posted
I don't think you'll see many people actually argue that what happens between two consenting adults has no effect on anybody else. Oh, they'll say things that sound like that, but when you pin them down, it's obviously not true.
But what many people do believe is that unless an action directly harms others, it is immoral to keep people from doing that.
Personally, I disagree with this, but it doesn't do any good to paint your opponents with too broad a brush.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But what many people do believe is that unless an action directly harms others, it is immoral to keep people from doing that.
True, but who defines what is considered as "Harm"?
After all that is the inherent flaw in the "Devil's Law" of:
"As long as it isn't HURTING anyone, it's ok".
See, science has no definition of "harm". Harm is assigned by Morals and Ethics.
I can say that shooting someone in the head is Harmful.
Science says that shooting someone in the head will cause their body damage and maybe death.
Whether that is considered HARMFUL or not is a question of Morals/Ethics.
Science is "cause and effect".
Good and Bad are Ethics/Morals judging of those causes and effects.
You remove Ethics and Morals from the law, and EVERYTHING is excusable.
That's the way the country has been heading.
When I say Anarchist believe such, it's truly the only stance where complete autonomous individualism is believed as probable or even doable.
Even though no anarchist society in the history of the world has ever existed let alone succeed.
I for one believe that the PEOPLE define what is HARMFUL and what is NOT. And that it is the governments responsibility to reflect the peoples wishes and interests.
Otherwise it stops being a Government of the People, and becomes Socialist or Tyrannical.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, drugs are illegal as it stands. The people in favor of legalization say it will cost less.
I want to see the hard facts of that before I can agree with them. It's all well and good to say "Look at how much we'll save on prison costs" without addressing how much we'll spend in other areas.
So, for those in favor of legalization - I'd like to see the increase in addictions taken into account and how much that will affect society, versus what we'll save on incarceration costs.
Certainly the money isn't the only issue at stake here, but since it's often touted as one of the main benefits to legalization, it needs to be examined thoroughly from every angle.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling an idea the "Devil's Law" will not help you cause one iota with the large agnostic/atheistic population here on hatrack.
For that matter, there are a lot of religious people who don't believe in a literal devil, but I've never seen that discussed here.
Even for those of us that are religious and believe that the Devil is very real, calling it the "Devil's Law" doesn't do much either. Even though I agree with you that this is a philosophy that delights Satan, using that as an argument in a mixed environment such as this doesn't do any good. All it does is make some people automatically disregard what you are saying and make yourself feel superior.
edit: Forgetting the word "not" can really change the meaning of a sentence.
posted
Stroman, your posts don't even respond to arguments already put forth for the legalization of drugs being more beneficial for society than the illegalization.
Also, I take it you support the headscarf ban in France. After all, if you support the majority willy nilly defining morality, then you must support that since the majority of French support it.
Even if, as you and Porter believe, everything someone does effects other people, where does that leave private property? It seems to me that it makes it negligible if the only things people can do on their land is what the majority says they can do.
Remember Nauvoo. When you start defining harm in terms of abstractions, all kinds of trouble can occur.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, I take it you support the headscarf ban in France. After all, if you support the majority willy nilly defining morality, then you must support that since the majority of French support it.
Actually it's a ban on Religious Iconography in schools. Not just Hijabs. Crosses are outlawed as well.
I have no problem with it as long as any Homosexual, Atheist, and other Iconography is banned as well.
quote: Stroman, your posts don't even respond to arguments already put forth for the legalization of drugs being more beneficial for society than the illegalization.
Actually my posts talk about legalized drugs in our society. I don't know what you are referring to. Are you saying I have to respond to you? Forcible response?
My posts are on topic and have as much right existing as yours.
quote: Even if, as you and Porter believe, everything someone does effects other people, where does that leave private property? It seems to me that it makes it negligible if the only things people can do on their land is what the majority says they can do.
Ahem...Property Laws? You can't use your property to mine uranium or as a Graveyard or Commercial property unless tagged as such.
Personal Property is only YOURS if you abide by the laws of the country and state and county and/or city.
quote: Remember Nauvoo. When you start defining harm in terms of abstractions, all kinds of trouble can occur.
Nauvoo was the most populated city in the state at the time. So when you talk about Majority rule...
Again it is a must that the government reflect the wishes and values of the majority. Especially if you expect that majority to support it.
posted
Belle, just because some drugs are illegal, doesn't mean that standards of proof don't come into play for those who want to keep them illegal, too. That is, you can do a little leg work, too.
Also, my response was less about the financial benefits than about the benefits to people. to families, if the system shifted from criminalization to prevention and treatment.
Let me just say that your question is very difficult to answer. What is addiction, really? When we talk about the costs of addiction, how far out should we take the chain of cause and effect? They're not easy questions to answer and extremely susceptible to bias.
Let's also not forget that legalizing drugs will result in *increased* tax revenue. Something about pot being one of the largest cash crops is banging around in my head....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, the Mormons were not the majority in the state, but they certainly were in their county. In fact, one of the reasons that there was so much enmity against the Mormons was because they tended to vote in a block. The violence against Mormons was an effort to thwart democracy. They wanted to scare off (and, eventually, kill off) the Mormons so that they couldn't vote and control the politics.
And if things had continued, Mormons could have easily become the the majority of the state. There was a lot of fear of the consequences if that were to happen.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the topic of enforcement costs and marijuana as a cash crop:
I remember a police raid in Suffolk, VA where they swooped in, surrounded a farm, took pictures, seized samples, and burned 5 acres of pot to the ground.
When they got the samples back to the lab, the tech said, "why did you bring me alfalfa to analyze?"
There were two theories: one was the police totally screwed up and went to the wrong farm. The other was that the farmer had a section of the field dedicated to marijuana, surrounded by alfalfa, and the police burned all the evidence.
quote: Actually it's a ban on Religious Iconography in schools. Not just Hijabs. Crosses are outlawed as well.
I have no problem with it as long as any Homosexual, Atheist, and other Iconography is banned as well.
First, small crosses are not outlawed.
Second, why would homosexual, etc, iconography be banned when those aren't religious in nature? They're not.
Again, if you support the majority defining what is moral, then you must support the French headscarf ban.
quote: quote: Stroman, your posts don't even respond to arguments already put forth for the legalization of drugs being more beneficial for society than the illegalization.
Actually my posts talk about legalized drugs in our society. I don't know what you are referring to. Are you saying I have to respond to you? Forcible response?
My point is that you edit: weren't putting anything new in the thread that hasn't already been covered.
quote: My posts are on topic and have as much right existing as yours.
No one ever said they didn't. My posts to you obviously aren't trying to shut you down. Your attempt to potray them as such is silly.
quote: quote: Even if, as you and Porter believe, everything someone does effects other people, where does that leave private property? It seems to me that it makes it negligible if the only things people can do on their land is what the majority says they can do.
Ahem...Property Laws? You can't use your property to mine uranium or as a Graveyard or Commercial property unless tagged as such.
Personal Property is only YOURS if you abide by the laws of the country and state and county and/or city.
So, what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine. Nice. If I pay for my property and I work my property, why should you have a say over anything that happens on it, as long as it doesn't effect you.
quote: quote: Remember Nauvoo. When you start defining harm in terms of abstractions, all kinds of trouble can occur.
Nauvoo was the most populated city in the state at the time. So when you talk about Majority rule...
Did the Mormons outnumber everyone else in the state? No.
quote: And if things had continued, Mormons could have easily become the the majority of the state. There was a lot of fear of the consequences if that were to happen.
You aren't contradicting my point, Porter. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, he was compensated - and without a law suit. They just paid him the market price of alfalfa based on expected yields, and did something to clear the burnt rubble and restore the soil. So he didn't have to even harvest it to get the money for his crop that year.
They were very apologetic.
Edit: And if I remember right, it happened because the Sheriff was trying to beat the state police to the bust, or vice versa.
posted
Storm I get the feeling you are dodging the question. Why?
I'm not out to argue a case - I am content with drugs being illegal.
Those that favor legalization need to demonstrate that it would be of benefit. I say, they have not done so unless they address all the issues, including the harms that increased addiction will have on society.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Marijuana wouldn't be nearly so expensive and profitable if it were legalized.
I don't think it could remain the largest cash crop if we legalized it and tried to tax it
The point is that we would get extra tax revenue from the legalization of drugs. Your point doesn't contradict this.
As to whether pot would remain the largest cash crop, who knows? I'll concede that it may not. I didn't bring up the pot being the largest cash crop to say that it would remain so.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that it is unclear how much revenue could be made through the taxation of pot.
Of course we could make some revenue.
But looking at how much pot sells for today can really can give us an inflated idea as how much money we could make that way.
Bur really, I think this is a moot point. Not many really care about the tax revenue from legalized drugs. It's a side-issue, and not the reason behind anybody's (that I have heard) opinions on whether we should legalize drugs.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Storm I get the feeling you are dodging the question. Why?
Back at you. If you read my previous post to you, it answered all of your points in this post. Why are YOU dodging the question. Saying that drugs should be illegal because drugs are illegal is a circular argument. I and others have given links that support legalization of drugs. You guys that want to keep them illegal haven't done anything, it seems to me.
I'm not saying that I won't answer your question. I'm saying that it will take a lot of research to really get a handle on the answer. If you expect me to do it all, right now, you are out of your mind. You can provide some answers, too.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bur really, I think this is a moot point. Not many really care about the tax revenue from legalized drugs. It's a side-issue, and not the reason behind anybody's (that I have heard) opinions on whether we should legalize drugs.
In this thread, the question was raised as to what the financial benefits of legalization of drugs would be. Taxable revenue is a part of it. My point about taxes was that there are a lot of facets to that question. I wasn't trying to make it the main reason for legalizing drugs. Many of my posts were in response to Amka's contention that illegalization was best for families and people in general. I agree that the money lost or gained is secondary to what we do with that money.
posted
I have to take a break from this thread. I do have a life outside of Hatrack that needs tending. Sorry.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm all I did is ask if people arguing in favor of legalization have done ALL the research to prove that it would in fact be beneficial. have they looked at all the areas? If they have, point me where these things are covered.
If they haven't - they need to.
I spent less than three minutes looking up emergency room visits and what they cost.
The national average cost for emergency room visits, is $383, according to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas.
The CDC states that cocaine related ER visits were 193,000 in 2001. That's cocaine only - not the other illegal drugs.
So we can approximate that in 2001 cocaine addiction resulted in ER costs of $73,919,000.
If we take a guess (since there isn't really enough evidence to support how many people will use drugs if they are hypothetically legalized) that addiction rates for cocaine will triple in one year, then we can extrapolate that emergency room visits will cost around $221,757,000, or an increase of $147,838,000.
Now, heroin numbers I'm sure are out there too.
That's just one of my questions - what about rising ER costs?
I'm sure if we were to look for average costs of caring for cocaine addicted babies, we'd find those costs are substantial too.
If we assume (as even the pro-legalization crowd admits) that addiction rates will go up, we should be prepared that health care costs will rise dramatically.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle - I think I favor keeping drugs illegal, but for the emergency room visits to be meaningful, we have to know how many visits are caused by poor quality drugs. It's a pretty easy leap to make that legalization will reduce the amount of poor-quality drugs out there. So if a significant portion of the visits are caused by this, legalization may decrease those visits.
This is why I haven't made up my mind - there's little good information accessible to the layperson that isn't being used in one side or the other.
What do people think of starting with one drug, say marijuana, to so we could study the effects on usage?
posted
In 2002, there were 670,307 drug abuse-related ED episodes in the coterminous U.S. (Table 2.2.0), a rate of 261 ED episodes per 100,000 population (Table 12.2.0).
Using again the national average of $383 per ER visit as reported by BC/BS of Texas, those visits cost approximately $256,727,581. If they doubled or tripled after legalization - I'm sure everyone here is capable of the math.
As for babies - here is some good info, highlights are mine.
quote: To date, the only study of the costs of prenatal exposure to illegal drugs is a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) that used hospital discharge and medical chart data from a sample of U.S. hospitals.11 The GAO found that in one hospital the median costs for newborn medical care were $4100 higher for drug-exposed infants than for infants with no recorded indication of drug exposure ($5500 vs. $1400 in 1989 dollars). Because this study was not based on comprehensive screening, it probably did not identify all of the drug-exposed infants. As a result, the estimates of the marginal costs of drug-exposed infants is probably imprecise because it appears likely that some drug-exposed infants were classified as "unexposed" by the GAO; however, the direction of the overall error is unknown.
The GAO also reported that the average cost for a year's foster care for a drug-exposed infant was $6000 in 1989 dollars.11 Although the GAO study did not estimate the impact of future special education and social services needs, it noted that these costs could be very large. For example, a pilot preschool program for mildly impaired preschool children who had been drug-exposed as infants cost $17,000 in 1987 dollars per child each year,11 and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services estimates that total long-term service costs may be as high as $750,000 for medical care, special education, and other related social services over the first 18 years of an exposed infant's life.11
Assuming that the additional costs the GAO found were predominantly due to cocaine exposure, these can be applied to prevalence estimates discussed by Gomby and Shiono in this issue. Prevalence estimates range from 30,000 crack-exposed infants to 158,400 cocaine-exposed infants each year. Based on a sample of three hospitals, the GAO reports that median hospital charges were $1100 to $4100 higher for drug-exposed infants than for infants not exposed to drugs. Thus, the national costs for newborn care attributable to prenatal cocaine exposure could be between $33 million and $650 million 1989 dollars. These estimates may vary because the costs for a cocaine-exposed infant may substantially differ from the perinatal costs for an infant exposed to other illegal drugs.
Using a low assumption that only 10% of the cocaine-exposed infants require foster care, and a high assumption that 30% require foster care, the added first-year foster care costs are between $18 million and $285 million. Thus, the aggregate first-year costs of prenatal cocaine exposure are between $51 million and $935 million in 1989 dollars.
A recent study by Phibbs, Bateman, and Schwartz that examined the costs of cocaine exposure at one inner city hospital suggests that the GAO may have underestimated the costs attributable to prenatal cocaine exposure.17 These estimates, which do not include physician costs, found that the added costs attributable to cocaine exposure were $5200 (mean) per infant. There was also an added (mean) cost of $3500 per infant due to babies boarding in the hospital. Some of the boarder baby costs are attributable to problems unique to New York City; the national average costs due to boarder babies are probably smaller. The study also found that the cost effects of cocaine were larger for crack exposure and for multiple drug exposure.17 Obviously, if prenatal cocaine exposure has substantial long-term effects as well, the total costs of cocaine-exposed infants will be even larger.
quote:No insistance that it can be used responsibly makes up for the fact that most criminal and neglegent behavior involves illegal drugs.
most criminal and neglegent behavior involves illegal activity. And I'm sure alot of criminal and neglegent behavior also happens under the influence of legal drugs. and I'd be willing to venture that that same behavior would occur with or without drugs.
quote:A person regularly using drugs is less likely to make responsible choices such as safer sex.
Can you back this up? Or is the truth that someone who is less likely to make responsible choices such as safer sex, is just as unlikely to make the right choice sober or high?
Stroman,
quote:BTW there is already alcohol and tobacco available as legalized drugs. Why do we need more?
Smoke or drink if you want your fix.
I think that statement is ridiculous. Would society ever get anywhere if once we had *something* that served a certain function we completely neglected that area because "we already have something that works, why do we need something else?" And i realize i'm comparing drugs to something not necessarily equal to them, but i still think my point that your statement is ridiculous is valid.
quote:The great things they have provided this country by being legalized?
why do great things have to be provided? Does everything we do or have in life provide us with great meaningful things? What does watching tv provide? Going to movies? Owning things for purely decorative reasons. etc...
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, the quality control is a good issue - but it brings up more costs. Who is going to do the quality control? Who is going to test and manufacture all the drugs?
That process is not going to be cheap or free. Those that say drugs will be a lot cheaper, are they factoring in how much money will need to go into the manufacturing process?
Producing legal drugs is extremely expensive. Producing Schedule II drugs like morphine, dilaudid, and oxycontin is even more so, because of the restrictions on how they are stored, prescribed, and distributed.
The FDA places very stringent controls on the drug makers, and they must maintain regulatory staff to ensure they are in compliance. Fines for non-compliance of FDA regulations are stiff and severe.
What drug maker is going to take that on, without charging a significant amount for the drug to make up their increased costs?
The argument that "Legal drugs will be much cheaper, so people can afford them, and won't have to resort to crim to get them" doesn't fly with me - not unless all of the additional costs are taken into consideration.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The GAO found that in one hospital the median costs for newborn medical care were $4100 higher for drug-exposed infants than for infants with no recorded indication of drug exposure ($5500 vs. $1400 in 1989 dollars).
All of these estimates suffer severely from confounding factors. Most babies born with illegal drugs in their systems are premature, and (far and above) the strongest association with prematurity is poverty, even controlling for drug use.
Babies born to poor women tend to be born premature, regardless of whether they are born with illegal drugs in their systems. Premature babies have skyrocketing medical costs.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand, Sara, and I'm not trying to prove anything just point out there are a lot of costs not always considered when people discuss this issue.
As Dag said, it's not a cut and dry issue. My beef is with the people on the other side (pro-legalization) who only quote the savings from the penal system and never consider the other costs.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As Dag said, it's not a cut and dry issue. My beef is with the people on the other side (pro-legalization) who only quote the savings from the penal system and never consider the other costs.
With a nod to Dag, I actually said this first.
And no one is saying that penalization represents the sole factor in legalizing drugs. You've been on the forum long enough to know how things work. Points are raised haphazardly. Very rarely is someone going to make a post that tries to be representative of ALL the factors involved in a discussion. I think it's unfair of you to shift the whole burden of proof on to one side now. It's unfair of you to continue to try and potray pro-legalization folks (ie, me ) as being somehow disingenuous by not considering other costs. Particularly given my posts to you in this thread regarding the matter. If there are other costs that people haven't considered, continue to do as you have and bring up those points.
As to the posts that you've made already regarding financial costs, it is clear that it's going to be a bit before you approach anything like the costs of enforcing the drug laws as they currently exist. That is, in the tens of billions of dollars.
One point that I'd like to raise in regards to costs of drugs is that with criminalization of drugs as the sole way to prevent drugs, the effects of drugs aren't treated. That is, people become addicted to drugs, and they have no way to get help because they can't afford it. So, assuming the belief that drug use from legalization will triple is true, if most of the 1/3 of those users can't get help for their problem pre-legalization, and not lead productive lives, and ALL of the users can get help post-legalization, then that is a win for legalization, is it not?
posted
Yes, enforcing the laws costs a lot, but I maintain that de-criminalizing drugs won't take out the criminal element. People will still resort to crime to get a hold of drugs if they cannot afford them, and my experience in the pharmaceutical industry leads me to believe that even a legal version of heroin is still going to be mighty expensive.
Once you consider the manufacturing cost, the warehousing, transport, and overall distribution of a Schedule II drug - there is a reason they cost so much. I have no doubt heroin would be even more expensive and even more of a regulatory nightmare than morphine.
Once they are addicted, and can't afford their nice safe legal version of heroin, they are going to have to come up with the money somehow.
So I am not convinced that if we legalized drugs we could automatically close down 1/3 to 1/2 of our prisons and lay off 1/3 of our police force. You may not be locking up dealers anymore, but I have no doubt you would still be locking up drug addicts, who have committed crimes related to their addiction.
As for additional costs that might not have been brought up:
We haven't even begun to consider the costs in the medical field in regards to managing the prescriptions. For those highly regulated drugs, you can't just hand someone a prescription with 12 refills for the year. They have to have new prescriptions each month (or whatever interval is approved) and they can't be phoned into pharmacies. Each one must be individually written, and taken to a pharmacist. That means each time a user needs a new script for his fix, some staff person has to pull his chart, check when the last script was written, take the chart to the doctor for his approval, get the script from the doc, call the person back and/or mail the script out to him. Most doctor's offices are already bogged down in paperwork because of insurance companies and HIPAA requirements and referrals and billing. These additional man-hours will have to be paid for, and the costs will be passed on to the public.
What about the additional cost of caring for addicts that develop health problems after long term use? Even if the drug supply is ostensibly “safer” once it’s legal, people are still going to have health problems from chronic use.
quote: Long-term effects of heroin appear after repeated use for some period of time. Chronic users may develop collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulitis, and liver disease. Pulmonary complications, including various types of pneumonia, may result from the poor health condition of the abuser, as well as from heroin's depressing effects on respiration.
quote: High doses of cocaine and/or prolonged use can trigger paranoia. Smoking crack cocaine can produce a particularly aggressive paranoid behavior in users. When addicted individuals stop using cocaine, they often become depressed. This also may lead to further cocaine use to alleviate depression. Prolonged cocaine snorting can result in ulceration of the mucous membrane of the nose and can damage the nasal septum enough to cause it to collapse. Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest.
quote: Methamphetamine causes increased heart rate and blood pressure and can cause irreversible damage to blood vessels in the brain, producing strokes. Other effects of methamphetamine include respiratory problems, irregular heartbeat, and extreme anorexia. Its use can result in cardiovascular collapse and death.
quote: Effects on the Heart
One study has indicated that a user’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana(8). The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.
Effects on the Lungs
A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.
Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways(10). Smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the increase(11). A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.
Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens(12, 13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.
Other Health Effects
Some of marijuana’s adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system’s ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited(16). In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors(17, 18).
I seem to remember reading about some of the prodrug advocates of the 60s changing their minds in the 70s when they realized that their increasingly addled supporters weren't voting anymore, swinging power toward the Republicans.
Nonrational behavior can be extremely costly.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your thoughts, Belle. I'll try and educate myself a little more on the issue at some point.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, did you read the two articles I provided? It sounds like you did not, and a number of the answers you are looking for are contained within.
Secondly, never quote DAWN statistics if you want to make a convincing argument. DAWN is very deceptive because it tracks "drug related hospital visits". This means every time someone is admitted to a hospital and an illegal drug is mentioned, even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason for admission, DAWN ticks off another mark next to that drug. If someone is admitted to the hospital for alcohol poisoning, and they admit to also having smoked marijuana, DAWN will count it as a marijuna incident. If a person with cocaine in their system is struck by ligntning, and an autopsy shows the presence of the drug, DAWN counts it. Also, DAWN allows more than one drug to be listed. If someone is admitted for a heroin overdose, and marijuana is in their system, it's a mention for both. Interestingly enough, the number one reason for ER visits for both Heroin and Cocaine? Addicts voluntarily seeking detox.
Additionally, Belle, how do you figure drugs will remain close to their current price? What do you base this on? I have already provided sources which indicate just how extreme the markup on drugs is in the United States.
If you are interested in anything the anti-prohibitionists have to say, look up the statistics on the heroin maintenance programs in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other European nations. These programs provide heroin of regulated purity to addicts through the medical system. The program has been an unqualified success. The number of addicts have dropped, their average age has been steadily increasing, and the number of overdoses and health problems have dropped off the map. Additionally, many addicts, while still addicted, have been able to get their lives together and hold down jobs, and manage their lives. Heroin addicts are not natural criminals and hoplessly unemployable. The current policies of our government see to that.
Belle, even taking your dubious figures at face value, the totals are still under $1 billion. Federal drug enforcement costs alone are already over $20 billion. This says nothing of the costs at state and municipal level.
Another point I would like to make, is that we've seen the effects of prohibition and it's repeal already with alcohol. Why must we persist in making the same mistake again, and this time ensuring it drags out even longer?
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, the adverse health effects of illegal drugs are often overstated for political reasons. For instance, despite all that you quoted about the carcinogenic effects of marijuana, the lung cancer rate among those who smoke it exclusively and non-smokers is the same. There is no epidemiological evidence to support the assertion that it causes cancer.
My behavioral pharmacology prof, who is herself an addiction researcher, considers alcohol to be the most destructive drug, not because it is most prevalent, but because chronic abuse is the most destructive physiologically, and it's addictive potential is so powerful. Heroin is much less destructive when used chronically, with one exception: illegal heroin is highly adulterated. These adulterants are often toxic, and cause the vast majority of chronic health problems among addicts. Additionally, overdosing is so common because purity and potency are impossible for the addict to know. As I said before, the programs in europe have mostly eliminated the larger social and health problems associated with heroin.
posted
What I don't understand is what about my post ended the conversation? I'd like to think that my massive intellect and brilliant posts are too intimidating for people to respond, but alas, I don't have that kind of ego. I just think I'm being shunned.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so, Chaeron, or my posts wouldn't end threads so often. I think sometimes people just lose interest. Also, sometimes I quit posting to think about an argument or look up information and forget the thread was there, so maybe other people do the same.
I've been on morphine, as it happens--nice pure hospital morphine. I did and said a lot of things I don't remember, and what I do remember was bad enough. I was vicious, rude, and disgusting. I know what's inside me; why in the world would I want to let it out? I won't even drink alcohol, partly for that reason. So I basically find it incomprehensible why anyone would want to take drugs (for the first time, anyway), and therefore what the point of legalizing them would be.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus: I think you may have the burden of proof the wrong way around. While prohibition may be the status quo, It seems that the onus would still rest on those who wish to make something a crime to show that it should be, rather than the other way around.
It bothers me that people give statements like "I think drugs are nasty, why should they be legal?" in this kind of discussion. I try to give a strong case for legalization that is based on solid empirical data, moral claims about liberty, responsibility, etc. I never seem to change many minds, but no one seems to bother debating my points either. It's like there's some kind of dialectic paralysis when it comes to drug policy--things are the way they are and most people are unwilling to seriously examine if the current policy is a mistake.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well, I was thinking "hear hear!" (Or is that Here here??) Whatever... I thought your arguments were impressive. I can't say you convinced me, though. I was already convinced.
Maybe people aren't responding because there is no good counter argument?
*sigh* I think this is a long-winded AOL-esque "me too!" post.
posted
Oh.. I have a question... is legalization generally a democratic or republican thing? Or a liberal or conservative thing? Or maybe none of the above... or maybe an even mix?
I'm generally conservative.. but I sometimes get the feeling that other legalization supporters are liberals.. is that true here?
I can't say that I'm particularly in favor of all drugs being legal... but I'd probably still vote for it. If I think people should have the right to do whatever they want (at LEAST in the privacy of their own homes) without infringing on others rights and be thinking of marijuana, then that thinking should apply to other drugs too. I'm okay with that.
Oh, and once I asked someone to provide me with just one instance of death caused by marijuana use that didn't involve driving. Curiously, I got no response.
posted
I find that this issue has support across the political spectrum. That is why I posted the symposium from the National Review. I felt that the conservative voice for drug reform is often overlooked. It's too often dismissed as a pet cause of stinking hippes and drugged out communists.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Civil disobedience? Prison rape is a serious problem in our society, and you expect people to voluntarily go there? Not acceptable; not happening. Anytime you buy for underage kids, drink/smoke underage, or use illegal drugs, you are practicing civil disobedience. Hey, the actions of the consenting individual affect society, and anytime you show personal sovereignty it plants a thought in someone's mind. Share your drugs; you never know when the person you smoked out ten years earlier will be the judge for your case and go easy on you and others. Remember, calling things immoral is what people do when they cannot currently force you to do as they wish. The public is one or more people besides yourself.
How does it help children to take away their parents from them because they like to wind back at the end of the day with a joint or a Vicodin rather than a beer? Neglect is already illegal for any reason. Keeping drugs illegal hurts children more than legalization would.
Placing one's own desires above the law makes one a hero. Society has no legitimate claim against the individual. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you because they have something to gain by it, or think they do.
Forced to watch commercials? Is someone holding a gun to your head? No? Then kindly do not compare your free choices to throwing me in jail for popping pills. (I ate mushrooms just last night. Think of the starving children that could have eaten them!) I disagree with lots of the messages popular culture sends as well, but I change the channel. That is not having morality forced upon me. Being sent to jail for eating the same Xanax and Adderall that are given to housewives and children everywhere is having morality forced upon me.
The consequences of my actions are that I get high for a length of time, anywhere from thirty minutes to sixteen or more hours depending on the drug I choose. If you would like my dollars to go to nicer people than they currently do, legalize drugs.
I honestly believe that LDS and Christians and the entire culture surrounding them is destructive to me and my friends. I feel the evidence backs me up. Most LDS and Christians are against drugs and gay marriage. No insistence that some are not power-hungry bullies makes up for the fact that most seem to feel that they have the right to interfere in the lives of non-consenting others.
I honestly believe that such social norms as no fault divorce, promiscuity, and a general attitude of refusing to deal with the consequences of actions (deadbeat parents, bankruptcy, scapegoating, etc) is harmful to the individual, families, and society. Too bad I cannot do anything to stop this, because if I tried to be an upstanding community figure the police would use the higher profile to arrest me, and people would claim that I would be a bad example because I use drugs, and drugs are bad because bad irresponsible people use them.
The most common illegal drugs, including crack, are not as bad for babies as the currently legal drug alcohol. If more mothers used crack rather than alcohol, birth defects would go down. Furthermore, as long as abortion is legal in this country worrying about damaged babies is pointless anyway. Focus on the big issues first. Neglect is already a crime.
If you are trying to keep drugs illegal, you may not be raping anyone directly but you are still putting people in prison for smoking a joint, shooting up, or whatever.
Society can get bent. It has done nothing for me or anyone who is not currently ruling a large portion of this or another country. Kings, priests, and their followers have been saying ever since they arose that society is more important than individuals. Sorry, but no. When society stops trying to put me in prison/kill me, perhaps we might talk. Why am I supposed to be helping a society that has stated repeatedly it does not want me or my kind? Am I missing something here? Society has lost me to drugs even if I decided to quit, because anything that would try to hurt me like that needs to be destroyed.
Society does not know what to do with people like me, because I (we?) do not want to quit, and you cannot stop us. Personal sovereignty trumps your right to indoctrinate your kids.
Drug stores, pharmacies, grocery stores, and specialty shops would distribute the drugs. They will use the same security measures that places selling alcohol and tobacco do. Insurance already pays for many recreational drugs, because people fake illnesses to get legal Xanax, Ritalin, and Oxycontin. On the other hand, to my knowledge alcohol and tobacco are not covered under any plan. Is there a large problem with theft to pay for beer and cigarettes? I see lots of bums, but not many people that desparate. Heroin is dirt cheap to make and one of the most "functional" drugs as long as the supply is constant. No one who can afford starting an addiction would be unable to pay to keep it up.
We need more drugs because alcohol is pretty boring, and tobacco sucks. They are also more deadly than marijuana, heroin, and cocaine.
Pushers? No one pushed it on me; I sought them out. I became a much more outgoing person since I started using illegal drugs. If you want to put me in prison, you are my enemy. If you want to eradicate drugs, you are my enemy.
Health issues regarding needles are a red herring. If drugs were legal, no one would shoot up. Heroin was originally available in cough syrup, just as codeine, hydrocodone, and DXM still are today. Same with damage to nasal passages; no reason not to bring back the original Coca-Cola or make cocaine-laced chewing gum. No one would use methamphetamine if amphetamine and cocaine were readily and cheaply available. The only reason it is so popular now is because it has an OTC precursor. Not that there is a whole lot of reason to trust government-funded research anyway. An entity charged with persecuting drugs and drug users is not going to be objective.
Yes, drugs can kill you, as can pretty much anything else you do, including drinking water. This is why information about drugs and how to use them as safely as is possible should be taught in our schools. I do not think there is anyone on either side who is unaware that drugs can cause health problems, and anyone who cares to search the Internet or ask a doctor can find more details about any specific drug.
Mabus, you were vicious, rude, and disgusting? On morphine? Well, not everyone is; I am usually a nicer person when I am high on pretty much anything. I think you or anyone else would be a very loving person on MDMA. Either way, the fact that you were mean to people is not an excuse to make drugs illegal for everyone. As for why people take drugs, mainly because they are awesome, by which I mean interesting and usually enjoyable. Why do you do whatever you do for fun?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
