posted
I do not believe that the legislation of morality would help anything, and that has not been what I proposed. You complain that people like me force our morality on you. But the only way you have such reminders is if you seek it out by coming to a forum where you might find disagreement to your value system or going to a church or turning the channel on to some religious network.
People like me have to watch commercials that go against our morality. We have to walk past video and magazine covers that continually assault our values. Romantic movies that are considered tame and 'have a good message' these days usually show us the people have finally found they are in love by depicting their having sex. And sometimes we are ambushed by soft porn in movies and books where it has no point in the plot. Rather than needing to seek out media that thrusts a different morality down our throats, we must actively turn away most media and desperately search for alternatives, which are very few, especially if we can't stand the religious networks ourselves.
People want to watch a movie or television show that supports their world view. So they vote with their consumer dollar. Popular music also tends to uphold a world view of casual sex and even drug use.
Because people want their social environment to support their behavior, they choose to support these things. And so their actions have impacted society.
'Then write letters and complain,' you say, 'This is media's fault, not mine.' The media industry doesn't care about people like me, they care about the money they make. And clearly there are more of you than of me.
All I propose is that you need to be accountable for the consequences of your actions, and that those consequences affect far more people than just the individuals directly involved in the action.
Here is more direct argument than viewer -> media -> viewer impact: If you watch porn, and prefer porn where you don't have to see them deal with the inconvenience of condums because that just isn't sexy, then you are voting with your consumer dollar to put porn stars at risk. If the porn industry could make more money by making sure all their actors were engaging only in safe sex, then they would do that. But unsafe sex is far more profitable, and they will not give work to actors who insist on a safe work environment.
If me insisting on such culpability bothers you, then you have to ask yourself why.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, the basic flaw that I see in your argument is that you haven't proven that illegalization of 'drugs' as it currently stands is better for families, have you?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the words and sentences, Amka, but can't figure out what you're saying with them.
Are you wanting the moral majority (of the media viewers) to cater to the minority, using censorship and removing freedom of speech to create a world where a child could never be bombarded with an image contrary to the beliefs of a conservative minority?
Seems to me that it'd be easier to just turn off the TV and learn not to look at the magazines.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
What I want and what is reality is two different things. I cannot force what I want because that involves the free choice of other people.
What I want is for people to see the destructiveness of some choices in their personal lives and in the lives of others, and choose not to make those choices.
But I don't control that.
All I can do is endeavor to show people the consequences of their actions and hope they make a choice to be less destructive.
I honestly believe that illegal drugs and the entire culture surrounding them is destructive to self, family, and society. I feel the evidence backs me up. No insistance that it can be used responsibly makes up for the fact that most criminal and neglegent behavior involves illegal drugs.
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.
But people continue to engage in these actions and there is not a lot I can do about it except to rage at the machine and engage in damage control where I can.
Storm,
Before we do anything about the legalization about drugs, we need to make some indepth and unbiased studies as to what the affect would actually be. If the result would be to decrease the use of drugs, then I would agree with that policy.
As to how illegal drugs harm families: A person regularly using drugs is less likely to make responsible choices such as safer sex. A woman, under those circumstances, can easily get pregnant. She might not realize or might not care that she is pregnant and continues to use drugs. Her child is then born addicted and often with a great deal of damage. This is no fantasy. The kid whose mother did that lives just around the block from me (adopted by his foster parents). And this is not an isolated event. We hear news story after news story of children who are neglected because their parents were strung out. Every NICU nurse has stories of addicted and drug damaged babies.
If you are using drugs responsibly, you may not be directly harming anyone but you are still perpetuating and support a drug culture that has caused many, many people great pain. The price for this individual pleasure is simply too high to society.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I understand how drugs can be destructive. I just don't understand how, after arrest and going through whatever the justice system throws at her, that person is then going to be a better family member, or able to raise their children better.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember, not only do individual choices have consequences, but the choices we make as a society have consequences as well. In short, do the drawbacks of making certain drugs illegal outweigh the benefits?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
I hope, if I ever divorce, that it will be a no-fault divorce.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
That child suffered a lot of pain in the hospital. She directly caused harm to the child. I consider it abuse and neglect. So I do think she should get arrested, and spend some time in jail watching a TV monitor of all the pain her child is going through. Then she should go to rehab.
Will that help her become a better mother? She had already done drugs, had a child taken away, cleaned herself up and got her child back. Then she got back into drugs, and that is when she got pregnant the second time. Both brothers were adopted by the same family.
No one can change her. No amount of justice system, of rehab, no amount of love and warm fuzzies will make her a fit mother. She will never get better until she decides to get better herself and makes concrete steps towards that. It is completely up to her.
The fact is that society has already lost someone who had the potential to be a good parent or teacher or whatever. Society lost that person to drugs. The justice system can't change that.
But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. We must, as a society, make a statement that such activity is not acceptable behavior. We do that by imposing legal consequences.
Kama:
The problem with no fault divorce is that the couple doesn't have to work things out. Many such divorces are over things such as finance, that are temporary problems. Since divorce has become so easy, it has become thought of as a way out of an unpleasant situation. But that is for the adults. For the children, it is the way into a far less pleasant situation. (This does not take into account any abuse that may be happening in the home, but that isn't about no fault divorce)
Still, even for the adults it actually doesn't make things better. There was a study done of couples going through counselling. At the time, clearly, they were not very happy. Five years later they were contacted. Those that had stayed together tended to be happy, while those that divorced were still disatisfied.
Divorce is not a random occurance that can be hoped not to happen. The couple must work for a successful marriage and never take their spouse for granted.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: That child suffered a lot of pain in the hospital. She directly caused harm to the child. I consider it abuse and neglect. So I do think she should get arrested, and spend some time in jail watching a TV monitor of all the pain her child is going through. Then she should go to rehab.
Will that help her become a better mother? She had already done drugs, had a child taken away, cleaned herself up and got her child back. Then she got back into drugs, and that is when she got pregnant the second time. Both brothers were adopted by the same family.
No one can change her. No amount of justice system, of rehab, no amount of love and warm fuzzies will make her a fit mother. She will never get better until she decides to get better herself and makes concrete steps towards that. It is completely up to her.
The fact is that society has already lost someone who had the potential to be a good parent or teacher or whatever. Society lost that person to drugs. The justice system can't change that.
But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. We must, as a society, make a statement that such activity is not acceptable behavior. We do that by imposing legal consequences.
Yes, but if those consequences make it more difficult for the person to be a good mother and family member, then by your own criteria, we shouldn't be using those consequences.
While I certainly agree that a person can't change until they themselves decide to do so, I very strongly disagree with your belief that external influences don't help or hinder a person in getting to that point. I very strongly disagree that other people can't help a person change their mind about how they live their life. Placing someone in an environment that is designed to strip them of their self esteem and offers no positive role models or productive information or reason to change their life, all the while costing collectively hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to encourage people to be better family members. And let's not forget that once they get out, their sentence (edit:often) follows them around for the rest of their life. How are they going to be a productive member of society if their sentence denies them the ability to be the best that they can be?
You are focusing on people 'lost' to drugs, but aren't there many shades of grey? What about casual users who function very well in society and are good mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers? What about people who sense they are beginning to have a problem with drugs, but can't afford to get into rehab? Is throwing the justice system at them as it currently exists going to help them be better members of their family? I don't really see it.
My belief is that the state should concentrate far more on making rehab affordable, than it should on punitive measures. Reduce sentence rates or do away with them all together when possible. Make a person's legal history disappear after, say, five years, if they stay out of trouble. Increase money into legal defense programs so that poor people aren't screwed over by inadequate representation.
I'm not saying that there aren't times when those who infringe on others shouldn't have their civil liberties taken away, but it seems to me that we as a society often create problems where none exist, or put band aids over them instead of helping people address the problem that you acknowledge exists--that is, poor life choices.
Every person can be helped, *if* the help is there when they need it.
quote: Make a person's legal history disappear after, say, five years, if they stay out of trouble.
That would only be good for some violations. There are others that should stay on a person's record forever.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
While I don't agree with everything it says, all of the article is interesting. Main thing I wanted to get was the costs.
quote: The cost of this massive growth in incarceration is staggering. Americans will spend nearly $40 billion on prisons and jails in the year 2000. Almost $24 billion of that will go to incarcerate 1.2 million nonviolent offenders.4 Meanwhile, in two of our nation's largest states, California and New York, the prison budgets outstripped the budgets for higher education during the mid-1990s.5
That's a lot of money, Amka.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to drift off onto a tangent, so for right now, let's just agree to disagree and stay focused on the whole drug thing. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, I believe you may have a warped view of the scope of drug abuse, and the problems it creates. Also, you are failing to distinguish what is casued by drugs and what is caused by drug prohibition. Another problem I have with prohibition, is that it is incompatable with the values of a free society, and that policy, especially taken to the extent of the war on drugs, seriously undermines other civil liberties and corrupts the judicial system.
I have written lengtly on this subject in the past on this forum, and for the sake of my wrists, I will not reiterate that here. What I will do, however, is provide the opinions of two respected publications on the issue: The Economist and The National Review. I chose these two because they seemed two very different publications who both make a well stated and researched case for legalization. The latter is particulary good as it containes the different rationales for drug law reform of several different people, many of whom are well respected authorities on the areas in which they write.
Here is an editorial from The Economist, Jul. 26, 2001:
quote:IT IS every parent's nightmare. A youngster slithers inexorably from a few puffs on a joint, to a snort of cocaine, to the needle and addiction. It was the flesh-creeping heart of “Traffic”, a film about the descent into heroin hell of a pretty young middle-class girl, and it is the terror that keeps drug laws in place. It explains why even those politicians who puffed at a joint or two in their youth hesitate to put the case for legalising drugs.
The terror is not irrational. For the first thing that must be said about legalising drugs, a cause The Economist has long advocated and returns to this week (see survey), is that it would lead to a rise in their use, and therefore to a rise in the number of people dependent on them. Some argue that drug laws have no impact, because drugs are widely available. Untrue: drugs are expensive—a kilo of heroin sells in America for as much as a new Rolls-Royce—partly because their price reflects the dangers involved in distributing and buying them. It is much harder and riskier to pick up a dose of cocaine than it is to buy a bottle of whisky. Remove such constraints, make drugs accessible and very much cheaper, and more people will experiment with them.
A rise in drug-taking will inevitably mean that more people will become dependent—inevitably, because drugs offer a pleasurable experience that people seek to repeat. In the case of most drugs, that dependency may be no more than a psychological craving and affect fewer than one in five users; in the case of heroin, it is physical and affects maybe one in three. Even a psychological craving can be debilitating. Addicted gamblers and drinkers bring misery to themselves and their families. In addition, drugs have lasting physical effects and some, taken incompetently, can kill. This is true both for some “hard” drugs and for some that people think of as “soft”: too much heroin can trigger a strong adverse reaction, but so can ecstasy. The same goes for gin or aspirin, of course: but many voters reasonably wonder whether it would be right to add to the list of harmful substances that are legally available.
Of Mill and morality
The case for doing so rests on two arguments: one of principle, one practical. The principles were set out, a century and a half ago, by John Stuart Mill, a British liberal philosopher, who urged that the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” Mill famously proclaimed. This is a view that The Economist has always espoused, and one to which most democratic governments adhere, up to a point. They allow the individual to undertake all manner of dangerous activities unchallenged, from mountaineering to smoking to riding bicycles through city streets. Such pursuits alarm insurance companies and mothers, but are rightly tolerated by the state.
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign
True, Mill argued that some social groups, especially children, required extra protection. And some argue that drug-takers are also a special class: once addicted, they can no longer make rational choices about whether to continue to harm themselves. Yet not only are dependent users a minority of all users; in addition, society has rejected this argument in the case of alcohol—and of nicotine (whose addictive power is greater than that of heroin). The important thing here is for governments to spend adequately on health education.
The practical case for a liberal approach rests on the harms that spring from drug bans, and the benefits that would accompany legalisation. At present, the harms fall disproportionately on poor countries and on poor people in rich countries. In producer and entrepot countries, the drugs trade finances powerful gangs who threaten the state and corrupt political institutions. Colombia is the most egregious example, but Mexico too wrestles with the threat to the police and political honesty. The attempt to kill illicit crops poisons land and people. Drug money helps to prop up vile regimes in Myanmar and Afghanistan. And drug production encourages local drug-taking, which (in the case of heroin) gives a helping hand to the spread of HIV/AIDS.
In the rich world, it is the poor who are most likely to become involved in the drugs trade (the risks may be high, but drug-dealers tend to be equal-opportunity employers), and therefore end up in jail. Nowhere is this more shamefully true than in the United States, where roughly one in four prisoners is locked up for a (mainly non-violent) drugs offence. America's imprisonment rate for drugs offences now exceeds that for all crimes in most West European countries. Moreover, although whites take drugs almost as freely as blacks and Hispanics, a vastly disproportionate number of those arrested, sentenced and imprisoned are non-white. Drugs policy in the United States is thus breeding a generation of men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds whose main training for life has been in the violence of prison.
Legalise to regulate
Removing these harms would bring with it another benefit. Precisely because the drugs market is illegal, it cannot be regulated. Laws cannot discriminate between availability to children and adults. Governments cannot insist on minimum quality standards for cocaine; or warn asthma sufferers to avoid ecstasy; or demand that distributors take responsibility for the way their products are sold. With alcohol and tobacco, such restrictions are possible; with drugs, not. This increases the dangers to users, and especially to young or incompetent users. Illegality also puts a premium on selling strength: if each purchase is risky, then it makes sense to buy drugs in concentrated form. In the same way, Prohibition in the United States in the 1920s led to a fall in beer consumption but a rise in the drinking of hard liquor.
It took years of education for gin to cease to be a social threat
How, if governments accepted the case for legalisation, to get from here to there? When, in the 18th century, a powerful new intoxicant became available, the impact was disastrous: it took years of education for gin to cease to be a social threat. That is a strong reason to proceed gradually: it will take time for conventions governing sensible drug-taking to develop. Meanwhile, a century of illegality has deprived governments of much information that good policy requires. Impartial academic research is difficult. As a result, nobody knows how demand may respond to lower prices, and understanding of the physical effects of most drugs is hazy.
And how, if drugs were legal, might they be distributed? The thought of heroin on supermarket shelves understandably adds to the terror of the prospect. Just as legal drugs are available through different channels—caffeine from any cafe, alcohol only with proof of age, Prozac only on prescription—so the drugs that are now illegal might one day be distributed in different ways, based on knowledge about their potential for harm. Moreover, different countries should experiment with different solutions: at present, many are bound by a United Nations convention that hampers even the most modest moves towards liberalisation, and that clearly needs amendment.
To legalise will not be easy. Drug-taking entails risks, and societies are increasingly risk-averse. But the role of government should be to prevent the most chaotic drug-users from harming others—by robbing or by driving while drugged, for instance—and to regulate drug markets to ensure minimum quality and safe distribution. The first task is hard if law enforcers are preoccupied with stopping all drug use; the second, impossible as long as drugs are illegal. A legal market is the best guarantee that drug-taking will be no more dangerous than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. And, just as countries rightly tolerate those two vices, so they should tolerate those who sell and take drugs.
I agree with pretty much what Stormy's said. I think we waste a lot of money and create a lot of crime by criminalizing drugs.
But I get that you don't think they should be criminalized, just that people shouldn't do them. And I only disagree with that because I've known many, many people who use them and are responsible about it.
It may just be that I'm not hanging around the right places, but I've only known one person who resembles the stereotypical 80s movie junkie. What I do see are my uncle and his banker and small business owner friends getting stoned after work. Lots of cocaine going down at dinner parties thrown by yuppies. My friends in law school who like to chase Vicodin with vodka. Stuff done recreationally. For fun. For hobby. Not all-consuming or life engulfing.
I'd chastise them for putting their bodies at risk, but I spend too much time rock climbing and playing hockey. I'd lecture them about escapism, but I'm the one who sat in a movie theater for 14 hours on Trilogy Tuesday.
In short, I don't see the destructiveness you speak of. Certainly my experiences don't show that there aren't people who are destructive, just that there are plenty of people who are capable, moral, productive citizens...and drug users. I suppose we just have different opinions of what society should be--and different ideas about what it is.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a lot of money spent in incarcerating drug offenders, but has anyone considered the costs of caring for addicts? And, since even pro-legalization sources admit that addiction rates will rise if drugs are more available and less expensive, how do you factor that?
One in three heroin users becomes physiologically addicted according to Chaeron's article. So, if a million more people try it once it's legal and cheap, we have more than 300,000 new addicts.
What does the average heroin addict cost the state in emergency medical care and public assistance? Not sure, but I think it's a pretty hefty cost.
About 1/3 of the calls my husband makes are drug related - overdoses, users sick because they haven't eaten or taken care of themselves because all they do is seek their next high. It costs thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars a day to keep a fire department rescue unit in service. Increase the number of addicts, increase the number of drug related calls, and you'll have to put more units in service.
If you legalize them they won't be as expensive, but they won't be free either. What happens when the heroin addict can't keep a job any more and no longer has any money to buy his now-legal addiction? He's going to resort to crime to get it. And we're back where we started.
Who is going to distribute the drugs? Pharmacies? What kind of security measures are they going to have to put into place to protect themselves, knowing that once they start carrying heroin they are going to be the targets of crime? No matter how cheap you make it, there will be people who can't afford it and who will resort to crime to get it out of desperation. Those security measures will raise prices on every medication - we'll all pay more for it.
Once drug use becomes legal, will insurance have to pay for it? What will happen to our insurance premiums? Health insurance is already so expensive it's out of the range of many families.
What about babies born to addicted mothers? Isn't that rate going to go up? Who is going to pay for the additional costs of caring for these babies? What about the social costs - are we going to remove babies from addict mothers? Add these potentially millions of new crack babies to our already overloaded foster care system?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, google around for an article as to the costs of legalization. I would be interested in seeing it. This is a collaborative effort, you know.
On a side note, it's ironic to me that so many liberals castigate Mr. Bush on the Iraq war, when he has thrown fiscal restraint to the winds and made it very difficult for many conservatives to argue on principle against spending massive amounts of money on fixing any problem. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Divorce involves two consenting adults and anyone who claims it's not had an overly negative effect on society as a whole, must actually think families are stronger now than they were 50 years ago.
Honestly, unless you are an anarchist, everything we do has effects on others.
Morality dictates whether those effects are negative or positive, and the majority of the population decides what the morality is.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
