laws banning most recreational drugs. The laws have not been effective at reducing availability or abuse of the drugs and the laws and their enforcement cause more harm than the drugs they seek to prohibit. They are bad laws and they are have devastating effects beyond the US borders.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If we start with legalizing marijuana where will it end?
That's the wrong way to think about it. Think, instead: should this be illegal? If your answer is "no," then let's not keep it illegal.
I don't think it's reasonable to ask people not to pay attention to potential consequences. Otherwise, I'd expect to see more reasonable and civil rights loving folk fighting against the seat belt laws.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's a pretty big difference between looking at the direct consequences of a change in law and looking at potential changes in the political environment that would potentially lead to other changes in law.
Especially as there are numerous other drugs (notably alcohol and tobacco, but hardly just them) that are legal, yet if we're on a slippery slope to legalizing other drugs because of them, it is a remarkably sticky and level slippery slope.
Posted by randomguy1694 (Member # 12009) on :
The fact that a law makes no sense doesn't mean that it is a viable option to change it. The fact still is that most voters do not want to legalize marijuana.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by randomguy1694: The fact still is that most voters do not want to legalize marijuana.
I am not convinced this is true.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Looks like according to 538.com its sitting pretty much even right now, but with the anti crowd ahead by a tad.
Politically, I think just about everyone who'd favor legalization already voted for Obama, so he wouldn't have much to gain, and everything to lose, by fighting for it.
Perhaps something he could try during his second term?
Posted by Damien.m (Member # 8462) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QUOTE]How much welfare money goes to the guy who sits on his butt all day smoking weed instead of looking for a job?
This is a small but quite irritating thing. Where did you get this from? Did you just pull this from every cliche stoner movie?
I like pot. A lot. Yet Im two years into a masters degree during the week and have a part time job at the weekend. Am I lazy? No. Am I a drain on society? No. If I had kids would I neglect them sitting on the couch stoned? No.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Politically, I think just about everyone who'd favor legalization already voted for Obama, so he wouldn't have much to gain, and everything to lose, by fighting for it.
I don't know about that. Libertarians didn't vote for him, but this would definitely appeal to them.
I don't smoke pot. I don't smoke anything, but except for trying pot when I was in high school (until the first time I got high, after which I decided it wasn't worth the brain cells), I've never been interested in it. That said, I don't drink alcohol, either. Just never had a taste for it. But I don't see why either alcohol or pot should be illegal for those who want it.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
The whole "drugs endanger the lives of others if, for instance, they drive under the influence" argument by Boris could very simply be managed by privatising roads. That way those under the influence could still be stopped from driving. No civil liberties case to be made because it's no longer a civil issue.
This is why I'm a libertarian: practical reasons. If these people are such a burden on the public health system, just don't serve them. Don't talk as if that's a genuine reason to tell me, in precise detail, how to drive or do a myriad of other things.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
*drug users
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The whole "drugs endanger the lives of others if, for instance, they drive under the influence" argument by Boris could very simply be managed by privatising roads.
Forget the matter that privatizing roads would in and of itself be a gross violation of civil liberties and explain to me exactly how (from a practical technological standpoint) one would implement a private road system and how private road owners would be better equipped to prevent people from driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
While you are at it, please point to one municipality in the world that has successfully privatized all the roads.
You might as well talk about privatizing the air.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote: The laws have not been effective at reducing availability or abuse of the drugs
Drug use has gone down over the past three decades.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: The whole "drugs endanger the lives of others if, for instance, they drive under the influence" argument by Boris could very simply be managed by privatising roads. That way those under the influence could still be stopped from driving. No civil liberties case to be made because it's no longer a civil issue.
Aside from Rabbit's very good points about the practical impossibility of doing this, wouldn't it be fairly easy to just test the reaction time, physical coordination, and so forth of drivers suspected of driving under the influence? What's so difficult about that?
[Edited to change "be easier" to "be fairly easy", since anything that is possible is easier than something that isn't, even if it's very, very hard. I don't think that devising and implementing a test of this sort would be terribly difficult.]
[ March 31, 2009, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: wouldn't it be fairly easy to just test the reaction time, physical coordination, and so forth of drivers suspected of driving under the influence?
I wonder. That could very well open an entirely new can of worms. Some people just have slower response times. What if you're under the weather enough for your response time to be too low? Could you then be arrested for DUI?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: wouldn't it be fairly easy to just test the reaction time, physical coordination, and so forth of drivers suspected of driving under the influence?
I wonder. That could very well open an entirely new can of worms. Some people just have slower response times. What if you're under the weather enough for your response time to be too low? Could you then be arrested for DUI?
It's worth considering whether we can/should test for impairment of ANY kinds rather than the relatively arbitrary presence of a substance. It'd probably be harder to test. But if someone is as impaired from a cold as another person is by pot, why should the first person be allowed to drive and the second person not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or drivers who are really tired. I have felt safer with drivers who have had a couple of beers than I have with my Dad before his sleep apnea was diagnosed and he would nod off all the time.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: wouldn't it be fairly easy to just test the reaction time, physical coordination, and so forth of drivers suspected of driving under the influence?
I wonder. That could very well open an entirely new can of worms. Some people just have slower response times. What if you're under the weather enough for your response time to be too low? Could you then be arrested for DUI?
I'd say that if someone has response times below a certain threshold, lack some minimum level of hand eye/foot eye coordination, they shouldn't be allowed to drive, any more than they should be allowed to drive if their visual acuity is below a certain threshold.
Whether those things are caused by a drug, lack of sleep, sickness, or whathaveyou doesn't really matter to me.
[Edit - Too slow!]
[ March 31, 2009, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If we are speaking about practicality here, and our concern is stopping the vast cost of international drug cartels, trying to legalize all drugs in the U.S. is not a practical way to go about doing it, for several reasons. Firstly, the notion that the people would vote to legalize ALL drugs in every state is implausible, especially given a sizable percentage of the population is simply against the idea on moral principle alone. Secondly, even if that were to happen, that'd only cut off the U.S. markets to cartels - there'd be plenty of other first-world countries where drugs remain illegal. The U.S. can hurt cartels if it stopped consuming, but it would leave plenty of other major markets. Thirdly, even if every major economy agreed to legalize all drugs, we'd still have to figure out how to regulate the industry in such a way that the drug trade couldn't be destructive - given that legal things, for instance oil, can cause conflict/corruption in third-world economies just as illegal things do.
I don't see any of that as much more likely than the odds of us being able to physically force everyone to stop using drugs.
If we want to pursue a practical method of limiting the power of the international drug trade, the solution is to stop using drugs. And to change our culture so people better realize what's so harmful about drug use. If people stop wanting to consume drugs, the demand for drugs will go down, which undercuts the drug trade. This change in demand is plausible, as demonstrated by the dramatic decline in cigarette use over the past few decades - which I'd argue is the direct result of a change in attitudes toward cigarette smoking.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If instead our concern was making life better off for as many people (especially people in our country) as possible, we could look at the evidence available and quickly conclude drug legalization is almost certainly a bargain deal.
edit: damage to cartels, and there would be considerable damage even if only a small set of drugs were legalized in the US, is just a bonus.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote: Firstly, the notion that the people would vote to legalize ALL drugs in every state is implausible, especially given a sizable percentage of the population is simply against the idea on moral principle alone.
Lots of people in this thread, notably The Rabbit, support drug legalization on moral principles. I find your attitude defeatist. People simply need to be educated on how banning drugs may ALSO be immoral.
quote:Secondly, even if that were to happen, that'd only cut off the U.S. markets to cartels - there'd be plenty of other first-world countries where drugs remain illegal. The U.S. can hurt cartels if it stopped consuming, but it would leave plenty of other major markets.
That it might only PARTLY solve the problem its intended to solve is not a good argument against an action.
quote: Thirdly, even if every major economy agreed to legalize all drugs, we'd still have to figure out how to regulate the industry in such a way that the drug trade couldn't be destructive - given that legal things, for instance oil, can cause conflict/corruption in third-world economies just as illegal things do.
This is probably your best point, but I'd like for you to explain what mechanisms you think will continue to support criminal activity. I suspect you are wrong, and I think there are probably relatively easy solutions to the wrinkles that might present themselves. For instance, marijuana and poppies can both be cultivated pretty much anywhere, since we know how to make greenhouses and use hydroponics.
quote:I don't see any of that as much more likely than the liklihood of us being able to physically force everyone to stop using drugs.
I disagree entirely. The likelihood of ending use of currently-illegal drugs is zero, unless we submit to a ridiculous level of surveillance and fascism. I think the likelihood that we can make MAJOR reductions in criminal activity and related social costs is much higher than zero.
quote:If we want to pursue a practical method of limiting the power of the international drug trade, the solution is to stop using drugs. And to change our culture so people better realize what's so harmful about drug use. If people stop wanting to consume drugs, the demand for drugs will go down, which undercuts the drug trade. This change in demand is plausible, as demonstrated by the dramatic decline in cigarette use over the past few decades - which I'd argue is the direct result of a change in attitudes toward cigarette smoking.
"Just say no." Please give an example of a culture that has eliminated demand for narcotics, alcohol, and stimulants, without giving up civil liberties.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: ... which I'd argue is the direct result of a change in attitudes toward cigarette smoking.
Either that or a change in awareness of its effect on health.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Just thinking of the logistics of that:
Barring unusual circumstances, a driver knows if they've consumed alcohol or drug, so driving under the influence is a conscious choice.
But I have know reliable way of knowing what my current response time is. If I'm a little under the weather, has it slowed my reaction time? If so, by how much?
It offends my sense of fairness to punish a driver for doing something they're not aware of. So for me to be OK with that, we'd need to make reliable reaction tests available in every single vehicle.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Please give an example of a culture that has eliminated demand for narcotics, alcohol, and stimulants, without giving up civil liberties.
Mormon culture Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Please give an example of a culture that has eliminated demand for narcotics, alcohol, and stimulants, without giving up civil liberties.
Mormon culture
I knew someone would say that. Mormons arguably give up some liberties, at least to fully belong to the culture. But leaving aside that point (I really meant to ask for an example national culture), good Mormons still get addicted to painkillers and other drugs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Nope. I do not give up any liberties by choosing to not drink alcohol.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
What civil liberties would a Mormon give up?
Presumably they would need to stop being a Mormon to exercise some of them but are you referring to something more than that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Nope. I do not give up any liberties by choosing to not drink alcohol.
I'm with Porter one that as well.
--------
scifibum: I suggest looking at Nepal, Indonesia, and perhaps Singapore (but then again Singapore is a pretty poor example of a libertarian society.) I also find it interesting that 'hippies' moving to Nepal are blamed in part for drug use actually becoming a noticeable problem in Nepal.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What civil liberties would a Mormon give up?
Presumably they would need to stop being a Mormon to exercise some of them but are you referring to something more than that?
I think we're getting confused by combining separate systems here. Civil liberties relate to government; Mormons don't currently have an establishment anywhere in the world. What civil liberties do they give up? mu.
So again, the question is under what system of government is demand for recreational drugs eliminated while civil liberties are preserved?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It offends my sense of fairness to punish a driver for doing something they're not aware of. So for me to be OK with that, we'd need to make reliable reaction tests available in every single vehicle.
It would be possible to make yourself walk a straight line, touch your nose with your index fingers from a position in which you are standing with your eyes closed and your arms outstretched, recite the alphabet backward, and whatever else cops currently do to check for impairment. I doubt that most people would actually do so, but they could.
How do cops check reaction times when they pull someone over for suspected drunk driving, anyway? Or do they?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm contemplating the use of video games in cars where one has to exceed a certain score to turn on the car.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think we're getting confused by combining separate systems here. Civil liberties relate to government; Mormons don't currently have an establishment anywhere in the world. What civil liberties do they give up? mu. ...
Thats precisely what I was referring to though
The first time you asked culture, Mormons are a culture that fit the requirements without giving up civil liberties. Obviously government would be different, at least one thats governing a nation with a variety of cultures.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"The first time you asked culture, Mormons are a culture that fit the requirements without giving up civil liberties."
Except they don't even fit the requirements. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Noemon -- none of those test reaction time -- they test other effects of inebriation. Effects that do not accompany the other forms of impairment that you are advocating banning driving with.
AFAIK, reaction time is generally not tested.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
scifibum : I don't really see how.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote: The laws have not been effective at reducing availability or abuse of the drugs
Drug use has gone down over the past three decades.
Its not that simple. Drug use has declined over the past 30 years but actually increased slightly over the past 20 years.
Furthermore, the abuse of legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) has declined at virtually the same rate as the use of illegal drugs. Declines are similar in European countries where drug laws are less severe.
The bottom line is that there is no convincing evidence that this decline has been the result of drug laws and their enforcement.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: scifibum : I don't really see how.
You don't see how Mormons don't fit the requirement of "demand for recreational drugs has been eliminated"? I thought it was pretty clear:
Drug abuse and illegal drug use exists among Mormons. It is discouraged, but not non-existent. (And, you might already know, abuse of certain legal drugs is higher in Utah than in many other places with a lower population of Mormons.) Tresopax (or his looking glass doppelganger anyway) was claiming that we can eliminate the demand for recreational drugs. I was saying "nuh uh." I don't think Mormons prove me wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
scifibum:
quote:Drug abuse and illegal drug use exists among Mormons. It is discouraged, but not non-existent.
But that does not seem to be a reasonable requirement. If drugs simply did not exist in a predominantly Mormon culture I would not be surprised if another factor explained the absence better.
quote:And, you might already know, abuse of certain legal drugs is higher in Utah than in many other places with a lower population of Mormons.
But again that does not necessarily show that Mormonism as a variable does not significantly decrease drug use, merely that there are Z variables that are coming into play.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm reminded of someone I sat next to on my airplane flight to Japan a bit ago. From Utah, attends an LDS church, identified as a jack mormon, and drank several beers on the flight.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
scifibum: Oh, I didn't know you were using such a high bar for elimination.
Using such a threshold, then the answer to your original question, "Please give an example of a culture that has eliminated demand for narcotics, alcohol, and stimulants, without giving up civil liberties" would be none but not particularly for any reason having to do with civil liberties. But simply because no government has been able to eliminate demand to the point that it is "non-existent", period.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Please give an example of a culture that has eliminated demand for narcotics, alcohol, and stimulants, without giving up civil liberties.
Mormon culture
I knew someone would say that. Mormons arguably give up some liberties, at least to fully belong to the culture. But leaving aside that point (I really meant to ask for an example national culture), good Mormons still get addicted to painkillers and other drugs.
I would believe that Mormon culture had 'eliminated' drug demand and drug use just as easily as I would believe it had eliminated unmarried sex, which is to say, not at all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm contemplating the use of video games in cars where one has to exceed a certain score to turn on the car.
Because I don't run late enough in the mornings already?
"One sec guys, one sec! We can go as soon as I kill this alien!"
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I should begin by saying that I’m in favor of legalizing drugs. I think at the very least marijuana should be legalized and other drugs should be made available through pharmacies or administered by hospitals in a controlled environment.
The only thing I would fear about legalizing drugs would be a possible increase in the lobbying power of whatever corporation decides to distribute them. In other words, I would fear whatever entity takes over the distribution of drugs becoming the new "big tobacco" in the US, doing what they can to hamper government regulation.
It would make sense for the government to control the distribution of some drugs, but if funding were cut for some reason, or suppliers became skittish, I would fear the black market trade would return full force.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You could try an LCBO-ish system of government distribution:
quote: The Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which peddles social responsibility along with shiraz, is becoming a trendsetter.
This is going to take some getting used to. After all, the government-owned retail monopoly isn't that far removed from the days when customers had to sign for purchases that were brought out from a back room. It's got glitzy since then, but it remains a source of frustration to people who enviously eye the private liquor systems in other jurisdictions.
Not for the Scots, however. They admire the LCBO for its ability to influence patterns of alcohol consumption. Indeed, the Scottish government's recent pledge to ban cheap drink owes much to the Ontario agency's 82-year-old policy of mandating minimum prices for beer, wine and spirits. It will be the first jurisdiction in Europe to make the move, but other countries, including England, are considering it.
Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, met with LCBO officials in January to compare notes about dealing with alcohol abuse. They talked about why one jurisdiction with long, cold winters (Scotland) is much more afflicted with hard drinking habits than a place with even longer and colder winters (Ontario). The answer, in Mr. MacAskill's mind, is that the LCBO's strict monopolistic pricing has created a different culture from that in the auld country.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm contemplating the use of video games in cars where one has to exceed a certain score to turn on the car.
Because I don't run late enough in the mornings already?
"One sec guys, one sec! We can go as soon as I kill this alien!"
I was thinking this as well, not to mention that if I initially failed because of a slip of the finger I'd get angry and do progressively worse in the game.
Hmmm...maybe this would create a noticeable drop in road rage, I think that's something we can all get behind.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Hmmm...maybe this would create a noticeable drop in road rage, I think that's something we can all get behind.
Doubtful.
"It took me five tries to blow away the slime monster, but I bet I can take YOU out first try!" CRAAAASH!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Hmmm...maybe this would create a noticeable drop in road rage, I think that's something we can all get behind.
Doubtful.
"It took me five tries to blow away the slime monster, but I bet I can take YOU out first try!" CRAAAASH!
*mach 5 jump!*
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I could see legalization of marijuana in some form. And I think that might well do away with at least some of the problems that are broadly lumped together under the heading of "the problem with the war on drugs."
But frankly, there are some drugs I just don't want to be easily accessible to anyone. The idea of crystal methamphetamine being widely available is terrifying. "Yaa baa", a meth variant popular in southeast Asia, was apparently responsible for a million new teenage addicts within Thailand in past five years, at least as of this 2002 BBC report. If the little clump of teenagers smoking outside my highschool every day or the handful of idiots who got dances closed down through drinking was unfortunate, I don't want to think what popularized meth could do.
And that does raise one important point. Some drugs don't do awful things to people and communities just because they're hard to get. They do so because they're addictive as hell and incredibly destructive of the user.
I share a concern Senoj mentions- we already pay some unquestionably high costs for alcohol and tobacco, even if you only count the hospital bills incurred by their users. Do we really want to add cocaine-related heart attacks, heroin overdoses, and the like to our hospital rooms?
There may be a way to make this work through a combination of regulation and treatment, combined with a significant overhaul of our health system. But I think we might need a major change in societal attitudes as well. Straight, across-the-board legalization without serious planning sounds like pulling the bottom brick out of a pile without considering what it might be holding up.
At the very least- not that I get to set policy or anything- I'd want to say, "Could we try legalizing the relatively innocuous pot first and see how that goes before we turn the whole thing on its ear?"
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Please give an example of a culture that has eliminated demand for narcotics, alcohol, and stimulants, without giving up civil liberties.
Mormon culture
I knew someone would say that. Mormons arguably give up some liberties, at least to fully belong to the culture. But leaving aside that point (I really meant to ask for an example national culture), good Mormons still get addicted to painkillers and other drugs.
I know a good Mormon who used to be a coke feind and now won't keep evil mouthwash in her house.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no idea what you are trying to say there.
Although, from the limited information you have given, it sounds like she goes to extremes in whatever she is doing. That's a personality thing, not a religous thing.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I don't care so much about the money wasted, I care about the communities being destroyed by drug related crime. I've also seen the ravages of drug addiction first hand, I have no desire to see that problem increase. But right now I'm living in a country ravaged by the international drug trade. It's definitely changed my perspective. The damages caused by the illegal trade of drugs are indeed a hundred times worse than the damages from the drugs them self. You'd have to persuade me that drug addiction was going to be a hundred times worse if drugs were legal for me to even consider it a break even.
How would the distribution work? Would we have only American farmers growing pot and cocaine to sell to Americans? Could you grow your own? Can I make my own meth and sell it (paying applicable taxes) at a college? Can I smoke crack and/or pot in a restaurant? Would the drug cartels be able to sell their product legally in America? I would think the drug cartels would be able to produce high quality drugs very cheaply, much cheaper than we could. I also suspect they would be able to make even more profit than they are now from increased usage. How cheap do we set prices to be? If your goal is to eliminate crime from drug use then we would have to make it freely available to anyone who wants it. Would there be any limits on how much heroin you can buy in a day, week, month?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Can I smoke crack and/or pot in a restaurant?
Point of order: Most places you can't even smoke tobacco.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Straight, across-the-board legalization without serious planning sounds like pulling the bottom brick out of a pile without considering what it might be holding up.
Hence my previous post, about distinguishing between the illegality of the drug, versus illegality of the negative behavior that is associated with the drug.
With prohibition they pretty much turned their back on the problem, and it took about 50 years before law enforcement caught up and developed some teeth. As I see it, pushing drugs is the single worst of these behaviors, and if it's legal, then the 1st amendment says you can advertise it.
Here is my ideal scenario (note that this is stringent enough that it pretty much discounts the possibility of legalization).
Before a date is set to legalize (any particular) drug:
1. The constitution would have to be amended to make it illegal to promote the use of the drug for any reason that is not medically recognized. That means no advertising of any sort, even peer pressure would be criminal.
2. Laws establishing the legality of behavior while under the drug's influence would have to be established. Any situation where the user's decision making process could adversely affect others (driving, making medical diagnoses, operating machinery, cooking, etc.) would have to be clearly outlined. Use of the drug in the presence of children would be illegal.
3. Limits of blood or tissue concentration would have to be established and easily understood and testable.
4. Guidelines for purity, dosage, safe packaging, and instructions for use would be established by the FDA
5. Vendors would need a license to sell the drug. This would include private sale.
6. Drug users would need a license to buy the drug. A conviction for drug related illegal behavior would result is the loss of the license. Selling the drug to anyone who did not present a valid license would result in the loss of the vendor's license.
Oh, and this would apply for alcohol as well...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:How would the distribution work?
Like alcohol. Regulated. Market-based. From approved distributors that adhere to codes.
quote:Would the drug cartels be able to sell their product legally in America?
no.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
The problem with regulated distribution is that the illegal supply channels are entrenched enough that they would undercut sales through a licensed and taxed distributor. Reuse a couple of crates of the legal stuff to transport the illegal stuff and life just got a lot easier for the drug smugglers.
Since possession would no longer be illegal, once one bought some pot, it doesn't matter where it came from. It can be consumed in any smoking area just like the legal stuff. Meanwhile, it's EASIER to sell the cartel products because only the transaction needs to be disguised, not the dealer's possession nor the users use.
While the legal stuff would certainly get some patronage, I can easily see sales of the illegal stuff going up simultaneously.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The problem with regulated distribution is that the illegal supply channels are entrenched enough that they would undercut sales through a licensed and taxed distributor.
Why didn't this happen with alcohol when prohibition ended?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The problem with regulated distribution is that the illegal supply channels are entrenched enough that they would undercut sales through a licensed and taxed distributor.
Why didn't this happen with alcohol when prohibition ended?
I guess some people wanted their bathtubs back.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It did, to an extent.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Would we have only American farmers growing pot and cocaine to sell to Americans?
Should Americans buy only American cars? This issue is not particularly pertinent to drugs, beyond ensuring that foreign drugs satisfy FDA requirements.
quote: Could you grow your own?
Sure.
quote: Can I make my own meth and sell it (paying applicable taxes) at a college?
If you have a license, if it meets the safety requirements and if the buyers are over 21.
quote: Can I smoke crack and/or pot in a restaurant?
Presumably this would be decided on a state by state basis (as for cigarettes). I assume that the majority would say no. The restaurant would probably also be required to have a license.
quote: Would the drug cartels be able to sell their product legally in America? I would think the drug cartels would be able to produce high quality drugs very cheaply, much cheaper than we could. I also suspect they would be able to make even more profit than they are now from increased usage. How cheap do we set prices to be?
The cartels are highly profitable in a large part because they can charge very high prices because of the danger involved. This would no longer be the case. Furthermore, though they might have some advantage insofar as they already manufacture the drugs, they will still have to make sure that the drugs conform to the FDA requirements. Furthermore, they have no patents etc. so it's really hard to believe that a pharmaceutical company would not catch up very fast.
quote: If your goal is to eliminate crime from drug use then we would have to make it freely available to anyone who wants it. Would there be any limits on how much heroin you can buy in a day, week, month?
If by freely available, you mean available to adults over 21 who purchase it, then (in my opinion) yes.
If drugs were legalized, it would be astounding to me if drug use did not increase. However I think that the correlation between drug user and failed citizen is heavily influenced by the illegality of drugs- I think we will find that removing the high cost of drugs and the need to deal with unsavory characters in order to get drugs will mean that productive citizens can support a drug habit. Given the many, many bad things directly attributable to the war on drugs, I think it would be worth testing this.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think it is pretty far-fetched to suggest that people would continue buying their pot through illegal sources if there was a legal alternative. I also think it highly unlikely that people would even bother growing their own if they could just go down to the drugstore and buy some, even if growing is cheaper and isn't taxed.
People can grow their own food, but most of them don't. It's easier and less of a hassle to buy it from the store. Buying pot would be the same thing. Why go to some shady dealer's house if you can just run into Walgreens for your weed?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: The problem with regulated distribution is that the illegal supply channels are entrenched enough that they would undercut sales through a licensed and taxed distributor. Reuse a couple of crates of the legal stuff to transport the illegal stuff and life just got a lot easier for the drug smugglers.
Not an established issue. Legal distribution undercuts the profit margins and the demand for distribution that illegal dope depends on.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
m_p_h: how much of an extent, roughly?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I guess some people wanted their bathtubs back.
I realize you're being silly, but I'm asking you to support your claim that "entrenched" distribution networks would ensure a continuing black market and that said market could undercut legal markets.
Bathtub booze is not what drove wealthy, criminal bootlegging operations. Why didn't these operations provide black market liquor at prices that undercut legitimate vendors after alcohol sales were legalized?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know that there are still illegal stills up in the hills.
But then, people have been making illegal moonshine in the hills for longer that the US has been a country.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not sure those people are undercutting sales so much as indulging in an activity they enjoy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
This guy killed himself rather than report to federal prison for his moonshining.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's too bad. Legalizing his distilling activities would have been far better.
I think that article and the other about his death make it very clear he made moonshine out of enjoyment.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I think it is pretty far-fetched to suggest that people would continue buying their pot through illegal sources if there was a legal alternative. I also think it highly unlikely that people would even bother growing their own if they could just go down to the drugstore and buy some, even if growing is cheaper and isn't taxed.
People can grow their own food, but most of them don't. It's easier and less of a hassle to buy it from the store. Buying pot would be the same thing. Why go to some shady dealer's house if you can just run into Walgreens for your weed?
When I think of illegal sources, I'm thinking foreign sources, and their associated mafias, not a home garden nor some hypothetical fancy import company from Holland.
I think of the people who are not legally able to purchase their own drugs, or people who find that a dealer is actually cheaper. Or, those who have loyalty to a dealer. I've also heard that some marijuana is laced with other drugs. *That* certainly won't be available at Walgreens.
In an old World Watch, OSC pointed out that people who are underage are not looked down at as criminals, just young. See a 17 year old smoking pot, and you'd think that stores should be carding people, not that the kid is supporting drug cartels.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I guess some people wanted their bathtubs back.
I realize you're being silly, but I'm asking you to support your claim that "entrenched" distribution networks would ensure a continuing black market and that said market could undercut legal markets.
Bathtub booze is not what drove wealthy, criminal bootlegging operations. Why didn't these operations provide black market liquor at prices that undercut legitimate vendors after alcohol sales were legalized?
Primarily because prohibition really didn't last very long, particularly in comparison with many illegal drugs. Heroin has been illegal for 106 years, for instance. Additionally, most (if not all) of the major producers of alcohol switched to brewing various sodas and remained in operation throughout the period. Once the laws were changed it was a simple matter of changing the ingredients and process slightly and they were producing alcohol again. Granted, some of them were producing alcohol the whole time, anyway, but still. I'd also like to point out that one of the primary causes for the failure of prohibition was that it had *been* legal to drink and produce alcohol since before the beginning of written history. The United States was in great part built on the whiskey and rum trade. It was one of those "can't put the genie back in the bottle" situations.
But I'd like to bring up a point here, one drug in particular is going to bring about some major hurdles. Cocaine. Now, the Coca plant grows almost exclusively in Central America. 75% of cocaine production is out of Columbia. Consider the fact that the cartels, in great part, control the cultivation, harvesting, and processing of cocaine. And since we're talking 75% of the *world's* cocaine production, how do you convince the cartels, who control all of that production, to work with legitimate businesses? Do you really expect that they'll be more than happy to take less money for the same amount of product? They would have to be stupid to cooperate with that willingly. I'm sure they'd be willing to take as much, or more, but that wouldn't stop them from killing people to increase their profits. And it certainly wouldn't result it *cheaper* drugs in the US.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(A small part of me wonders if similar conversations were afoot when European cartels were responsible for opium smuggling and the war on drugs was an actual war)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Of course. In both of Britain's Houses, IIRC.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Should Americans buy only American cars? This issue is not particularly pertinent to drugs, beyond ensuring that foreign drugs satisfy FDA requirements.
quote: The cartels are highly profitable in a large part because they can charge very high prices because of the danger involved. This would no longer be the case. Furthermore, though they might have some advantage insofar as they already manufacture the drugs, they will still have to make sure that the drugs conform to the FDA requirements. Furthermore, they have no patents etc. so it's really hard to believe that a pharmaceutical company would not catch up very fast.
My point was that the drug cartels who have hurt, killed, destroyed so many lives would be able to make even more money legally. Most likely they would be able to import and sell their drugs legally for a profit, and also import and sell their drugs illegally for a bigger profit so they gain money and power no matter what. Catching up to what the drug cartels can produce in quality is only part of it. Not having to worry about law enforcement at all and having very cheap labor will ensure the drug cartels can produce drugs much cheaper than we ever could.
quote: Point of order: Most places you can't even smoke tobacco.
Exactly. While we are demonizing tobacco and preventing people from smoking tobacco anywhere at all we are attempting to allow them to smoke pot, crack, meth and/or swallow/inject any other drug they want. How does that make any kind of sense at all? I think crystal meth, cocaine, heroin and many other drugs are much more addictive and many times more destructive than cigarettes.
quote: Like alcohol. Regulated. Market-based. From approved distributors that adhere to codes.
So I could, like I can with beer and wine, legally grow my own pot and completely sidestep any government taxes? How about other drugs like steriods? I suppose they should be legal to the home consumer as well? Many studies show how addictive nicotine is, with claims that it is the most addictive substance on earth, but no one overdoes on tobacco. Your judgment is not impaired with tobacco. There are definite health risks with tobacco but they are nowhere near the levels of immediate risk as many other drugs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: Got any online references? That sounds interesting.
I'm particularly curious about how companies like the East India Company managed the transition away from selling drugs (Or did they?)* and how the whole affair was viewed in Britain.
* Granted the whole thing probably has no (or little) relevance to this conversation, but I would still find it quite intriguing
(I originally was more curious that the whole thing would be more like an Alice in the Looking Glass situation for the Chinese. In that a Chinese leader at the time, faced with the unenviable choice of working with white people selling drugs and trying to steer them toward more legitimate activities or alternatively seeking to ban drugs and having to go to war to enforce that choice would find the current situation mighty peculiar and almost poetic ... but this related line of thought is also interesting)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The link points to a summary of the paper, but you can download the pdf of the actual paper from a link at the bottom of the page. I'm pretty interested to see what he has to say, and I'm looking forward, tonight, to watching the video of his presentation, as well as that of an advocate of criminalization offering a rebuttal of Greenwald's paper. Should be interesting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Interesting link Noemon. Unfortunately, he doesn't discuss whether decriminalizing the demand side of the drug trade does has any impact on the supply side. My biggest concerns with the drug trade right now are the extreme violence that is destroying life in countries involved in the supply side of the the drug trade.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: rivka: Got any online references? That sounds interesting.
Nope. I think I picked this up from historical novels. However, they were by multiple authors who researched the era, and it does make sense.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Should Americans buy only American cars? This issue is not particularly pertinent to drugs, beyond ensuring that foreign drugs satisfy FDA requirements.
quote: The cartels are highly profitable in a large part because they can charge very high prices because of the danger involved. This would no longer be the case. Furthermore, though they might have some advantage insofar as they already manufacture the drugs, they will still have to make sure that the drugs conform to the FDA requirements. Furthermore, they have no patents etc. so it's really hard to believe that a pharmaceutical company would not catch up very fast.
My point was that the drug cartels who have hurt, killed, destroyed so many lives would be able to make even more money legally. Most likely they would be able to import and sell their drugs legally for a profit, and also import and sell their drugs illegally for a bigger profit so they gain money and power no matter what. Catching up to what the drug cartels can produce in quality is only part of it. Not having to worry about law enforcement at all and having very cheap labor will ensure the drug cartels can produce drugs much cheaper than we ever could.
There seem to be a couple of things at play here. One seems to be a moral objection based on the view that the cartels are ideally suited to benefit from the legalization of, say, cocaine because they control the growth of the coca. First, I question the premise that they will realize a net financial benefit. I think the drop in price will substantially outweigh the increase in volume, so the venture will lose its outrageous profitability. However, that is an empirical question whose answer should be explored. Even assuming your premise, however, I don't see this as a substantive issue: 1) they already accrue great benefit, so I think it is better that they do so legally; 2) legalizing drugs does not mean granting amnesty for all prior drug related crimes. These investigations should continue.
Do you think there will be a large market for illegal cocaine, if cocaine were legal?
Labor costs are cheaper outside of the US for almost any industry. I suspect American companies would outsource as well.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Do you think there will be a large market for illegal cocaine, if cocaine were legal?
There are a lot of factors. Price would certainly be the main factor. We are constantly increasing the price of cigarettes to make them more unappealing to consumers yet we are discussing dramatically lowering the price of cocaine to make it more appealing to the consumers. If the FDA regulates cocaine (like they are attempting to do with cigarettes and nicotine) and makes a cocaine 'lite' for distribution then the black market cocaine 'full strength' will continue. The amount someone can purchase will also be an issue. If people are limited in the amount they can buy then a black market can also flourish.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Nope. I think I picked this up from historical novels. However, they were by multiple authors who researched the era, and it does make sense.
Could you just sum up the gist of it then? Thanks
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Do you think there will be a large market for illegal cocaine, if cocaine were legal?
There are a lot of factors. Price would certainly be the main factor. We are constantly increasing the price of cigarettes to make them more unappealing to consumers yet we are discussing dramatically lowering the price of cocaine to make it more appealing to the consumers. If the FDA regulates cocaine (like they are attempting to do with cigarettes and nicotine) and makes a cocaine 'lite' for distribution then the black market cocaine 'full strength' will continue. The amount someone can purchase will also be an issue. If people are limited in the amount they can buy then a black market can also flourish.
Is your point is that there exist circumstances in which a black market will flourish?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Nope. I think I picked this up from historical novels. However, they were by multiple authors who researched the era, and it does make sense.
Could you just sum up the gist of it then? Thanks
Many of the same reformers who opposed the slave trade, child labor in factories, and the other social injustices of the day also opposed the opium trade. They could not prevent the first Opium War, but they did prevent a second (although much of the impetus cam from outside England).
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
""""Driving stoned isn't as severe as driving drunk, but when people are high their reaction times are greatly hindered. Legalizing marijuana will greatly increase the likelihood that people will smoke pot *while* driving, which can be a great danger to anyone else on the road. I'm sorry, but your "personal liberty" should not allow you to endanger my life or the lives of anyone else for the sake of "recreation". Nor does it diminish the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility. """"
Ok. I've been driving 'stoned' for 10 years. I have ZERO wrecks and ZERO tickets, now i recognize that I am superhuman, but I must say that DRIVING DRUNK or DRIVING ON A CELLPHONE is 100 times more harmful to those around than smoking pot.
I commute from Ft. Worth to Denton back and forth everyday. And the people who almost KILL ME everyday are people on their cellphones.
So SOCCER MOMS are WAY WAY WAY more dangerous than pot smokers. I don't know how many times i've seen a lady on her phone in her big SUV weaving in and out forcing everyone out of the way while she talks on her cellphone.
So if you want to take the high and mighty "you might hurt me" road, then be an advocate for NO cellphone use on america's highways, because i guarantee you, the data will show that cellphone uses kill more people x1000 than pot smokers.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Ok. I've been driving 'stoned' for 10 years. I have ZERO wrecks and ZERO tickets,
Sigh. You realize that there are thousands, if not millions of people who can honestly state one or both of the following?
"I've been driving drunk for 10 years, and I have zero wrecks and zero tickets."
"I've been driving while on the phone for 10 years, and I have zero wrecks and zero tickets."
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
" Nor does it diminish the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility"
Steven Spielberg. Jimi Hendrix. The Beatles. Bill Clinton. George W. Bush. Barack Obama. Bill Gates. Steve Jobs. JK Rowling.
Maybe you'd better take come personal responsibility and admit that maybe it is the puritans who could help society a little more by expanding their mind.
A lot less people would believe in the Rapture or march LOCK STEP with their religion if they had a mind that thought outside the box. So maybe some of the Grace religions that have been spending their time collecting money and damning people would be better served by sitting on their porch on a sunday and sparking one up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: So if you want to take the high and mighty "you might hurt me" road, then be an advocate for NO cellphone use on america's highways, because i guarantee you, the data will show that cellphone uses kill more people x1000 than pot smokers.
Ok.
quote: Drivers caught emailing, texting or yapping on hand-held devices such as cellphones or BlackBerrys, or using hand-held global positioning systems would face fines and demerit points, a well-placed government source told the Star.
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: """"Driving stoned isn't as severe as driving drunk, but when people are high their reaction times are greatly hindered. Legalizing marijuana will greatly increase the likelihood that people will smoke pot *while* driving, which can be a great danger to anyone else on the road. I'm sorry, but your "personal liberty" should not allow you to endanger my life or the lives of anyone else for the sake of "recreation". Nor does it diminish the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility. """"
Ok. I've been driving 'stoned' for 10 years. I have ZERO wrecks and ZERO tickets, now i recognize that I am superhuman, but I must say that DRIVING DRUNK or DRIVING ON A CELLPHONE is 100 times more harmful to those around than smoking pot.
I commute from Ft. Worth to Denton back and forth everyday. And the people who almost KILL ME everyday are people on their cellphones.
So SOCCER MOMS are WAY WAY WAY more dangerous than pot smokers. I don't know how many times i've seen a lady on her phone in her big SUV weaving in and out forcing everyone out of the way while she talks on her cellphone.
So if you want to take the high and mighty "you might hurt me" road, then be an advocate for NO cellphone use on america's highways, because i guarantee you, the data will show that cellphone uses kill more people x1000 than pot smokers.
The problem with people who are a danger to themselves and others and think that they are not versus the people who truly are not is that both parties believe they are fine.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
When you take some prescription drugs, you're supposed to refrain from driving until you either see how they effect you, or until you're used to taking them. Someone who has been taking painkillers for years, for instance, functions better than someone who has just started taking them. Not only do you get used to their effect on you, but their effect is lessened because of your exposure over time.
I think it is in the realm of possibility that marijuana use can affect people in the same way. There may only be anecdotal evidence of this--I don't know if it's ever been studied. It doesn't seem bizarre to me that someone can be so acclimated to marijuana that they are as safe to drive as someone who has been acclimated to taking regular doses of codeine.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Alcohol tolerance exists too (though I've heard some argue that tolerance is mainly subjective and not so much with objective things like reaction time).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The link points to a summary of the paper, but you can download the pdf of the actual paper from a link at the bottom of the page. I'm pretty interested to see what he has to say, and I'm looking forward, tonight, to watching the video of his presentation, as well as that of an advocate of criminalization offering a rebuttal of Greenwald's paper. Should be interesting.
This is interesting reading. Thanks for linking it, Noemon.
Posted by Team 2012 (Member # 12025) on :
Another upside: protecting children. Under current laws there is no motivation to avoid sales to minors because there are no licenses to lose. Thus easier for kids to get drugs than tobacco or alcohol.
People are slow to realize that you can't prevent drug use. The more restriction, the higher the price, therefore the more empowered the drug industry.
Another consideration that seems slow to dawn. People tend to regulate what is good for them. If you have a country in which people would end up junkies without being restrained by threat of prison and deadly force... what's the point?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Economist: The Drug War Is A Economic and Moral Failure That Can Only Be Remedied By Complete Legalization
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks for the link Sam. I think its interesting that I (a life long non user of recreational drugs of any kind) had come to exactly the same conclusion. Its going to be a hard sell, but it is the least wrong thing to do. Too many communities are being destroyed by the violence associated with the illegal drug trade, too many people are being killed. We simply can't continue this way.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But you can't ignore the fact that any age restriction will result in individuals below that age trying harder to get a fix. I mean, I've seen studies that show enormous numbers for under-age drinking, some as high as 80%. One study concluded that there were 3300 teen deaths linked to alcohol in one year(this was done in 1995, it was the best I could find since I've wasted too much time on this thread already). Can you think of any way that we can prevent even higher numbers of teenagers killing themselves and others as a result of under-aged drug use? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.) You could either kill yourself or waste your life with alcohol, just like you can with unlimited opiates. It'd be your choice. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)